Options
GF1 + 20mm f/1.7 for street, PJ, and documentary work
People keep saying that smaller cameras are less intrusive and work better for candid shots. I couldn't help but be tempted by the Leica M9, but you get a lot of the same DNA in the GF1 for a tiny fraction of the price, so I thought I'd give this a try. Just starting to get used to it, but it does seem to be working:
Compared to the Canon 5DII (or even 5D) it's very noisy above ISO 800, so it's not a great available light camera by today's standards. What about the M9? I expect it would have to be better at about the same resolution and twice the sensor size. But as good as the best from Canon or Nikon, maybe not so much.
The AF system is great, even by comparison to the 5DII. Canon could really use some work in this department.
Small is really nice. I miss a viewfinder, but I think I could get used to this. I'll try to channel Weegee with his Speed Graphics with the wire finder.
Compared to the Canon 5DII (or even 5D) it's very noisy above ISO 800, so it's not a great available light camera by today's standards. What about the M9? I expect it would have to be better at about the same resolution and twice the sensor size. But as good as the best from Canon or Nikon, maybe not so much.
The AF system is great, even by comparison to the 5DII. Canon could really use some work in this department.
Small is really nice. I miss a viewfinder, but I think I could get used to this. I'll try to channel Weegee with his Speed Graphics with the wire finder.
If not now, when?
0
Comments
I'm interested in the GF1 for much the same reasons as you -- it's more discreet, and quicker to just whip out and shoot, than my 5D Mark II. And the IQ, while not up to DSLR standards, should blow away any existing P&S of similar size.
The Leica M9 and X1 are interesting too, but the M9 costs more than a Canon 1Ds Mark III and the X1 (which only costs about as much as a Canon 7D, thank Heaven for small favors) doesn't let you change lenses. Then there's the Olympus E-P1, but aside from its in-body IS (which would be nice), it seems that the GF1 is a better choice.
To my thinking, Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras occupy a useful niche between tiny-sensor P&S cameras and SLRs. The original Four Thirds, by contrast, just leaves me asking why I would want a camera not much smaller than a Rebel, but with a significantly smaller sensor.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I can't comment on the M4/3 too much since my experience with both Panasonic/Olympus is in a store but especially now there isn't much difference in high ISO from a E-620 to the current Canon/Nikon entry level cameras. Even with my E-420 which is the previous generation of sensors you were limited to ISO 800 basically but the advantage is I can carry a 4 lens system in a bag that was built for a "bridge camera" where as with the Canon/Nikon there would be no way (especially for the zoom lenses, the 40-150 is smaller than the Nikon 18-55). As a travel system it is perfect, and m4/3 will further this advantage. Not by a huge amount but like another step from APS-C to 4/3 then that difference again to m4/3.
I was actually surprised at the size of the EP-1 though, it is smaller than my E-420 but not by as much as I thought. The real world difference for me is with the E-420 and the 25mm pancake it basically fits in a cargo pants pocket, while the EP-1 can fit in a larger regular one.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Also noticed that the price I got from amazon ($899.95) for lens and body isn't really available anymore. Maybe after the lens is really available again, this price will surface again.