Panasonic DMC-GH1 [Archive]

Mark

10-03-2009, 23:58

I'm thinking about what camera to get next. My S3 IS has given me good service and for holiday snaps I'm happy with it, but I know its limits and I've been disappointed at results often enough to know that just occasionally something comes along that I wish it could do, but can't.

So, I've been considering what next for a while now. My original plan was another bridge camera (probably one of the new Canons or somesuch), but I'm worried I'll hit the same problems I've had with the S3 - by far the biggest of which has been sensor noise, even at low ISO. It isn't noticeable in the average daytime shot, but push the limits and there it is.

So, that lead me to consider the low-end of the dSLR market. I really can't justify spending hundreds or thousands on glass, but I'm thinking that a low-end dSLR and OK glass are going to give me better results overall than a top-end bridge camera for not that much more outlay.

Then, the Panasonic DMC-G1 turned up. Seems to fit the bill nicely but a few niggles remained - primarily I wasn't sure about the lens options (OK lenses is fine, but no lenses might be a problem), but also there were a few 'nice to have' features that weren't there.

I looked on the Panasonic site a few days ago and the DMC-GH1 had appeared. The features I wanted are there, and there's now another lens option.

It isn't Canon/Nikon, so I just know the purists will moan (with a little justification due to the limited choice in accessories), but it seems like it'll destroy my S3 in all but zoom range (which is easily fixed by buying the 45-200 lens). Obviously, I don't know a price yet, so that might change my mind.

Have I got my 'ducks in a row', or have I just gone quackers? Is there a deal-killer I haven't spotted?

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/2146692/index.html (DSC-GH1 @ Panasonic)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/ (DSC-G1 review @ D.P. Review)

Matblack

11-03-2009, 11:40

All cameras are going to be noisey at high ISO, thats just life :(

MB

Mark

11-03-2009, 12:02

Matblack

11-03-2009, 12:37

Except I was complaining about low ISO. :)

One thing that really showed me the limits was your shot of the moon. OK, so it's not something I'm going to do more than once, but the difference between what you got with your old 300D and what I got with my S3 were just worlds apart - even though we both used similar settings.

Smaller sensors pack more pixels into a smaller space which results in more noise in whatever mode but usually they are OK at low ISO

That was taken at low ISO as the moon is very bright you actually need a smallish shutter shortish exposure.

If you want to try a dSLR then you can borrow my old 300d and buy the kit lens off ebay for ~£30 bare in mind the moon shot was with an L glass lens a pretty good (and pretty expensive) piece of glass :)

The other option as you say is a bridge camera and I would recomend the Fuji range very highly, Desmo has my old 5600 and its a great toe in the water for moving to dSLR

MB

Mark

11-03-2009, 12:47

Matblack

11-03-2009, 13:09

The S3 is a bridge camera. Sorry I didn't make that clear, so I've already had my toe-in.

Thanks for the offer on the 300D but I think I'd struggle with that because of the lack of live view (I'm fine using the viewfinder for normal shots but couldn't do without live view when using manual modes for obvious reasons).

In which case you are pretty restricted, in all honestly the camera you have is excellent and to get noticably improved results you'd need to spend a significant amount of cash, not least because to get the kind of zoom you are used to you'd need to buy at least one additional lens. If you decide to go down the Canon route you'd need a 450d, 1000d or 40d/ 50d to get Live View, the overall spend to get everything including a half decent zoom would probably be in the region of £600 plus you'd move from a small camera bag to a rucksack and you would have the additional faf of changing lenes which given sight restrictions could be quite a fiddly and potential risky operation (dust in camera, droping lenes, etc).

If you trade up, my recomendation out be a Canon G series camera which have a reputation of exellent performance in most lighting conditions are compact and have most of the adjustability of a dSLR with none of the drawbacks :)

MB

Matblack

11-03-2009, 13:25

Reading the review of the Panny in your first post it looks ideal if you want to improve low light sensitivity and offers HD video too, I'd get one of those.

MB

Mark

11-03-2009, 13:27

My original plan was the Canon SX1 which is their flagship bridge camera, but yes, a Fuji was under serious consideration too as I have good memories of yours.

However, I think you might have fallen into the obvious Nikon/Canon trap (see the OP). There are other dSLR manufacturers besides the big two - including the DMC-GH1. Yes, I know about the problem with 'lesser' brands and lack of accessories.

Edit - you've caught on. Thanks. :)

Pumpkinstew

11-03-2009, 14:08

I have the little brother to that camera.
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/1258590/index.html?view=&colourVar=DMC-FZ28EB-S
Although I think it's the FZ5 I have.
Never had any problems with it and taken a few really nice pictures with it too. :)

Mark

27-03-2009, 16:44

I just found a DMC-G1 for £419. I very, very, very nearly bought it there and then. That's a silly price for a high street store and beats almost all online prices to a pulp. I wanted, but I didn't. :o

Only two things stopped me - the DMC-GH1, and the fact that since I'm used to the long-ish zoom on my S3 IS, I'd probably get bored with the limits of the 14-45 kit lens and want the 45-200 very soon, which is another £300. The DMC-GH1 comes with a 14-140 lens, which I'll probably be happy with for a fair while.

Of course, the price of the DMC-GH1 is a bit of an unknown but best guestimate seems to be in the £800-£900 range, which isn't that much more than the G1 + 45-200.

I think I did the right thing passing up such a silly bargain. At least I hope I did. Me + money = danger Will Robinson. :o

Mark

07-04-2009, 13:11

OK, resurrecting this thread and opening up the options after some discussions with MB this weekend. This is a somewhat long ramble, but hopefully it will guide y'all to point me in the right direction.

My plan was to get a DMC-GH1, but now the pricing in the £800-£1000 bracket looks likely (a lot higher than I'd hoped but the exchange rate is a significant contributor to that). Given the price, I think it wise to consider other options to make sure I've made the right choice.

DMC-GH1 Pros:

DSLR-like sensor (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_System#Sensor_size_and_aspect_ra tio) says this sensor is 30-40% smaller than the typical APS-C, but nine times bigger than a typical compact/bridge sensor). Sensor noise and limitations is the one thing that has left me disappointed with every digital camera I've ever owned.
Interchangeable lenses and a flash hot shoe, should I ever have need of them.
Firmware based on Panasonic's bridge cameras, so relatively idiot proof.
Full-time live view (no blackout issues because there's no mirror). Using the LCD to do manual focus is therefore an option.
Smaller and lighter than a typical DSLR. I've never 'got' the idea that heavier is better. :dunno:

And cons:

Not a Canon/Nikon, so is unlikely ever to be taken seriously (by some).
Lack of both manufacturer and third-party accessories - one of the few reasons why Canon/Nikon are indisputably 'better'.
Still not quite typical DSLR sensor size (but close).
Lenses are reported to have a slow maximum aperture. Not sure what this means. :dunno:
Relies on contrast-detect autofocus, which apparently is slower than most other DSLRs which use phase-change autofocus.

As you can probably tell, I really don't know very much. I'm always expecting this to be a hobby confined to holidays, meets, and other random stuff that takes my fancy, but my goal is simply to achieve the best possible results on a sensible budget - some things only happen once. I'm also partially sighted, so I'll never have the eye for getting the best shot. All that said, I know I'll have to learn a lot and I'm certainly willing to do that to make best use of whatever I buy.

My primary reasons for considering the Panasonic are threefold - it's relatively idiot-proof, has full-time live preview, and has a movie mode. I could live without move mode (I already own several camcorders and I could even use the older digicams). Live preview is useful for setting up the camera and essential for manual focus (but lets be honest here - even with live preview I'm lousy at manual focus, so maybe I should just avoid). As for idiot proofing, I just don't know what the others are like, and I could always learn. :)

Now you've read that essay, this is where I ask for help. I have no particular brand loyality - I just want to do what's right and not waste money getting something because of big flashy marketing hype. People I've spoken to who have used the Panasonic cameras love them (and reviewers love them too), but I'm not wedded to the idea if there's something better out there for similar money. Trouble is, I'm just not sure I know enough to know if I'm making a bad decision going down the DSLR route at all, let alone which brand to get.

Help, please.

Signed, Confused of Berkshire. :)

divine

07-04-2009, 14:13

Smaller and lighter than a typical DSLR. I've never 'got' the idea that heavier is better. :dunno:

Lenses are reported to have a slow maximum aperture. Not sure what this means. :dunno:

Heavier is better once you start strapping on big lenses, as it provides more balance. Although overall heavier, because of the way you hold a camera having a high proportion of the weight at the back in the body makes it more comfortable in general. I also find it gives me more confidence in the build of the thing, feels like it could take a knock or two.

Slow max aperture means they don't let as much light in. A fast lens would be F1.8 or F2.8 for example and these allow better operation in low light situations, allow you to use a lower ISO and maintain a fast shutter speed.

For example, say for a picture to get a decent exposure and get the rest of the picture how you wanted you needed settings of say ISO800 and 1/100 at F4, a lens at F2.8 would allow you to use ISO400 and still be at 1/100.

Mark

07-04-2009, 14:23

Thanks for the weight explanation. Makes sense now. As for aperture, it's going to take me a while to properly get my head around that, but I get the gist at least.

Lens Spec (http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/Digital+Camera/Lenses+%26+Filters/H-VS014140/Specification/2173619/index.html?trackInfo=true) for the 14-140mm supplied lens. Aperture Range F4.0(Wide) - F5.8(Tele).

How does that compare with other manufacturers stuff (at comparable prices).

divine

07-04-2009, 15:49

I'd imagine pretty much all lenses around that price would be F4-5.6 usually, maybe F3.5. Well, zooms in any case, primes tend to be different but i'd imagine you're not interested in those for now anyway.

Basically the F number is ratio. The aperture is the hole that lets light in. The number tells you how big the hole is in relation to the focal length of the lens.

So, F2.8 on a 50mm lens means the hole is about 18mm across, F5.6 would mean it was about 9mm.

At a very simple level - small number = big aperture (hole) = more light

Mark

07-04-2009, 15:56

Just checked my S3 specs and that's F2.7-3.5, but wouldn't the bigger sensor area more than compensate for that? I would assume such a comparison would be like comparing apples and oranges, but I could be wrong. :)

divine

07-04-2009, 16:27

Aye it's not worth comparing really, as even if it is F2.7, the actual physical focal length is probably about ~5-20mm, so the hole is still teeny tiny.