I’ve been excited about four-thirds cameras for a while now. They seem like a great idea – DSLR power in a point-and-shoot package. However, after the Olympus E-P1 I’m worried that manufacturers are treating these cameras as beta hardware and the real models won’t be stable for a few years. That said, I’m still interested in the format and I’ll be impressed once Canon and Nikon get in on the act.
This model was fairly standard. There’s no viewfinder – a big minus – but it has a 12-megapixel sensor and seems to take some nice shots. The size is just right and it has plenty of standard functions like scene modes and full manual control if you need it. I’m anxious to get my hands on one of these and give it a good drubbing.
Also I just noticed what was on the screen on one of these shots. Unintentional, I assure you.
Photo Gallery by Picturesurf
I’ve been very interested in them as well, but what concerns me most about the current models is the price; $900 for the basic camera and one lens is just way too high. Considering the quality that you can get from something like the Lumix DMC-ZS3, with 12mp, 12x optical zoom, image stabilization at only 1/3rd the price, an M-F/T just doesn’t make any sense.
WEATHERMAN!? – It’s 1/3 the price because of the huge difference in the sensor size! And you have interchangeble lenses here! Hello!?? Are you comparing megapixels or something? No – there is no comparison here.
What was the point of this article? Says nothing, shows nothing. The only thing new is the author’s statement that he would like to see what Canon and Nikon will do..
There is a change coming in photography where we are going to see a separation of sensor and camera. It must, it cannot continue like this. We get charged a fortune for a camera that is out of date by the time its available. Why? Because the sensor is everything these days and this changes almost daily with newer and better models coming out making the old sensor (and the camera that it is permanently attached to) obsolete. All that has happened since film days is that they have taken out the film, and put in a sensor but whereas in the old days you could just keep putting the newer and better film into your great camera, now…you cant, the sensor (film) is now part of the camera! Any they still want us to pay top dollar! No way, if I bought a film camera and was told I could only ever use the quality of film that came with it and never up grade the film…I would not be keen. I think they have a name for such cameras…disposable! We need an solid beautiful camera that we can put newer and better sensors into as time goes on (just like we did with film in the old days). Leica for example make a really good £5000 disposable camera…No thanks. Spend your money on lenses…they don’t get out dated ever 6 months.
Steve,
I agree with you; and I was thinking the same thing. But my last digital camera is an LX3 and the previous a Nikon Coolpix. I still like my Coolpix. I do not use it as much because nearly all electronics that has are getting old. The camera itself has started giving issues. So I think that it is OK to buy another camera after 10 years or so…
Can someone PLEASE take this 4/3 small body design and add a true rangefinder for manual focusing? They’re in the right ballpark with the design, but still missing a key ingredient. They keep thinking “better point and shoot”, but many experienced photographers will look and say “failed rangefinder”.
I want the onboard flash from PANASONIC GF 1 and the image stabalization from the OLYMPUS .i want THE PANASONIC 1.7 LENS for low light shots and bokem.. I want the optional electronic viewfinder on the PANASONIC…Nothing is perfect…I better come back next year …ha ha
Dave is absolutely right: the Panasonic GF 1, Olympus E-P1, Leica X-1, Canon G10 and G11 and the like are all failed rangefinder cameras. Why on earth doesn’t any of the big companies produce a decent digital rangefinder camera? There’s no need to reinvent the wheel: Leica’s M3 came out in 1954, followed by dozens of cheaper rangefinder cameras by Voigtländer, Canon, Agfa, Contax etc. that had all better integrated viewfinders than anything we’re getting today. Strange new world…
Peter Halter
Like Peter, I am disappointed with the lack of an affordable digital rangefinder. I have an LX3 with a voightlander 21mm finder, i disable the playback screen, and love it. The GF1’s video VF leaves me cold. The IDEA is almost there, but they are still a notch below what a lot of pros like myself would use daily.
And Contax was SO CLOSE with the G2. I still think about buying one because they were nearly perfect. I am amazed that no one bought their tooling to convert those cameras to digital.Maybe the micro 4/3 is their resurrection.
Actually, the Contax G2 was perfect. I regret selling mine a few years ago. I waited and waited to see if they would sell a digital version, but when they went out of business, I sold it and bought a Nikon DSLR. I should have kept the Contax. It was the best camera I’ve ever owned. I recently bought the E-P1 but I find it frustrating in low light particularly. I’ve yet to see a digital camera with the ease, simplicity, and quality images of the Contax. I would shoot in the middle of the night, hand held, with 400 film and the shots would be beautiful and interesting. So yes, go buy one. They’re wonderful! I keep hoping there will be a digital equivalent for less than the Leica M9, but alas, I fear I will spend the same thousands and thousands over the years looking for the perfect digital rangefinder, a chimera if there ever was one. The Contax was the only camera I ever needed to own, really.