PANASONIC GF1 AND CAMERA DESIGN

A couple of weeks ago I posted a comment in 4/3 rumors that I like to share with you (after a little editing).

After the release of the first model only, the GFx line has a huge potential to exploit yet. Under both design and ergonomics points of view. Although not to be necessarily imitated by Panasonic, Sony's NEX5 is a brilliant example of an innovatively clever and non-dogmatic engineering. As for image quality, the GFx line will follow its evolution as any other camera, with the introduction of backlit sensors, smarter algorythms and better processors. No matter the resolution, which is not an issue anymore. Firmware can evolve too, as it generally did in the past few years, towards a better jpg in-camera processing, thanks to selective noise-reduction and subsequently selective sharpening techniques. Such technology has already been implemented in recent Panasonic models. And good built-in viewfinders aren't too far away.

Menu and user interface are definitely a serious issue in modern camera design. High end DSLR are, basically, classic film SRL from the Fifties with a sensor hammered in, thus shouldn't be taken as good examples of  contemporary camera design. On the other hand low-end compacts must rely mostly on soft commands, as mechanical buttons and dials cost too much to manufacturers. IMHO Canon G10 is the first sensible attempt to supply photographers with an effective stills-capture physical interface. Forget about its menus, they are as crappy as the competitors’, but the exposure compensation and  ISO dials are a real luxury. Nothing else can help photographer better than that in his expose-to-the-right task. No doubt there is still a lot to do in order to build the perfect EVIL camera as far as this aspect is concerned. For instance, the standard mode dial could be replaced by a more useful speed (or aperture, or both) selector(s). And the card formatting command shouldn't be buried under three menu levels. And why do I have to choose between adaptive and non-adaptive LCD screen luminosity? Of course I need it to adapt itself to lighting conditions! And so on... Leica M digital cameras should be imitated with regard to menu simplification (only to that, I fear). I certainly dream of third-party firmware allowing us to make our life easier and get our cameras to operate more like cameras. Hackers all over the world, unite!

As for lenses, M43 market is still slow. But I'm sure it will be revitalized as soon as third-party manufacturers will start releasing their own M43 glasses. Which hopefully will be firmware in-camera corrected against vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration, so that they can cost less and, moreover, be lighter and smaller. There is a wide demand, spreading from ultra-fast primes to wide-range zooms (which is my case).

Comments

[Terence A]

Very good article, and I'll 2nd that. It's about time the product departments listened to the photogs........

[photo ex machina]

Beautiful structure to this shot! Well done!

[Miserere]

Gianni, I have to severely disagree with the following: "High end DSLR are, basically, classic film SRL from the Fifties with a sensor hammered in, thus shouldn't be taken as good examples of contemporary camera design."

Not only is this not true, it's the complete opposite of true! Only in the case of the Leica M9 is it correct, but the Leica isn't a DSLR.

The truth is that there are *many* photographers who would want nothing more than to have a camera from the 60's or 70's with a digital sensor shoehorned in. Something like a digital Olympus OM1, Nikon F2 or Pentax LX (which appeared in 1980, but shares the same gestalt).

Today's DSLRs are direct descendants of the plastic autofocus cameras of the 90s, when "small" stopped being a desirable trait it seems.

[Gianni Galassi]

Miserere,

no doubt you make a point here. I should have been more precise: in fact modern DSLR are wunderplastik SLR from the 90's with a sensor hammered in. And yes, many photographers would want a digital version of the smaller and lighter cameras from the 60's or the 70's. Including me. My piece of cake would be a Leica CL with a 4/3 sensor inside: imagine a breed from a Canon G10 and a Panasonic GF1 (maybe this is why I own both). We are getting close, anyway.

What strikes me is that the only way we can imagine a really modern camera is by looking back and refer to the 60's and 70's design. I feel we could look ahead and be more open to something really new. Perhaps learning from the recent amazing evolution of the point&shoot models.

[Miserere]

"What strikes me is that the only way we can imagine a really modern camera is by looking back and refer to the 60's and 70's design."

I think this is because those designers took the most essential elements of a camera, and left out anything that was superfluous. Only Leica has continued this tradition in modern days, but I don't have the money nor inclination to buy one, as I prefer SLRs to rangefinders.

As far as looking to the future, that's what I'm doing. I've spent the last 2 months shooting with a Samsung NX10, and I'm considering making it my main system for street photography (depending on what lenses Samsung rolls out in the next few months).

I agree that a G11 (I like the articulated screen) with a 4/3 sensor would be a step in the right direction. Would you want a fixed lens or interchangeable?

I don't know what we'll ever get the camera we want, but at least the market seems to finally be moving (albeit slowly) towards smaller rather than larger bodies.

[Gianni Galassi]

Miserere,

you made me curious about the NX10. I'd like to borrow one for a quick hands-on test. Anybody interested?

As for the G10(or G11)-4/3-fanta-camera, I definitely would like a fixed, retractable, in-camera corrected 28-300 equivalent.

[Miserere]

"I'd like to borrow one for a quick hands-on test."

Stop by Boston and you can try mine out :-D

"I definitely would like a fixed, retractable, in-camera corrected 28-300 equivalent."

Wow, you're asking for quite a lot there! :-o

[Ed]

I just read an article on the online photographer where a photographer had a digital canon modified from 2/3 to 4/3 ratio in order to comply with the standards of de 4,5 x 6 cm Pentax he started a project with. I replied that my humble GF1 wouldn't have had a problem with that. Pity for Salgado who had to modify a Canon of 5000$ in order to do what a GF1 costing a 10th of that amount can do in situ!

[Gianni Galassi]

Ed,
I am afraid Salgado goes shooting with more than one Canon body. He states that sometimes he has to hike (along with his crew) for weeks in a totally wild environnement. I also recently read that he only had the viewing glasses modified, in order to get the same ratio of the Pentaxes he had to leave home. So he frames four thirds, and then he crops the resulting files accordingly.
Anyway I suspect that all this doesn't cost him a penny. On the other hand Canon can easily afford to compliment Salgado with its modified cameras, and Salgado definitely deserves such a privilege.
By the way, I have never used my GF1 in 3:2 mode. Neither in the 1:1, despite my square workflow. But I feel so confortable when I frame four thirds.

[Ed]

Gianni, I compose the shot during picture taking and I use all the modes (I have the FN switch set up for aspect ratio in order to pull that off easily). That is a remnance from the LX3 days, that camera produced a slightly wider field of view in 16/9 versus 4/3 or 3/2 mode. So if something didn't quit fit the frame I could reframe the picture in a different apex-ratio. Nice..........and Salgado is a lucky guy.........enough cloud to make Canon include an internal combustion engine to drive the motordrive if he needed it!

Greetings, Ed