Hasta La Gadget!

The micro-four-thirds standard created by Panasonic, Olympus and Leica has intrigued us but its mightiest product to date, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1, leaves us scratching our heads.

Camera Be Still
When it comes to still shooting, there is no difference between the GH1 and the G1 that Mahoney reviewed last November. It has a digital viewfinder instead of an optical one, which takes some getting used to but tends to work. It’s got a huge number of manual and automatic options, as well as some uniquely digital settings, like “film mode” where you can manually adjust the color balance, saturation, contrast and noise reduction of the “film” you’re using. Because the sensor is 4:3 (hence the format’s name), you can change the aspect ratio to 16:9 for a wider view, but of course you sacrifice some pixels in the process. Update: Reader Ben tells me that no pixels are lost in the aspect ratio switch.

The camera has many of these novel options to keep track of, but it doesn’t pay a huge dividend to those who do. As Mahoney said in the original piece, its high-ISO shots are a bit more noisy than most DSLRs, and the lens selection is paltry compared to Canon and Nikon. As someone who carries mainly entry-level DSLRs (and generally wants for nothing more), I found myself simultaneously overwhelmed and unimpressed, though I did manage to eek out a few halfway decent shots, which I’ve stuck in the gallery below.

All of the above features and capabilities can be found on the $800 DMC-G1. What I tested, though, was the $1500 GH1, with an “H” for “Highdefinitionvideo.”

It’s Got an H In It
The H makes a big big difference, as David Pogue mentioned, and as Mahoney lamented.

The 1080p video is, in fact, astonishingly good, when you’re shooting in the right light with a decent lens. I used two lenses, the highly functional 14-140mm kit lens, and a playful 7-14mm wide angle lens with a touch of the fisheye.

The video comes in AVCHD format, which some people don’t like. I don’t mind it, though when I previewed it in VLC, it appeared to have a painful amount of compression artifacts. I was going to condemn the camera for that, until I wrangled the video in VisualHub, and found that all of the playback artifacts disappeared in conversion, and probably wouldn’t appear in other software. (Panasonic sent me GH1 software, but it was for PCs only, and I didn’t have a chance to check it out; some of you already know what to do with AVCHD vid anyway, so I wouldn’t make a big deal out of the included software either way.) As you can see in this quick up-close video of Wynona—dropped from 1080p to 500×280 and converted to FLV for your consumption—you can certainly get a lot done:

The rustling you hear is me playing with the camera strap to attract an otherwise lethargic cat’s attention; over the weekend, when I shot video of my family, the stereo mic array worked well, as long as I kept my own stinkin’ trap shut. Its placement, facing upwards, on top of the flash, means that the shooter’s voice is far louder than that of his or her subjects.

Video certainly is the GH1’s coup de grace, as others have proclaimed. Practically speaking, it’s a damn sight better than the video from the Canon T1i and the Nikon D5000, which are fine for quick snips but lack the autofocus necessary for a nice fluid continuous shot (Touch of Evil opener, anyone?). The GH1 dynamically refocuses well enough, though as you can see in the Wynona video, it can’t go super-macro with that 7-14mm lens.

Stupid Money
Still, we’re back to the same dilemma here: If moderately video capable DSLRs are selling for MSRPs around $900 (also with decent kit lenses), how can this baby be worth $600 extra? Still-only DSLRs cost in the $600 range—how can the GH1 be $900 more than those?

It’s a powerful camera, but I certainly didn’t feel as comfortable shooting with it as I do with Canon and Nikon DSLRs, and the video is, after all, video. The argument for video on other DSLRs is their compatibility with all kinds of lenses; here, it’s more like a decent video camera without a huge number of lenses. As Mahoney mentioned in the G1 review, you can get a lens adapter and use some nice Leica lenses, but do you really want to go to all that trouble? We’d be better suited for some a handful of interesting, made-for-micro-four-thirds primes.

Even if we get all that, though, the price remains prohibitive. If you are tempted by the video capability of this camera, you are still better suited to buying a nice DSLR and a true HD camcorder of your choosing from Panasonic or Sony or Canon. I wish I could say that the excellent 1080p video tips the scales, but it doesn’t. [Product Page]

In Brief:
HD video performance is exceptional for a high-end still camera, and notably better than “competing” DSLRs

Lots of manual digital manipulation means a lot to read up on and remember—it’s not easily hidden from the beginner, but in the hands of an undaunted shooter, there’s a lot of potential

The camera’s entry cost is far too high to justify when it’s not a big winner in still shooting, and when HD camcorder prices are dropping

I think I love this camera. I mean, I haven’t actually tried the thing out–in fact, I just heard about it a few minutes ago, but I’m fairly certain this is love at first sight. Olympus’s new E-P1 is a little bit point-and-shoot, a little bit DSLR, and just generally a rad-looking little camera.

The E-P1 utilizes Olympus and Panasonic’s joint Four Thirds technology, which lets manufacturers cram the image quality and speed of a DSLR into a standard point-and-shoot-size body. Like its more expensive siblings, the E-P1 also features an interchangeable lens. Panasonic has already released the Panasonic Lumix G1 and Lumix GH1, both of which utilize the technology. The E-P1 is the first Olympus to use it.

The snazzy, retro-looking camera measures 4.74 by 2.75 by 1.37 inches. It offers 12.3-megapixel shots, a 3-inch LCD, and can capture 720p30 into AVI video. Users can also control the aperture, focus, white balance, and ISO on the device.

The camera ships in July in both silver and white body types. It comes in a number of configurations, with and without lenses. The base price (body-only) is $749.99.

Eye-Fi today announced a new addition to its lineup of wireless memory cards: the Eye-Fi Pro. Priced at $149.99 for a 4GB card, the Pro is a souped-up version of the Eye-Fi Explore Video; it keeps the Wi-Fi hotspot uploading, geotagging, and JPEG and video support  of the Explore but adds RAW image support and “ad hoc” transfers.

The Eye-Fi Pro has the ability to create a peer-to-peer connection between the camera and a computer–no Internet connectivity necessary. Since this ad hoc connection eliminates the need to transfer through Wi-Fi, it’s entirely possible that speeds from card to computer will be much faster. We’ll, of course, have to wait to test it out to know for sure.

Somewhat lost in the many WWDC announcements made Monday was an interesting point: at Apple, at least, the SD card format has won.

Most of the new MacBooks have replaced an ExpessCard slot with an SD card slot, which was designed as a slot to bring in photos from digital cameras. (Given that the iPhone lacks a memory card slot, I think it’s fair to say that the SD slot serves way to bring content in to the MacBook, rather than send it out.)

Why do the new MacBooks have an SD card slot, instread of a five-in-one card reader, like other notebooks and desktops? Because “SD is really ubiquitous,” Todd Benjamin, director of portables for Apple, said during an interview on Monday at Apple’s developer conference in San Francisco.

Consider all of the various small-form-factor card formats there are, or were: CompactFlash, the various Memory Stick flavors, SmartMedia, miniSD, microSD, xD.

It’s not clear whether the new MacBook card slot supports the SDHC format, as well as SD. If it doesn’t, it surely will in the next revision, with a roadmap toward the terabyte SDXC standard. As you can see, there certainly are quite enough different dorm factors within the  SD format alone. It’s also unlikely that the smaller SD form factors will go away as the external storage formats for cell phones.

Still, Apple essentially killled off the floppy; it’s probably time that it helped consolidate the industry on a single flash card format for desktops, as well.

When I first fiddled with the DP2, I was like “Who would ever want this?” Then I shot some of the most amazing photos I’ve ever taken.

The Set Up: Sigma calls this camera a DSLR in the body of a point and shoot, and they’re kinda right. It’s got the Foveon X3 sensor, which is just a hair smaller than the Nikon and Canon APS-C sensors. Sigma has carefully paired a fixed 24.2mm F2.8 lens in order, they told me, to maximize the benefits of that larger sensor. No zoom lens would do, they said, because picture quality would likely suffer.

To make things even more complicated, for these same reasons, they could only build in contrast-based autofocus. Though more accurate, it takes a lot longer to focus, and, in this camera, tends to give up easily when it can’t quite do it. It was often hard to get a satisfied chirp that meant focus was locked, especially in lower light conditions. Many hastily shot shots are blurry beyond help.

As you can see, this camera is low in the frills department, with greater reward going to those who can shoot manually, and most certainly in RAW. Meaning my first shots were hideous things, and it took a few days for me to become worthy enough to even hold the bastard. Eventually, slowly, I learned what it could—and could not—do.

The Bad News: Let’s repeat: There’s just the one fixed lens, which isn’t much of a wide angle, isn’t much of a macro, isn’t exactly “fast” by today’s DSLR standards, and does not zoom. You have to get in the habit of going to your subjects, then making them stay still long enough to get a decent focus, then a decent shot. To add to the troubles, the sensor that is pristine at ISO 200 is noisy as crap at ISO 800, which means you also have to shoot longer at times to make up for it.

Sigma people said that the ISO should be compared to other point-and-shoots, and that shooting RAW and converting it to JPEG on the computer cuts down on the noise, but even so, check out how crazy the noise was at 1600 after RAW post-processing on the computer:

It’s a mess, you know? I did manage to make some artistic looking black-and-whites by just desaturating the grainy 1600 shots—frankly, they were pretty cool, but it’s something you’d want the option to do, not something you should be forced into.

Other dings the camera gets are a lack of RAW+JPEG mode—what I like to call “insurance+good enough”—some extremely abysmal QVGA video mode that probably should have been left out of the product altogether because it’s pointless, and poor battery life. When Sigma sent me the camera, they included a spare battery. I thought it odd at the time given how insanely great camera battery life is these days usually. Clearly they knew something I didn’t. On top of all that, it’s just not terrifically small—Olympus and Panasonic are pushing Micro Four Thirds cameras that aren’t much bigger. (Course, their sensors are actually smaller.)

The Good News: As I have alluded, I have come around on this camera. Push aside all of the uncool characteristics, focus on what it can do—shooting relatively still objects at relatively close range—and you get some seriously attractive photo work. I can’t show them all to you—the wife lays down a general rule of not posting family pics in Giz reviews—but what I can show you should give you a decent idea of the DP2’s capabilities, coupled with patience and some basic know-how, can deliver. I’ll let them speak for themselves (and yeah, I already know you can do better with your mom’s LG cameraphone, so let’s go easy on the qualitative judgments):

(Note: Wait for page to fully load before clicking on gallery thumbnails, otherwise you’re gonna have a bad time.)

The Rub: As much as I’d like to say it’s a great camera for photographically inclined people to stash somewhere for certain situations, it’s too damn expensive. It costs around $650 street price; for that money you can probably get a clearance-model DSLR model these days, maybe even with a kit lens. In the end, I’ve come to think of the Sigma DP2 as the Dogfish Head 120 Minute IPA of cameras: Beautiful in concept but complex, powerful and damn expensive—if you hit it everyday, it could well get the best of you. [Sigma]

In Brief
For a small-bodied camera, it has exceptional picture-taking capability and superior image quality

Its $650 cost can only be justified by a small percentage of wealthy photo enthusiasts

It’s tricky to use at first


Crap battery life


No zoom lens or any other obvious point-and-shoot frills