Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by Jonkobeck, Aug 12, 2010.
How does the G1 compare in IQ to the canon Rebel line?
I don't know how reliable this site is, but I came across the link to it yesterday
Bildqualität | Testbericht zur Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 | Testberichte | dkamera.de | Das Digitalkamera-Magazin
you can play around with raw, jpeg, iso for all sorts of different cameras
I don't think its a silly question at all, and I'm sure lots of people have asked themselves the same thing. I know I have.
The balance of cost and form had me won over with M4/3. I've seen enough good images from the format to know that if I don't get them, it's me, not the camera!
The Canon Rebels have about a 1-stop advantage in high ISO noise over the G1, and a bit more headroom in the highlights if you are shooting RAW. Other than that, I think the G1 compares very well to the Canons (pretty much equal image quality).
I think before you asks if it is a G1 over a Rebel you should ask yourself what are your shooting needs. If you know what your needs you will not have to ask. If you still are unsure of your needs and have to ask, then either camera will do you well.
My advice is, if you are not sure, go down to your local camera store and play with both cameras. Buy the one that feel right in your hands.
Shoot a lot of sports? or other things moving fast then maybe a rebel. Travel a lot then the G1. I have both (Oly not Pana) and I would sell the 1000d before I sell the E-p1. Now between the 5d and E-p1 would be a harder one as the 5d is my bread and butter and for some reason people equate a big cam with more pro results. Though I now do 99% of my art with the Pen and a Ricoh Gx100.
I would agree with what has been written about the fact the Rebel will give you better low light/highISO performance. I owned an Xsi for a year or so and had an opportunity to try out a friend's T2i for a couple weeks. I would say up to 800 iso they are equal and after that the Rebel T2i is a little better, but in my case, I rarely go above 800 so the G1/G2 works fine. I never found the Rebel line to be very good for real action sports and suggest that if that is your need, then you need to look at least at the 50d or maybe the rumored 60d as the baseline fps for action sports shooting. The T2i does focus quickly and as you are probably aware, does excel in the video realm. It is a huge hit for Canon, but in my case, I prefer the G2. I have seen some direct IQ comparisons on a couple sites, and they pretty much mirror what has been written in response here so far.
When you see the G series bodies compared to the Rebels without lenses they don't appear too much different in bulk, but when you start adding on the typical Canon lenses that you would use, the size and weight advantage clearly goes to the G series.
If you plan on shooting a moving subject in continuous mode, the rebel is the clear choice. My G1 is practically useless in continuous mode...
Glass is also an important aspect of IQ. Rebel wins there as well as Canon has a good selection of high end glass.
For sheer enjoyment of shooting, I prefer my E-PL1. Much more so that my 5d and 1dmII.
No silly question and no silly answers here so far either.
Many of us thinking about m43 go through the same/comparable phase. I continue thinking about the GF1 (or upcoming GF2) versus the K-7 (or upcoming succcessor).
For me the grip of the K-7 on portrait / tele zoom applications is potentially becoming a winner. On the other hand for applications on which I can use LCD, I can only use the LX3 that is always in my wife's bag.
So then my LX3 might stay the camera I always have with me (/us). But the DSLR will become the camera that I will never leave in the bag when I have it with me...
It all depends on your intended applications and camera's you already have.
- If I didn't have LX3 and LX5 would not have been announce then I would for sure have gone for GF1 with 20 mm F1.7 (and 1-2 other lenses over time).
- And don't forget, looking for a camera/lens is also part of the fun, enjoy!!!
Funny you should ask. I was looking to get back into digital after taking a 4 year detour into film rangefinders. And with there appearing to be no affordable digital rangefinders on the market, I reluctantly decided that a dslr would be my only serious option. My budget was fairly open, but I was trying to keep it around $1000 for a body and lens.
After looking at a bazillion reviews, and having predetermined that I would prefer Canon over Nikon for personal reasons, I gave the new T2i a serious look. I've used a digital Rebel in the past for work-related photos, and found it to be fairly competent and reasonably compact. Not nearly as compact as my beloved rangefinders, tho. But as I said, my options were rather limited, or so I thought.
I went to a local camera store to play around with the Canon and get a feel for the ergonomics. It's definitely true as they say about finding something that feels right to you. The clerk was very nice about letting me futz around with the T2i all I wanted, but it just seemed huge in my hands compared to the Leicas and my Zeiss Ikon. I set the camera down on the counter and right under the glass was an Oly E-P1. I had only heard of those in passing, and had never given them much thought. But I was a huge fan of the original Pens, and just had to hold one while I had the chance.
I picked it up and it immediately felt 'right'. Sure, the focus was a little slow, but since I hadn't used autofocus in years, it was a whole lot easier than my usual practice. After a few minutes with the digital Pen, I gave it back and felt that the dslr wasn't for me. The E-P1 (or rather, the E-P2) deserved some consideration and research.
Long story short.. oops, too late for that.. I bought an E-P2 (with EVF) the day after I found out I could mount my Leica glass on it. Since then I've been selling off my rangefinders as I highly doubt they will see any more use.
But going back to your original question about the comparison... it's really a personal choice. On paper (and in practice) the Canon Rebels are very good cameras for the money. There are a lot of great canon lenses out there. And on the other hand, you know there are tons of G1 fans here. What I think is the tie-breaker (all else being equal) is that the G1 can mount practically any lens you get your hands on.
But again, ergonomics will probably make the decision for you. Try them both. Pick the one that feels better. That's the one you'll want to reach for when you walk out the door.
In looking at the site and doing the comparable, I notice the images from the G1 are very yellowish, with a tungsten look. The whites are way off. What's gives? White balance problem?
I am also looking at that site and like the result of the Canon 550D most over Panasonic, Olympus and Pentax.
- Canon 550D = Rebel T2i = Kiss X4
And some where I still have some Canon lenses...
btw... image-resource has sample images and a website that makes it easy to view comparisons. Both the G1 and Rebels are listed.
Just in case you haven't already found it.
I am getting impression 7D and 550D perform close to equal...
- And the K-x seems to be better than 550D (just like on on dpreview?!?!?!)
I think every new generation sensor is pretty good and it gets better every time!!!
The yellow tone is odd - it's unfortunate the testers didn't set the white balance to compensate
I've never seen anything wrong with the yellow and am mystified where this comes from. The colours are very accurate and auto WB probably better than any other camera I've had overall which means about 75% acceptable (worst is always in high contrast scenes which most cameras frequently make too blue) but of course you should always shoot RAW to adjust the other 25%.
Yes the WB doesn't concern too much, since I always raw it and do my own in Photoshop. I know I'm beating thisnto death. As a former 5D owner, I am used to a super fast af, low light performance, and tack sharp images. But I'm not writing the G1 off just yet.
I think the images can be just as good ad the from the 5D, its just they require a little more post production, perhaps a tripod or faster kens then the kit lens, and of couse careful composition. I loved my 5D but it was the size and weight that caused me not to carry it more often then not. I do a great deal of interior shots. I'm working on a project right now of photographing people in their living spaces. (fine art). With the 5Di would just shoot at 1600 iso. I cant don that with the panny and print as big as I do. So I am thinking, maybe the 20mm pancake might don the trick for me
If you're concerned about high ISO performance, see if you can find a GH1 rather than a G1 - it's quite a bit better in this department.
strangely, in a mad moment, I had considered getting the GH1 and selling the lens as the cam has come right down in price and has a £75 cashback. More sensible for me though, is to wait for the next generation of sensors. I'm not too worried about missing out in the meantime.
There was a thread here a few months ago from someone who uses their m-4/3s for what you described but mostly in situations where there was good light. I had excellent images in very low light at 1600 and even 3200 with a 50mm f/1.4 when I borrowed the T2i for a couple weeks. If the 20mm won't do it, perhaps you need to consider the fact you might need to have both. With all the camera stores in NYC, you could always buy the 20mm and if it didn't work out exchange it towards the T2i.
Separate names with a comma.