Panasonic GF1

[Nemrod]

That is why I said what I did in my first response but I realize, I think, I was wrong, from wiki:

"The focal lengths of fisheye lenses depend on the film format. For the popular 35 mm film format, typical focal lengths of fisheye lenses are between 8 mm and 10 mm for circular images, and 15–16 mm for full-frame images. For digital cameras using smaller electronic imagers such as 1/4" and 1/3" format CCD or CMOS sensors, the focal length of "miniature" fisheye lenses can be as short as 1 to 2mm"

Note that a full frame fisheye in 35mm is around 16mm.

But, maybe somebody can set us all straight. All I know is that the 35mm fisheye I owned for my Nikon FMII was I think 18mm but since I sold it on eBay, I dunno.

Fisheye lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Field of View - Rectilinear and Fisheye Lenses

Here is a link to a 15mm full frame 35mm fisheye lens, note that it is said to be 15mm. I just don't recall any 10mm FULL FRAME fisheye lenses so therefore I think you need to use the 1.6 multiplier factor for the DX Tokina. If I am wrong, well, so be it, won't be the first time.

I have a Tokina 10-17, just don't have a camera for it. I found this concerning the Tokina 10-17 and Pentax version 10-17 DX lenses:

"The focal length is equivalent to 15mm-26mm in the 35mm format"

N

 

[robzr]

I just ordered a GF1, I can't wait to get it, I've been reading about it on the review sites and (dpreview forum). Looks like the m4/3rs GH1 and GF1 (have a following with videographers) and (Philip Bloom) - apparently a notable proponent of video on dSLRs - one of his blog posts talks about showing some dSLR footage to George Lucas and Quentin Tarantino at skywalker ranch - appears to really like the GF1, calls it the only camera he takes with him all the time.

The GH1 has a better sensor - more pixels; but the aspect ratio changes depending on the mode its in so it only outputs about the same amt. of pixels as the GF1 - but in reality is a 14MP sensor of slightly larger physical size than the 12MP sensor in the GF1.

GH1 housing(s?) - at least the Seatool one sounds like it's $$$. I'm betting the Inon and Seatool GF1 housings are also $$$. 10bar makes a GF1 housing with a port for the 20mm that (Optical Ocean Sales sells for $820). 10bar makes a 14-45mm dome port, and they are working on a dome port for the 7-14mm zoom uw.

Crop factor is 2, so 20mm lens = ~40mm, the 7-14mm would be 14-28mm in 35mm terms.

The 10bar 20mm port has 67mm threads, I'm looking forward to trying it with my UWL-100 with and without a dome port. Though a dome port for the 7-14mm (or 8mm prime) would probably be pretty sweet as well.

A guy on wetpixel is using the 10bar 14-45mm port with the 45mm "leica" macro.

This Sunday is the expected release of 2 new m4/3s cameras by Panasonic, an update to the GH1 (G2 or GH2?) and a new model the G10 according to the m4/3rs rumor mill - could be worth watching for that. I wish the GF1 had 60fps, watching video people shot with the GH1 then slowed down 2x looks smooooooooooooooooth...

Regardless the GF1 should be a huge upgrade to my SD960 setup!

Rob
MobileMe Gallery

 

[shoturtle]

Hi All,

So I've been in the market for an upgrade to my IXUS camera since the beginning of the year. I've pretty much made my mind up to go for the Canon S90 and Fisheye Housing.

But then... I started looking into the new Panasonic GF1 and INON X-2 housing and I'm very impressed. The sensor is much larger (over 5 times bigger), it has interchangeable lenses, does HD video (with autofocus during video), etc etc...

But I have a "show-stopper" question that I can't find an answer to:

There are 7-14mm and 8mm fisheye lenses available for the GF1. How wide are these in comparison to something like a INON UFL-165AD or even Tokina 10-17mm? I really enjoy wide angle and want to try CFWA, so the fisheye lens is important to me.

Also - I can't find pricing for the INON X-2 housing anywhere. Anyone know approx what the price might be?

Thanks,

Anferney

All m4/3 and 4/3 are all 2.0 crop factors. So the 7-14 will be 14-28, while the tokina on a nikon will be 15-28 roughly, on the canon about 16-28mm. So the panny lens is a bit wider, but it is a very expensive lens.

I just got a epl-1 another m4/3 camera. And I was considering the panny wide angle lens. But decided against spending 900 for the lens. I think I will just go with the oly 9-18mm in the 600 dollar price range instead when it comes out for m4/3.

With the GF-1 you can use any m4/3 lenses on the market. Olympus is currently the only other company that make m4/3 lenses, but sigma announce that it will be developing m4/3 lens also.

The panny lens does focus faster then the olympus lenses and had lens base IS in their telephoto zoom but not in their prime lens. Oly went with an inbody IS system. So I have 4 is option when match with my panny zoom lens to my EPL-1. And it focus fast for a contrast base AF system.

Since m4/3 is a large sensor, it will give you better performance the any ccd sensor that are used in point and shoot and bridge cameras.

 

[Nemrod]

Lots of people want a much smaller footprint, but the higher quality of a DSLR. Comparing these with a DSLR isn't the right idea. Comparing them with a high end P&S like a G11 is. And they will beat it hands down.

You guys are comparing apples and zebras.

Sure I can get much wider, higher rez shots with my D300s and 10-17 and optical dome port. And it weighs like 25 pounds out of water.

But will a GF-1 in a 10Bar housing with interchangeable ports at half that cost get much, much better shots than a P&S. Yup. Much better performance as well.

And now Oly has a real contender too in the E-PL1.

Jack

Sensor size comparison chart, the M4:3 and 4:3 are the same sensor I think and is much closer to the popular APS sensor size than any P&S.

Therefore these cameras should compare with dSLRs and probably will when fully developed. The Canon S90 and G10/11 use the tiny 1/1.7 sensor. An APS-C sensor is approx 1.6 times larger than a 4:3 sensor which is 5 times larger than the 1/1.7. It is reasonable to conclude the imaging quality will be closer to the APS than comparing to any P&S. Since many people cannot see any real difference between a G10 and a low end dSLR in picture quality until the image size begins to exceed 14 inch print or larger and it is further reasonable to assume that the average user will see very much difference between APS-C and 4:3 until the image is projected well beyond typical usage.

M4:3 represents a five fold increase in sensor area over high end P&S cameras, that is HUGE.

N

 

[robzr]

All m4/3 and 4/3 are all 2.0 crop factors. So the 7-14 will be 14-28, while the tokina on a nikon will be 15-28 roughly, on the canon about 16-28mm. So the panny lens is a bit wider, but it is a very expensive lens.
...
With the GF-1 you can use any m4/3 lenses on the market. Olympus is currently the only other company that make m4/3 lenses, but sigma announce that it will be developing m4/3 lens also.

The panny lens does focus faster then the olympus lenses and had lens base IS in their telephoto zoom but not in their prime lens. Oly went with an inbody IS system. So I have 4 is option when match with my panny zoom lens to my EPL-1. And it focus fast for a contrast base AF system.

I'm no expert but I've been reading the forums and just wanted to clear a couple things up - the 4/3rds sensors are not the exact same shape so the crop factor isn't going to have the precision of 2.0, more like "2 ish", small detail. Theres a video on vimeo comparing shots on a GF1 and a GH1 with the same lenses and the FOV is noticably different. My understanding is that the Oly lenses will have limited or no autofocus abilities on the Panasonic bodys - so much for a standard! Same thing with adapting 4/3rds or other format lenses to the m4/3rds body. See Compatibilities of DMC-GF1, DMC-GH1 and DMC-G1 | Compatibility | Digital Camera | Product Support | Support | Panasonic Global for more details.

One of the selling points of m4/3rds in my eyes is that the lenses can be made so small since the sensor is so close to the lens, should in theory make high quality glass cheap and highly transportable, (like the upcoming $750 Noktor .95f "ultraprime")! I don't understand all the optics theory but apparently this is especially beneficial with wide and ultra wide angle lenses - perhaps Nemrod or someone else more versed in the technicalities can chime in with some more scientific stuff as it is very interesting. I'm not sure how well this translates to smaller dome ports, if it does that could be huge, as big dome ports are $$$ and physically large.

Sensor size comparison chart, the M4:3 and 4:3 are the same sensor I think and is much closer to the popular APS sensor size than any P&S.
...
Therefore these cameras should compare with dSLRs and probably will when fully developed. The Canon S90 and G10/11 use the tiny 1.7/1 sensor.

I'm really excited by the idea of having a "pocketable" camera (well at least I can cram it in a jacket pocket) with a sensor 9 times larger than my SD960. And quality that the reviewers seem to feel is better than entry level dSLRs plus a reasonably small, affordable housing. Investing in lenses won't feel like I'm throwing money away as they should last longer than the bodies. Quite good video quality to boot, this camera setup should be an awesome compromise between quality, size, travelability and cost. Can't wait to get my GF1! I just hope nothing coming out on Sunday makes me regret pulling the trigger.......

Rob

 

[robzr]

Just to complicate the fish-eye / ultra wide angle thing a bit; I believe the Panasonic bodies when used with Panasonic lenses will software correct some of the barrel distortion. Not sure if that shows up in RAW or only JPEG, and to what extent that would happen on with the 8mm or 7-14mm but there is more than just optics at play.

Rob

 

[JackConnick]

The Oly E-PL1 uses the exact same sensor as the E-620.

Jack

 

[shoturtle]

I'm no expert but I've been reading the forums and just wanted to clear a couple things up - the 4/3rds sensors are not the exact same shape so the crop factor isn't going to have the precision of 2.0, more like "2 ish", small detail. Theres a video on vimeo comparing shots on a GF1 and a GH1 with the same lenses and the FOV is noticably different. My understanding is that the Oly lenses will have limited or no autofocus abilities on the Panasonic bodys - so much for a standard! Same thing with adapting 4/3rds or other format lenses to the m4/3rds body. See Compatibilities of DMC-GF1, DMC-GH1 and DMC-G1 | Compatibility | Digital Camera | Product Support | Support | Panasonic Global for more details.

One of the selling points of m4/3rds in my eyes is that the lenses can be made so small since the sensor is so close to the lens, should in theory make high quality glass cheap and highly transportable, (like the upcoming $750 Noktor .95f "ultraprime")! I don't understand all the optics theory but apparently this is especially beneficial with wide and ultra wide angle lenses - perhaps Nemrod or someone else more versed in the technicalities can chime in with some more scientific stuff as it is very interesting. I'm not sure how well this translates to smaller dome ports, if it does that could be huge, as big dome ports are $$$ and physically large.



I'm really excited by the idea of having a "pocketable" camera (well at least I can cram it in a jacket pocket) with a sensor 9 times larger than my SD960. And quality that the reviewers seem to feel is better than entry level dSLRs plus a reasonably small, affordable housing. Investing in lenses won't feel like I'm throwing money away as they should last longer than the bodies. Quite good video quality to boot, this camera setup should be an awesome compromise between quality, size, travelability and cost. Can't wait to get my GF1! I just hope nothing coming out on Sunday makes me regret pulling the trigger.......

Rob

Rob,

Actually the oly m4/3 will focus on the panny body. It is the regular 4/3 lenses that will have the limited issues. And pretty much none of the 4/3 lens form sigma will work. I have put the oly m4/3 onto a gf1. And it did focus at the same speed as on the epl-1. Also you can do the firmware update with a oly body to a panny lens, and with a panny body to a oly lens. Micro 4/3 do keep the same stadards. The oly m4/3 lenses has new firmware to resolve the continuous AF with the panny body.

 

[shoturtle]

Just a bit more to add to this point.

You can compare m4/3 to aps-c dslr in image quality. They are the same size sensor as oly's 4/3 dslrs. While the 4/3 does not preform well pass 1600iso, with the exception of the E30 and some say the GH1 where the photo IQ is acceptable. From 1600iso down to 100iso. The 4/3 format does quite well in IQ. Pretty much identical from 800iso down compare to APS-C.

If action is your shooting the m4/3 is lagging behind both regular 4/3 dslr's and aps-c dslr. While the live view on the m4/3 are excellent contrast base AF system. They are still not good enough to track sports and high action. That is where the DSLR is still king besides low light.

Sensor size comparison chart, the M4:3 and 4:3 are the same sensor I think and is much closer to the popular APS sensor size than any P&S.

Therefore these cameras should compare with dSLRs and probably will when fully developed. The Canon S90 and G10/11 use the tiny 1/1.7 sensor. An APS-C sensor is approx 1.6 times larger than a 4:3 sensor which is 5 times larger than the 1/1.7. It is reasonable to conclude the imaging quality will be closer to the APS than comparing to any P&S. Since many people cannot see any real difference between a G10 and a low end dSLR in picture quality until the image size begins to exceed 14 inch print or larger and it is further reasonable to assume that the average user will see very much difference between APS-C and 4:3 until the image is projected well beyond typical usage.

M4:3 represents a five fold increase in sensor area over high end P&S cameras, that is HUGE.

N

 

[shoturtle]

Rob,

Form some of the info I have been tracking on the Noktor lens. It is a CCTV lens that have been adapted for M4/3. It is very bright, but not sharp. And so far, the photos that have surface pretty much support this point.

Also since this is a manual aperture ring. As you stop down, the evf will get darker and darker. As the aperture do not adjust to the aperture you set prior to snapping the short. It would make it a bit more difficult to work with with the darker viewing area. So you pretty much need to stay wide open to use this lens.

I was really liking the idea of a f.95 lens, but it is no where near the leica f.95 is preformance. If they give you at least a motorized aperture, it would make it a allot easier to work with. And I could very easily overlook the sharpness issue.