How does the Panasonic DMC-G1 hold up to newer u4/3 cameras?

joxang

joxang

Messages
216
Name
Joe Z
Edit My Images
Yes
Short version: Since I sold my 4/3 kit and got a great deal on a ricoh compact to tide me through, I've been waiting to buy into u4/3. A friend has a DMC-G1 that he wants to get rid of and I am sorely tempted as it would mean a lot more money to spend on lenses.

But I was wondering how the older camera stacks up to the newer generations, e.g. with the EP3/E-PL3 or the G3/GH2. Especially in terms of sensor performance (any improvements made to dynamic range etc), and the quality of the EVF (the pixel numbers look the same but has the actual EVF performance improved?).

Thanks for any input :D.
 
I'd be interested in what others think too as I have a GF1 and a G1 and have been thinking about swapping one or both for a G3.

This site allows you to compare RAW's. Looking at the G2 or GF1 v G3, as they don't include the G1, in some parts of the ISO 3200 image the G3 looks to be maybe a stop better but at other points in the image there doesn't seem to be any significant difference or possibly no difference at all. This seems to tie in with the 0.5 stop difference the second linked site claims.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg3/page18.asp

This site gives the pros and cons and they seem to be saying that the G3 is better, but the numbers do look small to me and seem to lack at least some credibility to me at least as they state that the G1's max ISO is 1600 but mine goes to 3200, although 1600 is the max it will select when set to auto ISO.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-G3-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-G1

One thing that I do like about the G1 is the manual controls rather than having to use the menu system. I use mine with a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 and with the screen folded to the body and turned off and a manual lens fitted I find it to be a very film like experience although the in view histogram is not very film like but very useful. I find the IQ to be ok even at ISO 1600 and in very low light I find that it tends to over expose a little and that initially shots do look very noisy but when this is brought back to a more realistic look things improve quite a bit and in fact only basic NR is then needed.

Looking purely at the numbers and the RAW shots on line I don't know if there's a significant IQ difference for me, but I am attracted to the slightly smaller form of the G3.
 
The more manual controls certainly do appeal to me, as does the folding screen. I didn't realise the G1 screen could fold in but I used to to that with me e620 and shoot as if there was only an optical finder :).

If anyone has information about whether the newer cameras' EVFs are better that would be great, especially for manual focusing.
 
Yes, that's how I shoot.

I don't have too much of a problem with the EVF with my f0.95 fitted but in very low light with a slower lens (or when not using the f0.95 at wide aperture) the display gets noisy but I try and balance that with the thought that with an OVF there's nothing you can do to see better, if it's dark then you simply can't see much.

I'll be interested to know what others think about the G3 EVF v earlier ones.
 
I've got a G1 and have felt no need to buy any other body, I considered the G3 but decided I didn't need it.
Im not impressed by incremental improvements, if I thought there was some real world benefit in buying a new model then I probably would, but currently the G1 suits me fine, IQ is good enough for me, I've taken it all round the world and it's never let me down.
 
joxang said:
Short version: Since I sold my 4/3 kit and got a great deal on a ricoh compact to tide me through, I've been waiting to buy into u4/3. A friend has a DMC-G1 that he wants to get rid of and I am sorely tempted as it would mean a lot more money to spend on lenses.

But I was wondering how the older camera stacks up to the newer generations, e.g. with the EP3/E-PL3 or the G3/GH2. Especially in terms of sensor performance (any improvements made to dynamic range etc), and the quality of the EVF (the pixel numbers look the same but has the actual EVF performance improved?).

Thanks for any input :D.
Click to expand...

Apart from GH1 and 2 (and maybe GX1), the sensor performance of all the other models is pretty equal, disregarding resolution changes.between them.
According to DXO ultimate raw performance goes to the GH1, the GH2 is hair splittingly close but gets you some extra resolution as a trade off.

The EVF is the same across all models fitted with them I believe and the GX1 is the first to get an updated one (but it's an add on one).

The newer cameras all have vastly better AF too.

GH1 was good for 1600ISO and with an ND8 grad was capable of most landscapes at base ISO. Dynamic range drops off a lot faster than ISO noise as the ISO is increasd, past 160 it's no good for landscape IMO. G1 is about a stop worse in performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top