Hi Guys,

It seems very strange to me that with the upcoming release of this new camera that the 'collective' has not been discussing the pros and cons of such a radical new approach?
Personally I see it as an absolute 'no brainer' for underwater use. It has a very large screen with live view that is not hamstrung in anyway by shutter lag that seems to be the main complaint of the P&S fraternity. No mirror to pivot out of the way, so no 'lag' time. It also houses the Olympus/Zuiko lenses that are reputed to be 'second to none' as far as optics are concerned.
Apart from the fact that no major housing manufacturer has expressed any interest in this camera yet, I can't see why it wouldn't be the perfect upgrade for a P&S exponent, or more importantly, for an old git like meself that can't see close enough to count me fingers. . . .
Now, I could be out on a limb here, and looking like a complete dickhead, but what does The Forum think of this units prospects. . . . .
Please join in folks...

Bruce...

I think it's great to see Panasonic moving into a new area here. While I haven't heard how the camera performs, you're right Bruce in that it may become the next logical step for P&S owners, to the extent that they may never move onto 'traditional' dSLR's. I guess this will depend on image quality these cameras end up being capable of producing though.

It would be great to see housing manufacturers pick this camera up, however, I don't think it will be too long before other camera companies join in. Canon have said that they're looking at 'participating' in this new technology (link).

Ryan.

The problem is that housing manufacturers cannot see beyond canon and nikon. And the two big player play safe, so radical changes are coming from smaller players (Panasonic is actually big but its photo division is small).

By the way I mentioned this camera weeks before in the sony a900 thread as another very promising but totally ignored camera for UW purpose.

But I bet that the olympus version will have UW support (at least from Oly)

The new DMC-G1K (I presume you are speaking of) looks like a really nice camera, and state-of-the-art when it comes to it's live view implementation. For me, I am not ready to give up my viewfinder. Given a choice for most situations I prefer my camera held in close looking through a viewfinder for composing my images. Now if this camera incorporated a viewfinder and was in effect a rangefinder camera as well, I would consider buying one.

It has a high resolution electronic viewfinder. According to the previews it's not that bad.

Definitely worth looking at, I think. From the perspective initially proposed in this thread, moving up from a P&S, I think this looks like a great camera. From the perspective of someone who already has a Canon or Nikon DSLR I don't see any real attraction to moving to this format, as the new Canon / Nikon models are incorporating similar features and more, without huge differences in camera size in the consumer ends of their lines.
I have always been an Olympus fan, so I think they they are the most innovative company when it comes to squeezing the most quality out of the most compact package.

I think the difference in camera (and hopefully lens) size is significant. I can imagine a very compact system around this camera.

Cameras like the D40 /D60 are pretty compact as well. I carry my daughters D40, and I'd probably drop it if it were much smaller.

Hi Jeff,
In my case, I am looking at this new camera as a replacement for my Nexus housed Nikon D70S. The reason being that I am losing the old age fight with presbiopia.
I'm now at +2.5 and my normal distance vision is perfect. I have corrective lenses in my masks and sometimes get the feeling of being sea-sick from changing vision from +2.5 to normal and then back to +2.5. It gives mwe the whirlies. . . .
Anyway, after the quality of a DSLR, it kinda 'irks' me to have to downgrade to a P&S. My current line of thinking is to give one of the aftermarket viewfinders a go and see if this can help with my vision problems. I'm hoping that a $500 fix will be better than a complete system change over.
Bruce...

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for starting this discussion.

Ultimately, the questions are: how easy is it to use, how is the image quality, and will it be as versatile as other DSLR's.

Another point about the size (for underwater shooters): after the camera is housed, mounted on a base/tray, and 2 strobes attached, is it going to feel smaller than a housed E420 or even a Digital Rebel? I personally don't think so.

Cheers
James

Yeah, I sympathize with you, having just had to get a new stronger bifocal prescription in my mask. I could not dive or photograph without it.
I also could not function without my GS viewfinder on my Subal D200 (never mind a D70) and one of the main reasons I'm thinking of housing my D700 is the larger viewfinder. The bigger the better as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure that LiveView on a 3" screen is better than a large viewfinder though. I could be shown that I'm wrong, I'm just not sure an LCD solves our problem, it's rather that whatever screen or viewfinder we have it must fill the largest amount of our field of vision when looking at it.

I think those are exactly the questions.

I agree with James that the overall size of the rig may not be much different, and even if it is it won't make the camera easier to use. If the camera has to use 4/3 lenses then it will be constrained to mostly the same size as the 4/3 system. Ease of use is also determined by controls, bouyancy, and finder optics. The size of the body doesn't determine those characteristics, it determines ease of travel.

Image quality will always lag larger formats. This new system may ultimately offer something good enough, but the downgrade is hardly exciting.

Versatility is where this new camera fails. There's not a single lens for the new mount that's interesting underwater. Maybe in the future, but not now.

Regarding presbyopia, that's what the finder diopter is for. I have presbyopia, I have perfect far vision thanks to lasik, and I have no problem using viewfinders as long as the diopter adjustment is right. Perhaps the range just isn't enough.

I found with the Subal 180 finder that I could back away from the eyepiece and it would work better for me. I haven't found that with the Inon 45 for whatever reason. It's possible that a magnified finder with a proper diopter adjustment could solve the problem or reduce it enough to where a low power mask is all that's necessary. I wouldn't bail out on viewfinders altogether without giving the options a try. I'd rather have a lens that works and struggle with the finder than be able to compose images that I do not want.

A question to the mathematicians and scientific 'learned' folks among us?
I realise tha Panasonic are 'in bed' with Olympus on this deal and are using Olympus' lenses for the new camera.
Now we all know about 'cropping factors' etc., and that Olympus' is around the 2.0 mark, but will this be any furthe affected by the lack of mirrors
or penta prisms, etc.??
The other concern/thought of mine is within relation to the use of current Olympus four thirds lenses on this new G1 camera.
Will the use of an adapter, to allow the larger diameter and different mounts, of the current crop of lenses alter any of the existing mathematicals? i.e. cropping factor, focal length???

Just thr ramblings of an unsound mind . . . .

Bruce...

BTW, Thanks Jeff, I will have to have alook around. I'm unsure as to 45' or 180'.

UM, I think that Craig just about answered everything here while I was typing it out... Thanks Craig!

This is the mock-up of the olympus implementation of micro 4/3:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina...us/DSC_0705.jpg

I think, it would be possible to design a significantly smaller housing for this camera than the current DSLR ones. Add only one smaller strobe and you have an easy to trawel with rig with not much picture quality compromise.

The lens adapter allows 4/3 lenses without crop factor but it precludes extension tubes and teleconverters. Most of the flexibility of existing 4/3 systems lenses is available but that's less than what your Nexus D70 offers. The big loss is in the shorter macro range, though a good midrange zoom could be an effective substitute.

I'd think the Sigma 17-70 macro would be great on 4/3. The 18-50 macro is available and is faster. Either would be good for portraits and offers pretty good macro magnification given the crop factor.

The lens roadmap of panasonic is not really underwater friendly. Let's hope olympus comes up with a better plan.

I, too, have presbyopia. I have no trouble looking through the viewfinder on my D300 in the housing but the huge LCD on the back of the camera is so blurred as to only be useful for giving a rough idea of exposure. Using a camera with live view instead of a viewfinder would be worse for me than a dSLR.

In keeping this discussion going, I just noticed that Olympus showed a mockup at Photokina to try to demonstrat how "streamlined" the new format could be. Check out this link:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092208...four_thirds.asp

While something this small might be bit problematic (e.g, how easily could one adjust aperture and shutter speed given the control layout), it does speak to the potential for developing very small camera bodies to operate with SLR lenses . . .

Mike

I posted a link for this mockup above, without any reply. The majority of UW-photogs seems to be not that excited. But I am.
The panasonic G1 makes not much size difference but the olympus does. I think it's a great opportunity to have comparable image quality to the recent entry level DSLRs in a very compact size. I'm sure olympus will make fantastic macro lens for this system.

By the way there is a short review-like article about panasonic G1 in the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/technolo...nted=1&_r=1
Panasonic G1 is a nice try but the full advantage of this system will be shown in future models. I think we will discuss micro 4/3 a lot in 2009.

I am intrigued with the possibilities of the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system. After reading some reviews for the Panasonic G1, I think I will wait and see what Olympus releases in '09. The G1 shutter lag is a slow compared to SLRs though it is faster than digicams.

I miss my ole F4 sports finder view. It was full frame and I could extend the housing out a full arms' length to distance myself from skittish critters and still compose in the v/f. My first digital venture into u/w photography was a CP 9500 (?) in a homemade housing. I like the view, the rest ugh! I would like to try live view on a 3" screen with out a shutter lag penalty.

I don't think the two MFT kit lens are of much interest u/w, but some of the existing 4/3 lenses for MFT camera with adapter might be:
35 mm macro @ 1:1 or equivalent to 2:1 in 35 mm format.
7-14 zoom
8 fish eye

Oh, one more thing - Seatool & Nexus have E3 housings. May be they will produce an Oly MFT.

Ikelite also supports olympus. I'm sure that oly will also provide an UW-housing for it. If they have a good lens roadmap I would really consider to buy into the system. The m4/3 version of the 35mm macro and the 8mm fisheye would be fine as a beginning.

There is a bit of excitement over the G1 by Leica rangefinder camera enthusiasts due to the short BF distance that allows room for lens adapters. The downside is the 2x crop factor. OTOH, the 75/1.4 becomes a '150'/1.4!
Tom

Tom,
For the non-industry types que est "BF"? - "short BF distance "

back focus
The body is very thin.

Decided to check out the "electronic viewfinder" as an Optometrist.

So I went down to Sammy's and spent an hour with the camera and one of their excellent staff.

A bit of background on camera optics.

The image through the viewfinder on a SLR is focused at optical infinity. If your distance vision is properly corrected you see the image clearly.

Focusing on a LCD is another matter. It takes a lot of accommodating to focus on one. Even the best ones have a resolution that sucks in comparison with a decent optical viewfinder making the focus that much harder.

If you are over 50 you can't do it. No matter how perfect your distance vision is. You have to use your reading prescription. This is the dreaded presbyopia. Your reading prescription has to be focused at the correct distance and has to be in a position that you can actually see through it to view your LCD screen.

Had to laugh at the poster who has "perfect vision due to their LASIK surgery" Well, no. Lasik, if you don't get the blue light special, can focus your eyes for any particular focal distance. If your under 45 and the lasik is focused for optical infinity then you can see all distances well. When you get over 50, though you won't see anything up close without a reading prescription. You could have one eye focused close and the other far away. You have to pick where up close you want that eye fixed and there are other complications to doing so.

The summary of all this is it can be hard to see an LCD (which is what an EVF is) if you are over 50.

So can you see the EVF on the Pano G1?

In a word yes. The EVF has a diopter dial that goes +4 to -4. I shot with each of my eyes. One had a contact lens focused at distance. By adjusting the diopter dial I was able to see the viewfinder clearly and shoot the camera. The other eye had a bifocal contact lens in it. This lens works well for computers, gauges and such. But it doesn't focus well on LCD screens if you hold them too close. With a different adjustment of the diopter dial I was once again able to see the EVF clearly on the G1.

The LCD or EVF on the G1 shows you where the camera is focused. It appears to me you should be able to shoot this camera with your distance vision if you are over 50. You should of course test the camera for yourself hands on. I did not shoot and print out any photos.

I would still prefer an optical viewfinder. I got an auxiliary voigtlander optical viewfinder for my LX3. It slips into the standard hotshoe on the top of the LX3 and is very compact.

Anyway if you don't want to read all the above and you are over 50: the Panasonic G1 with it's EVF appears to function fine without needing your reading glasses.

In terms of domes required for fisheye or WA fotography what determines the size of the dome? the focal length? In that case it it right that the dome sizes would be the same as for equvalent 4/3 lenses, and thus advantages in size body thickness and thus overall size of the housing, right ?

/O

Hi Bruce!

I'm following the mFT system with great interest. I haven't had time to test the camera topside yet. There is more to come from Olympus. I'm looking forward to provide a housing for one of those.

Helge ;-)=)

Ikelite offers its big dome port for the olympus 8mm FE lens which is rather big. I don't know how big the dome port is offered for the original olympus housings.

HI!

The original Olympus port seems a bit strange to me. It allows an angle of about 100° maximum. This would be ok for the 11-22mm lens for which they provide a flat port. It is too narrow for the 7-14mm that isn't positioned properly when using the Olympus extension ring. Nevertheless it works quite well with the 8mm FE lens. The outer diameter is < 7" as far as I remember. Haven't got one here to take an exact measure.
Panasonic announced an mFT version of the 7-14mm f4 so we'll be able to compare directly. I hope there'll be an 8mm FE too. This lens is my personal favourite when shooting UW wides.

Helge ;-)=)

Both Athena and Inon Make Domes for the Olympus as well. I just received the 9-18mm lens I ordered. I was somewhat shocked by how small it is. It looks identical to the 14-42mm lens with a WA element on the end. It only weighs slightly more than the 14-42mm.

The Olympus dome port is 170 mm and uses the same glass as the Athena 170 mm port. Athena also makes a 220 mm port which is best for the 7 to 14 mm zoom.

Inon's port is small and very nice but is designed only for the 8 mm fisheye lens.

Olympus says the 9 to 18 works well with the 170 mm dome and no extension. I have not been able to test this combination because I am still waiting for the lens to arrive.

Although these cameras should allow for a very small housing it seems that the ports would remain about the same size since no change is being made in the sensor size over the existing 4/3 camera bodies and current ports could be interchanged.

Phil Rudin

Can I assume that the design of a compact dome port is possible only when it's specifically designed for a certain lens (eg. Inon's port for 8mm FE)?
On the other hand a universal dome port should be large. Am I right?

Hi!

I tested the lens topside. It's a lot value for money.Let us know how it performs UW.

Helge ;-)=)

Hi!

It's a bit more complicated. A WA dome is a lens. The water(-glass)-air border has a refracting effect. The result is a spherical virtual image of the world outside. Depending on the dome diameter (the diameter of the glass sphere, not the vertical measurement of the dome) infinity is projected into another distance. The larger the diameter the further away will be infinity. Average domes show UW-infinity around 300mm. It depends on the close focus ability of the lens if you need a diopter to be able to focus properly.
The image is spherical, that means bent inward towards the corners. A WA lens is built to produce a flat image of a flat surface. This leads to problems (corner sharpness) if the DOF can't cover for the bending. A larger dome gives a less bent image.
All this may be degraded further by a wrongly positioned lens.
The conclusion is: The larger the dome, the better the chance for good image quality.

An FE lens, in contrast, produces a flat image of a spheric surface. To an FE lens, the virtual image caused by a dome is "natural". It therefore causes far less problems. The wider DOF and usual close focus ability helps too. You may use a smaller dome without risking image quality.

Helge ;-)=)