Panasonic DMC-GH1

[Mark]

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 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.

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.
• 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]

Originally Posted by Mark

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

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

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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.