a question for the GF1 evangelists...

ianhl

ianhl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,033
Name
ian lancaster
Edit My Images
Yes
i notice that converts to the GF1/micro four thirds camp seem to be full of love/praise for their new cameras. after checking one out in the shops i think i can see why, they are a very compact, very capable bit of kit. it seems like it would be nice to put a camera in your pocket and be able to tote another lens around without carrying a big bag of stuff about...

so, the bottom line is this. is the GF1 a real, viable, replacement for a dslr? have any of you who evangelise about them sold off all your big camera kit and gone solely over to micro 4/3rds?
 
There are plenty of people who have... The main issue with mFT is the contrast-AF - it's great for static things, but not so great for fast moving things. So it comes down to what you shoot...
 
I wouldn't consider it as a replacement for a dslr, but as carry-anywhere compact replacement then it's a great option.
 
i rate mine at least as good as my old Nikon D300 & that is a great camera....but that's just my opinion
 
I never had a DSLR to compare it to but I'm very happy with mine.

My mum's partner sold his Nikon DSLR and got one after playing with mine and seeing my pics - he's over the moon with it.

I guess if you do a lot of studio stuff, or action shots - it's probably not the ideal camera, but for a lot of landscape/street/gig stuff it's great imo.
 
I see mine as a quality digital replacement for the 35mm compact cameras I used to carry about.

I have an LX2 and it's a lovely thing and great in some situations but for me the GF1 is on another level and is the first compact digital camera that offers comparable quality to a DSLR just as compact film cameras offer comparable image quality to an SLR.
 
I sold up all my SLR gear (D80, D300, D700 and a whole load of pro lenses) and moved to a GF1. It's obviously not capable of the same low light performance or high-speed shots but it's a fantastic camera and I get much more use out of it just because it goes everywhere with me. I also have a whole lot of money freed up for other hobbies, I was getting bored of always lusting after another lens, I am much happier being back where I was when I first fell in love with photography.
 
thanks for some interesting and varied answers. i guess it comes down to personal requirements really. i do like the thought of a good quality but really compact camera set up, small enough to slip in a bag or coat pocket and also having the options of decent lenses which dont need a separate bag to carry them about in...
 
I think it depends on what you shoot. If you spend almost your entire time with a lens around 20-80mm on then it's fine however unless you have lots of money going wide is an issue (the 7-14, which is equivilent of around 14-28 full frame and 18-35 cropped, is £900) and if you like shooting long the only option is the 45-200 which isn't particularly good compared to some of the zooms and primes from Canon and Nikon (and isn't as long as 300mm on a crop sensor, you effectively lose 100mm).

I've been contemplating buying one over the 400D, due to the compactness, but I'm not sure I can justify the loss of long and short ends (which I use a massive amount).
 
There's the 9-18 as alternative SWA lens - much cheaper than the panny and still very good.

As far as long goes, with the mFT-FT adapter you can use the Zuiko 70-300. This is a very good and not too expensive lens. It also supports contrast-AF fully, so will work on the panny as well as the oly mFT bodies fine.

Andy
 
Amp34 said:
I think it depends on what you shoot. If you spend almost your entire time with a lens around 20-80mm on then it's fine however unless you have lots of money going wide is an issue (the 7-14, which is equivilent of around 14-28 full frame and 18-35 cropped, is £900) and if you like shooting long the only option is the 45-200 which isn't particularly good compared to some of the zooms and primes from Canon and Nikon (and isn't as long as 300mm on a crop sensor, you effectively lose 100mm).

I've been contemplating buying one over the 400D, due to the compactness, but I'm not sure I can justify the loss of long and short ends (which I use a massive amount).
Click to expand...

my d200 usually has a 28mm lens on it, the d40 has a 35mm on most of the time...
 
Problem is even with that you are looking at something that in real terms is the same as a 18mm lens and on a 1.5/6 crop camera isn't very wide.
 
I'm looking around at the GF1 but am swayed towards the Pen e-pl1 with its built in image stability rather than having to buy it in each lens it seems a little better to me.
 
My GF1 isn't a replacement for my DSLRs as it is for a very different function. I use the DSLRs for sport, and the GF1 for my "leisure" camera which goes everywhere with me. It's a horses for courses thing - work out what you want to take pictures of and by the best tool for the job.
 
Amp34 said:
Problem is even with that you are looking at something that in real terms is the same as a 18mm lens and on a 1.5/6 crop camera isn't very wide.
Click to expand...

so the 20mm f1.7 panny lens would be right up my street then...
 
AndyElliott said:
There's the 9-18 as alternative SWA lens - much cheaper than the panny and still very good.

As far as long goes, with the mFT-FT adapter you can use the Zuiko 70-300. This is a very good and not too expensive lens. It also supports contrast-AF fully, so will work on the panny as well as the oly mFT bodies fine.

Andy
Click to expand...

There is also a Panasonic 100-300 coming out fairly soon I think.

The 14-45 is reasonably wide, but I've seen some good results with a wide angle convertor attached to it - I've just picked one up for £10 so will see how I get on.
 
I suspect the 100-300 will be a lot more expensive than the 70-300 - which you can get second-hand pretty cheaply too.
 
ianhl said:
so the 20mm f1.7 panny lens would be right up my street then...
Click to expand...

Sorry, no, or at least with regards to that post of mine. That was in reply to AndyElliott, your post wasn't there when I replied.:lol:

However the 20mm panny is equivilent of 40mm full frame, so essentially if you wonder wound with a 30mm lens on your D200 it'll be pretty much the same sort of shot. So I guess yeah. :)
 
There may be another reasonable option for the long and wide ends... Get an mFT->FT adapter plus the 9-18 (FT rather than mFT version) and the 70-300 - both those lenses are very good and can be had quite cheaply. The FT version of the 9-18 also supports contrast AF on the panny bodies and is a lot cheaper (plus second hand ones are available) than the mFT version.

Andy
 
Amp34 said:
Problem is even with that you are looking at something that in real terms is the same as a 18mm lens and on a 1.5/6 crop camera isn't very wide.
Click to expand...

9-18mm is 18mm to 36mm (35mm equivalent, 2x crop!), which is pretty wide. I appreciate it isn't as wide as 14mm equivalent, but still not bad... And there is very little distortion. Compare that with the siggy 10-20 (15 to 30 on a Nik crop), and the wide end barrels quite a bit. If you correct that in PP, you end up losing some of that width. I certainly haven't been thinking with my 9-18, I must get the ZD 7-14 for the extra width... :D
 
AndyElliott said:
There may be another reasonable option for the long and wide ends... Get an mFT->FT adapter plus the 9-18 (FT rather than mFT version) and the 70-300 - both those lenses are very good and can be had quite cheaply. The FT version of the 9-18 also supports contrast AF on the panny bodies and is a lot cheaper (plus second hand ones are available) than the mFT version.

Andy
Click to expand...

Problem is then you are using full sized lenses and you might as well stay with a proper DSLR....

Something like the 500D is only slightly bigger yet better in almost every way than the GF1 (except size), but with normal sized lenses there's not really much difference.

Perhaps in a year or two when more m4/3 lenses come out. :)
 
AndyElliott said:
I suspect the 100-300 will be a lot more expensive than the 70-300 - which you can get second-hand pretty cheaply too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the adaptor is pretty pricy though unfortunately.

Amp34 said:
Problem is then you are using full sized lenses and you might as well stay with a proper DSLR....

Something like the 500D is only slightly bigger yet better in almost every way than the GF1 (except size), but with normal sized lenses there's not really much difference.

Perhaps in a year or two when more m4/3 lenses come out. :)
Click to expand...

Thing is though, for me the GF1 is my main camera and it can either be a (pretty much) compact with great IQ with the 20mm attached (can go in a coat pocket etc - great for taking out mountain biking/walking)...

Or with a few lenses and some other bits you can use it for more 'serious' photography.

Yeah I could get two different cameras for those two uses but it works well for me just having the one.
 
I replaced my Powershot G9 with it and I think I took a step in the right direction.

I knew I would not want a full DSLR, as I'd want to take the camera with me as much as possible and if I'm talking with a backpack/rucksack, I want to have room for more than my camera, while having my back survive the trip as well :D
 
My GF1 replaced a D80 + a whole assortment of bits and bobs.
But, i went down this route for health reasons.
Been very pleased with GF1, got some cracking pics out of and i tend to have it with me all the time.
 
Amp34 said:
(the 7-14, which is equivilent of around 14-28 full frame and 18-35 cropped, is £900)
Click to expand...

You've got your maths wrong here Amp, it's actually equivalent to 9-18 on a 1.5x crop - pretty wide.

Amp34 said:
the 45-200 which isn't particularly good compared to some of the zooms and primes from Canon and Nikon (and isn't as long as 300mm on a crop sensor, you effectively lose 100mm).
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this is wrong too. 200mm on m43 = 400mm full frame equiv. 300mm on APS = 450mm full frame. So you lose 50mm equiv. Not so much to get in a twist over.
 
pepper said:
I'm looking around at the GF1 but am swayed towards the Pen e-pl1 with its built in image stability rather than having to buy it in each lens it seems a little better to me.
Click to expand...

I am amazed by the amount of people who say the same sort of thing. The reason being that Canon and Nikon are without doubt the most most used DSLRs and they both use image stabilization in the lens. If it is OK for them why to people criticize Panasonic for the same thing.

This is not a criticism of anyone just a personal observation.
 
I wonder that myself Sandiman. I have had no issues shooting with the 20mm without IS and the 45-200mm does have built-in stabilization, so there's no need for it in the body either.

Perhaps those arguing against no OIS in the body, are people who have a lot of old lenses without IS they want to use with a smaller body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top