Lensblogger

First Impressions of the Panasonic G1 Micro 4/3

 I was pretty excited when the Micro 4/3rds system was announced: the option of a rangefinder sized, interchangeable lens camera with an SLR sized sensor is something I've always wished for. I'm really waiting for the Olympus version, which will be even smaller (Panasonic apparently didn't want the camera to be too small, fearing it would be seen as a point and shoot), but we go a Panasonic G1  in since its the only version available right now. I used the camera and the kit lens for a weekend, then got the adapter that allows it to use standard 4/3 lenses and took it out for a spin with several of those. Not a thorough test by any means, I had a lot of manual reading to do and weekends are fairly full of activities this time of year.

As advertised its very small – smaller than an Olympus 420 or Canon XTi. The Electronic Viewfinder is superb. You may notice a little noise telling you its electronic and not optical, and it ‘freezes’ for half a second after each shot, but its clear and works just like an optical viewfinder on any other SLR. The LCD is is absolutely wonderful and I suspect will soon be copied by other manufacturers. Its completely articulated so you can use it at any angle (including flush with the camera back), the information on it is clear but unobtrusive, the 3 inch picture is superb and Liveview focusing is a snap.

Image quality is about what I expected. Up to ISO 800 its clear and sharp, but from 1600 on noise is pretty severe and loss of detail apparent, as you can see Here  and  here. Images with the kit lens, which is a very useful range are good, but not spectacular. The “Mega OIS” image stabilizer is very good, and I could get clean shots at 1/4 second and acceptable ones at one half second as seen Here . Overall, it gives a much better than point-and-shoot image in a camera about the size of a large point and shoot. I don't think the kit lens is particularly good (about like most kit lenses) but its tiny and it is certainly decent. The first 9 shots in this gallery are shot with it and posted at 100% if you want to pixel peek. 

Overall the camera is easy to learn. There menu system took a bit of getting used to, but once I had I concluded there are some things the big boys could learn from this camera. The buttons make it quick to change almost any setting, the "micro menu" button is exceedingly useful, and the pattern is logical. While I'm a fan of more buttons and less menu scrolling, the small size of the camera makes the large number of buttons a problem. While I didn't have the camera for a great deal of time I still found myself accidently pushing buttons when I didn't mean to. 

The adapter allowed me to use other 4/3 lenses with two limitations: only lenses compatible with contrast autofocus would autofocus (others work but are manual focus) and the Olympus lenses are not image stabilized (the Olympus body should correct this part when its released). I used the adapter with the Olympus 9-18 f4-5.6 (which did autofocus) and the excellent 50-200 f2.8-3.5 SWD  which had to be manually focused. 

The 9-18 worked as advertised, although after using the kit lens I was surprised at how "big" the lens looked on the camera. Autofocus was quick and accurate and the IQ did seem improved over the kit lens (100% jpgs are posted in the gallery above, all are labeled '9-18xxx'). The camera did seem to overexpose this lens by 1/3 stop or so, but otherwise all went well. I already was thinking after using this lens how much it removes the 'small' factor from this small camera. There just weren't many advantages to the Panasonic's size anymore. 

Shooting the 50-200 was another revelation in two ways. First that's a fairly big lens, and this tiny camera on the end of it appears to be an afterthought. Sooo, you have to hold everything by the lens, but you also have to turn the autofocus ring, etc. Bottom line is it would have worked fine with a monopod, but was very clumsy for me to shoot handheld. And then again, why have a tiny camera if you're taking a monopod? Revelation number two, though, was very positive: The Panasonic implements a marvelous live-view through-the-viewfinder manual focus system. Basically the minute you start to turn the manual focus ring, the viewfinder magnifies the image about 400%. Its a little disconcerting the first time it occurs, but I almost immediately found I was  manually focusing much more quickly and accurately than I have with almost any other camera. Very, very well done Panasonic. 

I've posted a couple of shots taken at 150mm and 200mm in the gallery, but to be honest by this point it was apparent that I'd never shoot a big lens on this camera. Just too clumsy (and probably a bad idea even trying on my part). I'll have to wait until the telephoto Micro 4/3 lens is available before I decide how useful this little thing will be at the long end. My conclusion now is that its a very nice walkabout / pocket camera with the 14-45 kit lens, but I would only use the adapter for perhaps a small prime or Macro lens. Otherwise the purpose of the camera is defeated for me. Image quality isn't as good as a 5D or D90, but its much, much better than any point and shoot could give me, and the camera is far more flexible.      

Quick Take with the Alpha 900

I took the Alpha 900 out for a weekend with the Zeiss 135 f1.8  and  Sony 35 f1.4 G  prime lenses and came away impressed - this is a huge step up from the Alpha 350 I'd shot previously. First I generally like the ergonomics: the layout is clean, the controls intuitive, and I'm a fan of more buttons and less menus like this has. The menus I found a bit overly complex, but that may just be my longer experience with Canon and Nikon. A couple of the buttons (particularly the ISO button) are a bit clumsy for me to reach, but that just may be my hands.

There are some really thoughtful touches, though, like the fact the LCD rotates so the menus are always vertical no matter the camera orientation, just like my iPhone. Not a big deal, I know, but a nice feature that shows some engineers are being thoughtful. The viewfinder is bright and clear, a pleasure to look through. The camera is solid in the hand, a bit bigger and heavier to feel than a Canon 5D or Nikon D700 - the grip is a bit large for my hands (YMMV of course) and next time I take it out I'll put a hand strap on it.

Autofocus is a quick and sure, it meters cleanly and accurately. The high ISO performance, which is an area that some other recent SLRs have spoiled me, is better than previous Sony cameras: I found it fine at ISO 800, might need a bit of noise reduction but very usable at ISO 1600, and would take 3200 in a pinch for a small print or web sized jpg.

Here is a small jpg of an ISO test, but it doesn't reproduce well here. CLICK HERE to open a 100% image so you can get a better idea of noise levels. I have to keep reminding myself too, that with images of this size, noise looking at 100% images on the screen appears much worse than it would actually show in print.

There's some loss of detail that's apparent to pixel-peeping at 3200, but given 24 megapixels to work with, I think detail would be adequate. Plus I was using out-of-camera jpgs, RAWs should be better.

I shot the camera with a couple of Sony's better prime lenses to make sure my images weren't limited by lens resolution. The 135 f1.8 lens is a big, heavy thing, although the images left me thinking it was worth both the weight and money. It was a bit slow to autofocus: not Canon 85 f1.2 slow, but I wouldn't take it sportshooting either. Otherwise I can't even begin to think of making a complaint about it: its one of the sharpest lenses I've shot with and mated with the 24 Megapixel sensor in the A900 the detail it resolves was stunning - there's a small jpg below with an insert showing a 100% crop of the leaf edge. But I'd really suggest you look at the small gallery I've posted with the 135 HERE . I've posted those images so you can download the 100% jpgs and pixel peep: feel free to do so.

The 35 f1.4 was also excellent, and very quick to autofocus. There are a couple of shots with it in the gallery as well.

Front Element Scratches

We had a chance to make a pretty fun demonstration today, and here it is. As most of you know, we're *very* finicky about our gear. We don't like even tiny scratches on front elements or dust in a lens (although a bit of that is inevitable). We're like you. We want the lens to look as good as the pictures it takes.

That said, its amazing how much dust or how many scratches a front element can take without significantly impacting image quality. Here are a couple of images taken with a lens with a fairly bad front element. You'll notice they're a bit soft and underexposed, but there's no 'image' of the scratch, just like a dust particle can't make an image on the sensor: the light bends to much through the subsequent elements for the dust or scratch to be visible in the image.

And the lens that took the images above:

As you can see, scratches and lots of dust in a lens may cause loss of contrast, loss of light gathering, and lens flare, but even so, will not be visible on the image. (In fact, our guess is most of the lost sharpness is because the optical element shifted when it broke, rather than from the cracks themselves.) Dust on the sensor may show up on an image, but dust or scratches within the lens really aren't something to worry about.

First take with the Zeiss 85 f1.4 ZE lens

Full disclosure: I love Zeiss glass. I used to shoot it on the 1DsII with an adapter and still shoot ZF lenses on Nikon bodies pretty frequently. So I was as excited as anybody when Zeiss announced the ZE mount. The 85 f1.4 was the first to be released and I was less excited about that since I already love the Canon 85 f1.2 “L”, but I was excited nonetheless. 

The ZE lens is superbly well built with metal body and hood, and the smoothest focusing ring I’ve handled. The electronic autofocus confirmation system works extremely well: You focus the lens manually with the shutter button half-depressed and you get the ‘red box’ through the viewfinder confirming focus. Its very accurate, although I found it took a few minutes of practice to get used to it. Not as convenient or quick as motor driven autofocus, but worlds better than through-the-viewfinder manual focus. 

The 85 f1.4 is not as sharp wide open as I’d hoped (see below) and I’d consider f1.4 for emergency use only. By f1.8 its sharp and at f2.8 is wickedly sharp. As sharp as anything I’ve shot. My take is its sharpest in the mid range (from 7 to 50 feet) and not quite as sharp at infinity, which is what would be expected from a lens who’s primary use is protraiture and not landscape. Distortion is nil. The best part is it has that Zeiss ‘look’: great microcontrast, even when lighting conditions are harsh and contrast high. 

I know someone will ask this question, so no, its not ‘better’ than the Canon 85 f1.2 L (at least wide open, the Canon is clearly sharper). Its different. It has a slightly different look in contrast and color that I personally love. Its also a lot smaller physically than the Canon 85, which can be important some times. You can see some 100% test shots Here

Shooting at night

It's getting to be that time of year where daylight photography is limited to holidays and weekends. A surprising number of photographers put up their gear until March or April, except for the routine indoor snapshots during the holidays. I'm always surprised at how many people aren't comfortable shooting outside at night; you're missing out on some great shots. If you haven't, give it a try this winter. Your keeper rate will be lower at night (if I'm happy with one good night shot out of ten it's a great shoot) but you can get some spectacular photos, especially when the holiday lights go up soon. I'm certainly not the world's expert-- I'm a first rate gearhead and a second rate photographer-- but I'll share a few tips for those of you who haven't really tried your hand shooting in the dark. Those of you who are experienced night-shot photographers just move along, nothing to see here :-) When I first tried to learn about night photography by reading online it seemed that different articles were saying exactly the opposite thing. Then I realized they were actually describing two different types of photography and calling them both 'night photography'. The first I call _Shooting in the Dim_ and the second _Shooting in the Dark_. h2. Shooting in the Dim "Dim" shooting is a lot like indoor photography: taking a picture where there's still a fair amount of ambient light, like brightly lit city streets, the sky at dusk, objects lit by floodlights, etc. It is fairly intuitive: you want a nice wide aperture lens (f/2.8 or lower), preferably image stabilized/vibration controlled. When there's reasonable ambient light autofocus and autoexposure functions on the camera generally work well. Exposure bracketing, or shooting several shots at exposures above and below what the camera thinks best is worthwhile. With a little luck (or a lot of shots) you can usually nail an exposure that shows off decorative lighting without blowing it out, but still preserves detail in the objects you're shooting without losing them in shadow. Try, if at all possible, to keep the ISO down to 400 or so to minimize the inevitable noise that shooting in dim light tends to create. Image stabilized wide angle lenses, or wide angle lenses on image stabilized camera bodies, are invaluable for shooting in the dim. (This shot was handheld at 1/6 of a second using a Canon 24-105 IS lens on a crowded street where a tripod would have been impractical. Notice the motion blur of the cars passing, but the building is quite sharp, even at 100%.) If there are unlit objects close to you in the picture, a bit of fill flash can be very useful. But just a bit (usually set manually and a little trial-and-error may be needed to get it right), to much and you loose all the ambient light you're trying to capture. I usually try shooting in the dim on Aperture Priority mode first, letting the camera suggest an exposure time. If I don't like the results I'll switch to manual and set the exposure myself. h2{clear: left}. Shooting in the Dark "Dark" is the term I use to describe true nightscape photography, which is mostly about the lights and the reflection of the lights.For shooting in the dark things like wide apertures and image stabilization generally don't matter: the shot is going to require a long exposure no matter the aperture and ISO. A solid tripod is going to be necessary and other techniques to minimize shake help keep the images sharp. With shutter speeds slow to with 1/30-2", it's also a good idea to enable mirror lock-up, which avoids the bit of vibration caused by the mirror slapping back and forth) and to use a cable release or the camera's self-timer, which avoids motion from pressing the shutter button. That said, significantly longer exposures generally don't benefit as much, because the effects of both don't tend to last long.

What I found most counterintuitive about night photography is that you *don't* want to shoot at a wide aperture. Rather f/8 to f1/6 is preferable if at all possible. The reason for this is twofold. First, it's difficult to focus at night, and a smaller aperture gives a greater depth of field, keeping more of the picture in focus and giving you more margin for error. Second, narrower apertures (f/11-f/16) give light sources a "starburst" effect and thus much more emphasis, while wider apertures (f/4-f/5.6) leave the lights a bit muddled. (They're going to overexpose and lose all detail anyway.)

The two photos here are a good example. The top image was shot at f/4, and the bottom at f/11. Notice how much cleaner the lights are in the second image. Similarly, a lower ISO results in less noise, and since noise is usually a problem with long exposures an ISO of 200 is often ideal. Determining exposure time is the most difficult part of night shooting. Setting the autoexposure to "spot" and trying to expose for reflected right is a good solution-- when it works. This will blow out the center of bright lights (which usually looks fine) but will bring out the most color and detail in most shots. You can use a lightmeter, all manner of calculations, etc. to try to determine exposure, but the simplest technique I've found is set up the tripod, take a two-second exposure, and look at the histogram of the resulting shot, doubling or halving the exposure time until the image on the LCD looks good. (Yes, all of you purists, I realize this is chimping and cheating. But it lets me get home with a shot.) As mentioned earlier, focusing can be problematic at night. If the interesting objects are fairly close you may be able to get focus lock using the camera or flash's built in IR focusing light. Another option is to light an object in the scene with a flashlight, let the camera autofocus and then switch to manual focus. Both of these techniques require objects of interest to be reasonablly close. Other options are to set your lens on manual focus and arbitrarily use the distance scale, manually focus using live view, or set the lens at its "hyperfocal distance":http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. The latter technique is what I prefer when using wide to medium angle lenses. It can be a little frustrating, especially at first, when you get home with 100 images and find only 4 or 6 are really any good-- but those 4 or 6 will give some unique photographs that are truly different and often beautiful. That bridge shot above shows a soybean field, a dirty stained bridge, and the abandoned pyramid by day. By night, though, its pretty cool. Once you get a little comfortable with getting night images, there's a number of cool techniques to add: "light painting":http://www.flickr.com/groups/lightpainting; "star trails":http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=startrails; "abstracts":http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=night+photography+abstracts&m=text and anything else you can think of.