GX1 or G3?

[soundimageplus]

David (soundimageplus) confirmed, saying the gx1 was slightly softer, but about the same shape. IIRC, he didn't love it on the G3 and didn't like it much better on the GX1.

Just to say I have changed my mind on this. (So whats new!!) Taking it out for afternoon, I found the GX1 grip more comfortable than the G3. It is slightly, though not much, bigger, but the rubberised, mottled grip is easier to hold and not so slippy as the G3. Consequently, my hand was a lot less tense, and I didn't feel the need to hold on to it quite so strongly, which resulted in less discomfort. Just one of those little things that you don't find out without some time actually using the camera.

On the original question, I've sold my black G3 and bought a silver GX1 + Viewfinder.

If anyone else has a GX1 already, I'd be interested in your reaction to this. I've just written two blog pieces on what I think is a somewhat improved dynamic range performance from the GX1. It seems to tolerate lifting shadows better than any m4/3 camera I've used, and I've been getting some results that are not a million miles away from what the Sony 16MP sensor in the D7000, K5 and NEX-5n will do. Which is allow shadows to be lightened without adding much noise, at low ISO settings.

Soundimageplus: Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - First serious shoot and some interesting discoveries

Soundimageplus: Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - More thoughts on dynamic range

If anybody has anything to substantiate this or if you think I'm talking out of my lens cap, I'd be interested in some feedback. But I'm certainly getting some remarkable results.

 

[MacBook]

No grip gripes for the G3. Much prefer the internal EVF to an external one. The sensor on the G3 also allows pretty good post-processing of shadows. Is the GX-1 different? The biggest challenge, as always, is this photographer!

 

[MrDoug]

Geesh.. you guys make it hard.. but thanks for all the great feedback.. Just curious if the Olympus VF-2 would work on GX1?

 

[GaryAyala]

This is all so odd to me. Who give a rats about the grip??? It is all about the image. I used to do this for a living ... if the camera was round ... okay you accommodated the round shape ... if the camera was a tall box ... okay ... if it was a wide pentagon ... okay ... one learned to accomodate the particularities of the hardware. Grips-Schmips ... (I've seen a lot of chatter about grips in other threads as well.)

I am not saying to make cameras user unfriendly ... but human ergonomics go into the design of all modern consumer/professional handheld digital cameras, after a brief adjustment period ... For the vast majority of us, I don't think there will be any significant usage/feel difference between cameras. In my book if the grip makes a difference between getting the shot or not ... then you're in the wrong hobby.

(better sit down for this remark) ... It is cameras that take pictures not people. People need to learn to accomodate what ever camera/system that delivers the best image for their needs and quit wasting time on less than relevant stuff like grips.

Bah Humbug,
Gary

PS- I can see a line or two ... no just make that one line, on how this grip feels better than that grip ... similar to this color looks nicer than that color ... but it is all cosmetic ... neither the color nor the grip will have a significant or any effect upon the final image.

That being said, I think the black GX1 is a lot more sexy than the silver.
G

PPS- Merry Christmas one and all :smile:

 

[crsnydertx]

This is all so odd to me. Who give a rats about the grip??? It is all about the image. I used to do this for a living ... if the camera was round ... okay you accommodated the round shape ... if the camera was a tall box ... okay ... if it was a wide pentagon ... okay ... one learned to accomodate the particularities of the hardware. Grips-Schmips ...

I am not saying to make cameras user unfriendly ... but human ergonomics go into the design of all modern consumer/professional handheld digital cameras, after a brief adjustment period ... For the vast majority of us, I don't think there will be any significant usage/feel difference between cameras. In my book if the grip makes a difference between getting the shot or not ... then you're in the wrong hobby.

(better sit down for this remark) ... It is cameras that take pictures not people. People need to learn to accomodate what ever camera/system that delivers the best image for their needs and quit wasting time on less than relevant stuff like grips.

Gary

PS- I can see a line or two ... no just make that one line, on how this grip feels better than that grip ... similar to this color looks nicer than that color ... but it is all cosmetic ... neither the color nor the grip will have a significant or any effect upon the final image.

That being said, I think the black GX1 is a lot more sexy than the silver.
G

Perhaps it's just because I'm old and increasingly inflexible (both physically and mentally), but ergonomics is and always will be an important factor in my choice of any gear. All other things being more or less equal, if the camera doesn't fit well in my hands, it won't be in my hands; there are plenty of choices out there and fairly flexible retail and used markets to facilitate moving the equipment among buyers and sellers.

Now if there was one camera that had IQ that was significantly above other choices and it had a lousy grip, would I buy it and learn to adapt? Maybe...but doubtful, as I don't believe my endpoint needs to be the best IQ but rather "good enough". That criterion opens the door to lots of nearly-equal choices, so why not add "feels good" and even "looks good" to the list of values?

Just one old man's position...

 

[carpandean]

@GaryAyala: the G3 and the GX1 internals are nearly identical (same sensor, similar processor - maybe slightly updated on the GX1, even same viewfinder technology), so any discussion of IQ will be about very minor differences. That means that the only differences to be discussed are shape (hump/protrusions on G3 vs. boxy GX1), ergonomics, build quality, and a few features/controls (flip screen on G3, more controls on GX1, fixed vs. removable viewfinder.) So, while it is a secondary concern when comparing cameras in general, ergonomics is a big part of what's left when deciding between these two options. I, personally, found the G3 very difficult to hold. If it gave me far better better images than the GX1, then I wouldn't have considered the GX1, instead looking for more comfortable options with similar or better IQ.

When you're a paid professional, it's fine to say "I chose the best tool (in terms of IQ), regardless of how much I did or did not like using it, because I have to get these shots." When you're just a hobbyist, it often comes down to "I choose the tool that I'm most likely to actually take with me and use." If I switch from the GH2 to the GX1, it will be because I find the GH2 still too big to want to bring with me many times. The GX1 will give me close enough performance in a package that I will be more likely to want to bring with me.

 

[soundimageplus]

Yeah quite right. Same old nonsense about musical instruments. If you're a musician you should be able to play anything right?

As the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band said: Eric Clapton on ukelele.

This is all so odd to me. Who give a rats about the grip??? It is all about the image. I used to do this for a living ... if the camera was round ... okay you accommodated the round shape ... if the camera was a tall box ... okay ... if it was a wide pentagon ... okay ... one learned to accomodate the particularities of the hardware. Grips-Schmips ... (I've seen a lot of chatter about grips in other threads as well.)

I am not saying to make cameras user unfriendly ... but human ergonomics go into the design of all modern consumer/professional handheld digital cameras, after a brief adjustment period ... For the vast majority of us, I don't think there will be any significant usage/feel difference between cameras. In my book if the grip makes a difference between getting the shot or not ... then you're in the wrong hobby.

(better sit down for this remark) ... It is cameras that take pictures not people. People need to learn to accomodate what ever camera/system that delivers the best image for their needs and quit wasting time on less than relevant stuff like grips.

Bah Humbug,
Gary

PS- I can see a line or two ... no just make that one line, on how this grip feels better than that grip ... similar to this color looks nicer than that color ... but it is all cosmetic ... neither the color nor the grip will have a significant or any effect upon the final image.

That being said, I think the black GX1 is a lot more sexy than the silver.
G

PPS- Merry Christmas one and all :smile:

 

[GaryAyala]

...

As the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band said: Eric Clapton on ukelele.

Yep ... :smile:

(... as for me, once the camera is lifted to my eye the only thing I feel is in my shutter release finger.)

G

 

[GaryAyala]

PS- Those are valid remarks .. even I say to use "feel" as the last determining factor in choosing a camera. On the flip side, I still think you can teach an old dog some new tricks.

G

 

[dhazeghi]

Just to say I have changed my mind on this. (So whats new!!) Taking it out for afternoon, I found the GX1 grip more comfortable than the G3. It is slightly, though not much, bigger, but the rubberised, mottled grip is easier to hold and not so slippy as the G3. Consequently, my hand was a lot less tense, and I didn't feel the need to hold on to it quite so strongly, which resulted in less discomfort. Just one of those little things that you don't find out without some time actually using the camera.

On the original question, I've sold my black G3 and bought a silver GX1 + Viewfinder.

If anyone else has a GX1 already, I'd be interested in your reaction to this. I've just written two blog pieces on what I think is a somewhat improved dynamic range performance from the GX1. It seems to tolerate lifting shadows better than any m4/3 camera I've used, and I've been getting some results that are not a million miles away from what the Sony 16MP sensor in the D7000, K5 and NEX-5n will do. Which is allow shadows to be lightened without adding much noise, at low ISO settings.

Interesting stuff.

I'll probably regret asking this, but how clean is the GX1 at base ISO? If you run a GX1 file shot at ISO 160 through ACR, with all noise-reduction disabled, do you see color blotches and grain in uniformly-colored areas like sky, or is it actually smooth and free of artifacts?

I ask because I've started to really notice that the E-PM1 is actually quite noisy at base ISO, and though the substantial amount of chroma NR performed by ACR by default hides this. The downside is that you've got a lot less detail to work with, particularly when pushing the shadows, as I do. It sounds like you also do serious PP so, I'd be interested in your thought.

Cheers,

DH

 

[soundimageplus]

Interesting stuff.

I'll probably regret asking this, but how clean is the GX1 at base ISO? If you run a GX1 file shot at ISO 160 through ACR, with all noise-reduction disabled, do you see color blotches and grain in uniformly-colored areas like sky, or is it actually smooth and free of artifacts?

Its OK unless I start lightening shadows, though I do think that there is an improvement, over previous m4/3 cameras. Now I may be imagining this as I indicated, but it does seem possible to lift the shadows in a much more successful way. Its a fair amount of work, as I indicated in the blog post, but I've set up some presets to save doing it every time. The ACR screen shot I posted on my blog actually works really well at cleaning up the luminance noise / "grain", though it is dramatically different from the default settings. And if I do some serious lightening of the shadows, I will also do some colour noise reduction in Photoshop to remove the blotches etc.

I've done the same thing with previous m4/3 files I have and the GX1 files seem to degrade less. All of this leads me to suspect that the GX1 has a wider dynamic range than previous cameras, though by how much I wouldn't like to estimate currently, without shooting more pictures with the camera.

Now this wouldn't necessarily be surprising or unusual, since if a sensor has been used in a series of cameras, the chances are that the engineers have worked out how to get the processing engine to "compensate" for the sensor and "stretch" the limits of what the sensor can capture, when the sensor is "re-used" in a "new" camera.

In essence the GX1 unit must be basically the same design as what is in the G3, but (with what admittedly is a fairly short time with the camera) it does seem that there are improvements. It also seems that there is slightly better high ISO performance. Not huge admittedly, but somewhere around 1/2 stop with the raw files. Perversely the jpgs. at these higher ISO settings seem to have got worse!

Lets just say that I have been pleasantly surprised at what I'm getting. I was imagining that I would get very similar output to my G3, but after working with the files I feel that I can "get more" out of the GX1 files.

I would make the point that I am a serious "pixel peeper", but then the people who sell my images via libraries and many of the people who buy them are the same. So what others may regard as a marginal improvement can take on a greater signifance in this environment.

 

[dhazeghi]

In essence the GX1 unit must be basically the same design as what is in the G3, but (with what admittedly is a fairly short time with the camera) it does seem that there are improvements. It also seems that there is slightly better high ISO performance. Not huge admittedly, but somewhere around 1/2 stop with the raw files. Perversely the jpgs. at these higher ISO settings seem to have got worse!

Lets just say that I have been pleasantly surprised at what I'm getting. I was imagining that I would get very similar output to my G3, but after working with the files I feel that I can "get more" out of the GX1 files.

I would make the point that I am a serious "pixel peeper", but then the people who sell my images via libraries and many of the people who buy them are the same. So what others may regard as a marginal improvement can take on a greater signifance in this environment.

Thanks for the detailed comments! I guess I'd be classified as an 'apprentice' pixel peeper! I've become a lot pickier over time as I've found that it's often 1 step forward and 2 steps back with the new gear. Mainly, I've been trying to find a light-weight alternative to my DSLR that will offer similar quality in casual situations.

I tried the E-P2 last year and gave up mainly because of the slowness of the lenses. I tried the XZ-1 this year and the noise and pixel density did me in. Currently I'm using the E-PM1, which has been good, apart from the fact that I can't seem to get genuinely clean (noise-free) RAW images at any ISO.

It sounds like the RAW performance on the GX1 really is a step up from the 12MP m4/3 bodies. I'm more interested in low ISO than high because for high ISO, I'd be using a DSLR to begin with.

Do you know of any place that has GX1 raw samples that can be downloaded? Mainly I'd just like to feed them through my workflow and see what happens.

Thanks,

DH

 

[soundimageplus]

Funny you should mention that! I've just posted some on my blog at:-
Soundimageplus: Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - Some samples

Do you know of any place that has GX1 raw samples that can be downloaded? Mainly I'd just like to feed them through my workflow and see what happens.

 

[linkedit]

If you had Gun to your head with 30 seconds to decide, (and the new Dictator of N.Korea was holding the gun..LOL) and you were going to get it FREE so the money factor is not involved.. which one would you pick? :smile: I should also mention if you didn't know the price of each before hand.. EVF factor, Articulating screen etc.. taken into consideration. and also size.... comments please.. kinda of crazy question I understand.. just curious though..

Looks like you already own a E-P3? Why would you consider dropping 800 bucks on basically Panny's version of the E-P3?

Buy more glass, always a better investment.

 

[Armanius]

Looks like you already own a E-P3? Why would you consider dropping 800 bucks on basically Panny's version of the E-P3?

Buy more glass, always a better investment.

Better sensor. But crappier LCD.

 

[linkedit]

Better sensor. But crappier LCD.

Better sensor. But crappier LCD.

When you compare it to the G3 the E-P3 actually looks better, if not the same. Is another 7 or 800 dollars worth 1 stop or a little more ISO?

If the OP didn't already own an E-P3 I'd say, get the GX. Other than that not much different for the E-P3.

 

[dhazeghi]

Funny you should mention that! I've just posted some on my blog at:-
Soundimageplus: Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - Some samples

Thanks for the link! I'll have a play with those. Looks like you have quite the collection of cameras

DH

 

[okinana]

How many camera is enough?

Looks like you have quite the collection of cameras

 

[MrDoug]

Ok..after reading all your expert opinions, feedback and interaction with each other.. here is what I have decided to do before deciding on the G3 or GX1..: NOTHING.. hang tight and hold on to my money for another week and hope the GAS passes for a bit.... LOL> :smile: however, that decision could change by the time I wake up in the morning..
Merry Christmas to all..
Doug

 

[GaryAyala]

...
I would make the point that I am a serious "pixel peeper", ... So what others may regard as a marginal improvement can take on a greater signifance in this environment.

Me too. I found that using 100% crop as a bench mark to determine what I keep and what gets tossed, has made me a better photog.

Gary

PS- And after all this, MrDoug blows us all off ...
G