S90 or GF1!?!?!?!

[enever]

Hi there,

first time post here and relatively new to photography.

ahead of a 3 month trip to New York I want to buy my first serious (ish) camera to take some great snaps and start to get into photography (for leisure). I will never get into it seriously enough to get a big DSLR as portability will always be high on my list of needs, but I do want ot start to experiment and compose some nice pictures and get descent results and as a Product Designer, it is a helpfull skill.

after weeks of review reading and trips to camera shops, I have narrowed my choice down to two. The Canon S90 or the Panasonic GF-1 (with pancake). Portability is extremely important, so anything bigger than a GF-1 is a no go and I counted out the G11 because I do not need a viewfinder etc and by most reviews, the S90 is basically a more compact (and stylish!) version of this.

anyway, I understand they are two quite different cameras, but that is the problem with the decision. On the one hand is the best compact camera out there which I could take everywhere with me and use a lot. on the other is the best 4/3's which,  will clearly produce better pictures and will allow further "expansion" with new lenses etc. and is juuust about portable enough for my needs ( a jacket pocket or slung into a messenger bag) but only if the image quality gained is truly going to be that much better. ( as to warrant me "taking it out" during the day )

what I need to know is what is the trade off in image quality? I will be in New York for 3 months so big buildings, park shorts and most importantly night shots are going to be key.  I need to know if, to my slightly untrained eye, It is worth doubling my spend for the GF-1, or will I not really notice the difference? if the difference is significant enough then I would be prepared to deal with the slightly less portable aspect etc.

I am sorry to ramble on! if anyone can be bothered to read this then i would greatly appreciate the help! I have read a million reviews and am still 50/50! but I need to buy one of the two in the next day or so!

cheers!

EDIT: One quick point. I have looked at many image comparisons and usually the GF-1 has less noise and is sharper etc as you would expect. however, in this article...

http://dpinterface.com/camera-reviews/cano...-foliage-fight/

in nearly every image (look at the whole images at the end of the article) I think the Canon produces a much nicer and bolder range of colours and the image acutally look more attractive and true to life. I have read abou the CAnons "punchy" colour processing. Is this just poor picture taking? or is this quite a true outcome?

EDIT 2: Depth of filed is something I will e wanting to play with. Can the canon produce decent enough results?

[stever]

if you're only interested in images taken in good light, the s90 should be fine.  if you want more than snapshots under more demanding lighting conditions (dynamic range and low light) and the possibility of prints larger than 8x10 under less than ideal conditions then you need the GF1.  as a product designer you will notice the difference

[Wayne Fox]

I have both cameras, both are terrific and capable of producing outstanding prints.  I assume you have read the excellent reviews here on Luminous Landscape, also The Online Photographer has good information on them as well.

I'm not sure how much you can read into images from the link you posted.  It appears they have used in camera jpegs, which would explain the punchy colors of the Canon.  Correctly processed both cameras can deliver outstanding results - I don't think either camera "wins" in this area ... or better put they both "win".  I guess if you just want to shoot jpeg, the s90 might be better, but if your doing that you don't even need an s90.  The ability to shoot raw is what makes this camera so intriguing.

From my tests it appears the GF-1 is about 1 stop better than s90 in ISO performance.  Add to that the amazing  20mm f/1.7 lens, and now your talking a few stops better.  For low light images this is one sweet combination.

The s90 is amazingly small and produces fantastic images considering that small size.  It is decent when it comes to ISO performance (at least 1 to 1.5 stops better than the G10).  I just printed a 13x19 from this camera and it is terrific.  Add to that a decent zoom range in such a small package.  It really fits in a pocket ... I'm never without mine.

As far as growing into a system and control of depth of field, the GF-1 is great choice.  The 5 times larger sensor means it performs more in the order of a dSLR.  the flexibility of interchangeable lenses that are decent quality means you really can have a very capable system that all fits into a very small camera bag.  The GF-1 may hold up a little better to enlarging or cropping since the optics are probably superior and the sensor itself is much larger, but your own techniques and skill are probably more important here than these differences. I just printed a 26x20 from the GF-1 and it's great.

I think the real difference is more about each camera system itself than anything.  When all is said and done, the s90 is still a point and shoot, the GF-1 is a system.  It has multiple zoom lens, a fast very good prime lens, and more lenses coming and better ISO performance.   You can to things with it you cannot do with the s90 (if those are things you actually want to do).

As an example, I offer you these three images.  The first is taken from my back porch on an amazingly clear day in the Salt Lake Valley Friday.  The first is the 20mm (equiv 40mm) on the GF-1.  From that you can tell how wide the view is and how far away I am from downtown ... you may be able to make this area out at the horizon line just the right of the chimney (I'm about 20 miles away).  The second is taken with the 45-200 at 200mm (400mm equivalent) handheld of the downtown area itself.  The third is a 100% crop from that image, showing the detail I was able to capture.  The s90 would have no chance at duplicating that shot.

[attachment=18160:downtown..._1000235.jpg][attachment=18161:downtown..._1000235.
jpg][attachment=18162:downtown...m_detail.jpg]

Of course, the difference in price is not insignificant. I"m not sure how much consideration that is, but the s90 is a far less expensive option.

[enever]

thanks very much for the help.

I think you have confirmed what I wanted to hear. I just want to know that if i do stump up the money for the Panasnic, it is going to give me a siginificantly better image if I shoot in Raw.

I think i need to sleep on it now and see how I feel when the two cameras are infront of me again in the shop!

[Jim Pascoe]

I do not have the S90, but I do have the GF1 with the 20mm, 14-45mm and 45-200mm lenses.  It is a lovely camera, and the 20mm lens is excellent.  The 14-45 when used with the earlier G1 and also on the GF1 is ok, but it was only when I acquired the 20mm that I realised what these cameras are capable of.

Jim

[JeffKohn]

I wouldn't want the S90 as my only camera, but as a pocketable alternative to my regular DSLR kit it fits the bill nicely.

I think you have to decide how important size is. If you truly want something to fit in your pocket, that pretty much results out using multiple lenses with the GF1; so you have to ask yourself if you'll really be happy with just the pancake lens, or if the versatility of the S90's zoom outweighs the image quality advantage of the GF1. There's no doubt the GF1 has better image quality, but if you end up cropping away half your resolution to get the compositions you want, this advantage goes away.

[bg2b]

Since you need to buy the camera in the next day or two, the choice might be made for you.  The GF-1's are a bit hard to find right now (at least in the US), especially if you want the GF-1 + 20mm kit.  You may have to go with the S90 just because of your deadline (or pay a very inflated price for the GF-1).

[Guillermo Luijk]

EDIT 2: Depth of filed is something I will e wanting to play with. Can the canon produce decent enough results?

If you mean you want to be able to achieve a narrow depth of field, forget about the S90. Small sensors found in compact cameras would require tremendously luminous lenses to be able to blur the background in a photograph. The GF1 with the 17mm f/1.7 would be perfect for this.

[JeffKohn]

If you mean you want to be able to achieve a narrow depth of field, forget about the S90. Small sensors found in compact cameras would require tremendously luminous lenses to be able to blur the background in a photograph. The GF1 with the 17mm f/1.7 would be perfect for this.

You're going to have to be awfully close to your subject to get a shallow DOF with a 17mm lens, even at f/1.7.

[Wayne Fox]

You're going to have to be awfully close to your subject to get a shallow DOF with a 17mm lens, even at f/1.7.

good point ... still pretty wide..  But 1.7 does help. For the same field of view the s90 will be at 8.5mm around f/2.5.  

As way of clarification, the 17mm is made by Olympus and is a f/2.8 lens.  Lumix makes a 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, and this is the one most feel is a really good lens for the format.  (I know, 3mm isn't a big deal).  You can use any m4/3rds lens on any m4/3rds camera so some have opted for various combinations, such as the Olympus Pen using the Lumix 20mm.


It's no full frame dSLR, but depth of field is much closer to APS-C dSLR's  than it is point and shoots, and seems to be quite useful once you start working with the 45-200mm.

[BJL]

... ahead of a 3 month trip to New York I want to buy my first serious (ish) camera ...

With three months in New York, you will be in a position to try out these options in great camera stores like B&H, so I would not rush to buy before you arrive.

But I will add my vote for the GF-1, or even the E-P1 if the lack of pop-up flash is not an issue (some of us never use the pop-up flashes even in our cameras that have them.) If compactness and some zoom range is a priority, the "collapsable" Olympus 14-42 zoom might be interesting ... and it can be used with the GF-1 or E-P1 of course. Strangely, the E-P1 is the only way to get IS in Micro Four Thirds with either the Panasonic 20/1.7 or the Olympus 14-42, but the Panasonic 14-45 has it.

[enever]

thanks all for the advice...

today I went for it and got the......

PANASONIC GF1!!!

it had to be in the end! I want to experiment, take care of every picture and have room to develope in the future and I felt that I would too easily skip into just pointing and shooting with canon and the lumix just felt right in my hand.

so, here goes a steep the learning curve! the 8 hour flight to New York will be a good starting place to get to know the thing anyway!

cheers for all of the help. I fyou know of any good guides to the GF1 or to micro 4/3 cameras in general that would be great.

[enever]

and just to finish this thread off..

here is my very first pic!

please try not to critique too much (although advice is always great) as I do not really have a clue what I am doing yet! but I tried to catch the view out of the front of my house (in Bristol, england) in a light as "eyesight like" as possible (the lighting is very "realistic" already, although it all looks a bit orange, that is exactly the colour that the street lights give the boats and the water to the eye so I am already impressed!).

I had it in manual and have literally not touched a single setting apart from apeture and shutter speed and it was shot in jpeg and also re-compressed further to get under 2mb in photoshop, think it isnt to bad for a first shot!

exposeure time: 1.6sec
iso: 100
F-stop: f/1.7

[attachment=18192:TEST.jpg]

[uaiomex]

Is it a stitch? Incredible clean and sharp (for this camera).
Eduardo

and just to finish this thread off..

here is my very first pic!

please try not to critique too much (although advice is always great) as I do not really have a clue what I am doing yet! but I tried to catch the view out of the front of my house (in Bristol, england) in a light as "eyesight like" as possible (the lighting is very "realistic" already, although it all looks a bit orange, that is exactly the colour that the street lights give the boats and the water to the eye so I am already impressed!).

I had it in manual and have literally not touched a single setting apart from apeture and shutter speed and it was shot in jpeg and also re-compressed further to get under 2mb in photoshop, think it isnt to bad for a first shot!

exposeure time: 1.6sec
iso: 100
F-stop: f/1.7

[attachment=18192:TEST.jpg]

[enever]

no, not a stitch at all.

it was shot as a jpeg and compressed even further (by 2 mb) in Photoshop to allow it to be uploaded.

I ahve had this camera an hour and all i did was place it on a box looking out of my window, set it to 2 seconds auto timer, 1.6 sec shutter speed, smallest apeture and iso 100 and pressed go!

could believe how well it turned out considering!

[uaiomex]

So, it must be a crop. Amazing!
One step closer to buy this camera. Thanks
Eduardo

no, not a stitch at all.

it was shot as a jpeg and compressed even further (by 2 mb) in Photoshop to allow it to be uploaded.

I ahve had this camera an hour and all i did was place it on a box looking out of my window, set it to 2 seconds auto timer, 1.6 sec shutter speed, smallest apeture and iso 100 and pressed go!

could believe how well it turned out considering!

[BJL]

I will not complain too much about you ignoring my advice and getting the GF-1! That is what I would have chosen anyway.

To this question:

I fyou know of any good guides to the GF1 or to micro 4/3 cameras in general that would be great.

I have not heard of any books yet, but this might be a case where DPReview can be of use: there are plenty of serious photographers posting in its Micro Four Thirds forum http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1041 and many of them are experienced users of other DSLR systems like Canon and Nikon who are now using a GF-1 as a second, "go everywhere" camera, and so are not biased "Micro Four Thirds fanboys". (You just have to skip the occasional Olympus vs Panasonic brand wars and brand zealots: for example, I now ignore Brian Mosley.)

[jing q]

You will not be able to get a big building to fit into the frame with the panasonic 20mm lens, in New York based on the street widths.
regarding image quality, I wasn't that impressed with the GF-1, it didn't warrant the size and weight. In the end I sold it off and got a S90. And absolutely love it.I pop it in my bag everywhere I go and when I take it out it's so small that people don't pay attention to me.
Oh and it has IS. I've shot with 1/10th of a second with it (at 1/8th I get blur).

[enever]

all fair points. but in the end the ability to shoot great night shots won it for me, especially in New york in the christmas period.

I have attached some re-sized images to show what, I think, couldnt be achieved with the s90 (and bear in mind these have been altered to get under 2mb...amd this is the first camera I have ever owned and I have only had it for one week!)

[attachment=18333:P1000460_shrink.jpg]
[attachment=18336:P1000911_shirnk.jpg]
[attachment=18337:P1010027_shirnk.jpg]
[attachment=18338:P1000415_shrink.jpg]
[attachment=18339:P1000676_shrink.jpg]
[attachment=18340:P1010069_shirnk.jpg]
[attachment=18341:P1000842_shirnk.jpg]

[enever]

delete