Photography is 90% photographer and 10% equipment. Maybe even more emphasis on the photographer and less on the equipment!

I think that as a whole, photographers are gearheads. We love new gear. We adore new gear and we covet new gear. Doesn't mean it helps us take better photographs, we just ... love gear. I think a lot of new photographers seem to think that if they somehow had a better camera, they're photos would turn out looking amazing. I can safely say that with my current skills, I will see no difference if I upgraded from an A200 to an A900. My photos would still look the same (just at a higher resolution!).

Camera's have come a long way. The A200 I picked up in 2008 did far more for me than the old Yashica film SLR I had for years. If you can't take good photos with an entry level DSLR today, getting better gear won't help you. More practice and maybe some help on art techniques would!

Your rant is not with out reason. After seeing Pop photos choice of camera of the year I was left to wonder why a glorified PS was camera of the year? Now maybe I am being a little biased but didn't Sony come out with the a900 for just under $3,000. Didn't it "redefine" the DSLR market in it's own way? Forcing other camera companies to give it a long look and produce thier own version for competion? Granted the a900 didn't redfine anything but it did make a huge leap in resolution and value.

I agree with you Carl that a camera does not "define" the photographer, it is merely a tool. A means to artistic expression. Yes the entry level DSLR is making the photo world "watered down" in a sense. One could call flim the great equalizer, because of the effort and cost it took to get results. But as the world grows bigger and more crowded, people need an escape. If the Pop photo wants to make the Panisonic Camera of the year I say let them. It just puts more tools into peoples hands so they can be artistic in their own right.

E-

I agree with all the above, When I recently went to Wolf Camera here in Denver to look at a Pentax K200D I had read about it being able to produce in camera HDR so I thought the sale person would know how to do it, after about 20 min. of fiddling with the camera they could not figure it out. I wnet home got on line and found the answer in about 3 min. went back to the store and gave the sale clerk some training. My point this same sales person left me for a few min. to help someone else and low and behold he was an expert on the Nikon and Canon system (in his mind) As he was proclaiming all that he thought he knew (about 80% right the other 20% bs) I was amazed he never once mentioned Sony or Olympus, Pentax for that matter. This just the more fired me up about the system that I have decided to use (I did for a brief time have the K200D) but decided that I want to shoot on my dslr gear with one brand for a couple of reason cost and the fact that I think I have a system that can produce a shot every bit as good and maybe better than the so called mainstream system (n/c). I am very pleased with my results maybe not always with my procedure not the fault of my gear. Pro really means your not throwing away as many shots as when you first started.. hehe
I am really into my Sony gear because it is fun and it produces great results, enough said for me!!

Happy Shooting
Kevin

While I think you're manifestly right from the perspective of anyone who would use this website, I think PopPhoto is thinking about another population. Most people never get beyond compact point and shoot cameras, of course. A few may be tempted to try the next level, but most are daunted by a range of obstacles - cost, complexity, and equipment size chief among them. A couple of years ago, having enjoyed my very good Sony point and shoot (the old DSC-F707), but frustrated by things like shutter lag, I thought about stepping up. Knowing zero about photography, I was a bit intimidated. But PopPhoto's endorsement of the Sony A100 as Camera of the Year got me started with DSLRs. I've since fallen in, and I now spend a lot of time and money on more advanced cameras, lenses, software, etc. If there are enough others like me who cross over from point and shoot to SLR photography, that could mean a lot to photography. And a smaller, simpler camera like the G-1 could be the bridge that will take some people across. Whether it will or not, I don't know, but I that's what I read into PopPhoto's endorsement.

of you jumping off the couch, magazine in one hand, glass of wine in the other, exclaiming "BLAZES a path for the future??" will be forever burned into my memory. I spewed coffee out of my nose.
Seriously, I couldn't agree more with what you wrote. You hit the nail on the head on one simple point: "saturation" Bingo! I guess the optimist in me hopes that one day, the technological curve we've been going through will level off a bit and it will become about the photography again and not so much the gear. It's like putting phtography and (for lack of a better term) "digital artistry" into a blender. I can't help but blame us as consumers. They've got most people buying into the more mega pixel hype when it is often at the expense of image quality (can you say 50D? I knew you could!). I'll admit if you are taking pictures you are a photographer, but I think the digital age has spawned a breed unto it's own.
Carl, you are doing the right thing. Have some self medication in hand when reading that drivel.

Maybe the color redefines things - but this camera defines a new camera segment at best. I agree that their effusive praise of a mediocre price/performance camera is over the top (I almost said 'almost' but decided against hedging). It's good that camera makers are trying some creative ideas to make cameras do things in new ways, but these are the same folks who keep increasing megapixel counts, claiming that's what everybody wants.. guess they choose focus-groups over forums when they make that claim. Personally, I'm hopeful that Fuji EXR and Sony EXMOR-R are the innovations still standing in a year or two.
Anyway, 'nuff said, people above here have covered the bases well (especially the comment about your leaping from your chair!). I'll redefine my own photography, thanks.

Obviously, there is a need to grab an audience for the up and coming photographers, who believe that shooting through their camera phone is all they will ever need. I agree with the sentiment that there has been no paradigm shift ... although this article proclaims there has been. Now, when Minolta brought forth AF ... that was a paradigm shift. It actually allowed you to focus in the dark (with the hot-shoe flash, of course)! C'mon, how many cameras could do that? Then, the digital backs ... which eventually replaced film. Yes, that was a monstrously huge paradigm shift, toppling the likes of Kodak and Polaroid. That ... changed the photographic world.

So, echoing the sentiment of the OP, how can just another camera be considered as "revolutionary" or "redefining?" It bprders on some short sighted vision of history, to be honest ... but, when you are announcing it to a group of ignorant kids, who will buy just about any new thing just to run around high school and say, "Look what I got!" with Pop Photography bragging rights ... well, that's just marketing. Ask yourself, "what part of the industry just changed?"

Sorry ... see this article for what it is ... a method to sell Panasonic's new camera. Rome has not fallen. They just painted the arch ... red. Hail, Caesar!

Then I have a big problem with that. The title of the magazine is Popular Photography, not Popular Marketing. They could have marketed this camera just fine without crossing that very important line that rubs me so raw. :)

-C

Good article....
I keep reminding myself that people like Cartier-Bresson etc. didnt have an A-350 and 4 lenses, plus Photoshop and numerous plugins.
Equally I remember my first camera was totally manual (Pentax Spotmatic) and good results were more than likely because of my eye, and diligence in learning about light and exposure...the same thing applies to the gear I use as a musician, technology is a wonderful thing, but you still have to have that "X" factor, and more often than not, it is created by a human..

Lindsay Gibb

I want to emphasize that I am not so much concerned with the fact that PopPhoto names the G-1 camera of the year. That actually doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact I predicted that would happen here well before Pop Photo released the results of it (I started a thread about here, search Pop Photo Camera of the Year if you'd like to see it).

What is most important to me, is that the worlds largest publication to Photographers seems to be prescribing to the idea that a camera is the major factor in finished results, that is exactly what their statement is implying.

New photographers are the worst to target in this mentality imo. Why? Because, many get discouraged if a camera doesn't give them results immediately, then put the camera down never to try again. If total sales for Panasonic are the main concern to publications like PopPhoto, they they shouldn't be making statements on articles like that. Teach a new photographer just some very basic skills and with a little patience, I believe wholeheartedly they are more than likely going to not only continue trying to become a photographer, but will also learn that they should add more equipment to their kit.

By emphasizing that a camera refines, or redefines photography, dooms the new photographer from the outset. This, is what I don't like about that statement. And frankly I have just about had enough of it! :)

Some may disagree with me, but the best lesson I ever learned was from a professional who told me that a camera is to always be treated as a tool, that it is up to the photographer to use that tool to define his/her own potential.

Carl

I have always said that it doesn't matter what kind or brand of camera you own. It is just a tool. I always get upset when people say to me. Wow what a great photo you took there.
What kind of camera do you own. Like I had nothing to do with it.

It wouldn't surprise me if their decision was as much about marketing as anything else. Awarding camera of the year to an EVIL camera from a company not associated with photography will generate more buzz for their magazine.

Realistically, this camera pretty crippled compared to some cheaper DSLR models. From what I understand, it's not actually that much smaller or lighter than an Olympus E-420. The image sensor still suffers from all the pitfalls of the 4/3rds system. The EVIL revolution is off to a pretty sad start. I'm not saying EVIL cameras are a bad idea, just that this particular one wasn't a good idea.

It seems - and I haven't been a serious enthusiast for long - that the American magazines are more focused (pardon the pun) on the equipment than the art of photography. Nearly every issue I've grabbed in the past 9 months has new gear on the cover as the centerpiece, and much of the content within is centered around it as well. I've noticed that the British based mags are better in this regard - they have a better balance of equipment reviews and "how to" articles trying to teach technique. I'm referring to Digital Camera World (http://www.dcmag.co.uk/) and Digital Photographer (http://www.dphotographer.co.uk/index.php) in particular. For a beginner like me, that's what I want...not a monthly buyer's guide. Resources are everywhere to help you build up your kit (Brit influence :) ). Keep me updated on new gear, but don't force it on me.

I wholeheartedly agree with your position on this Carl - it's the photographer, not the camera.

At what point does one feel the line of independance and/or integrity is crossed? I think the simple need to grab headlines is where this is at and the "service" the magaizine was intended to supply and therefor cater to a market in need has drifted like amny others, to a marketing solution rather than service to its readers.
I for one buy a magaine whenever I can. I would elaborate that I buy based on the value in THAT cover rather than an allegiance to a particula one. The more advertising/marketing the LESS likely I am to buy.

Well written article Carl... one I too, ould not agree with more.

Iain

excellent photographer + excellent equipment = high definition pictures
excellent photographer + good equipment = excellent pictures
excellent photographer + bad equipment = good pictures with distortions
good photographer + excellent equipment = great pictures
good photographer + good equipment = good pictures
good photographer + bad equipment = won't bother to download pictures
bad photographer + excellent equipment = has some pictures
bad photographer + good equipment = hasn't downloaded the pictures yet
bad photographer + bad equipment = excellent pictures!!
:) :)

At least they were talking about something other than Canon for a few minutes :-)

Anyway, a very good article (yours, not theirs) - but be sure to never spill your wine because of some inferior camera. If a remarkable a-mount (old or new) causes you to spill a drop or two, that's understandable ;-)

It really annoys me that Sony, Pentax and Olympus get no respect among those who ought to (and are paid to) know better.

Regards,
Gordon

It's not about the product in this case as I previously mentioned, its about the principle.

C

I am equally frustrated by the "photo" mag options out there. Does anyone know of a mag in circulation that is about photography (pictures with camara settings, scene set up guides, ect.) rather than product purchasing? I've got all the gear I can afford right now and am more interested in using it rather than buying (or dreaming about buying) more stuff.

No surprise here, they are catering to the “new” photographers out there, and the only way to entice youth into this new hobby or pastime is with techno stuff that today’s kids understand.
They don’t want to: read, research, test and learn, they want instant gratification with better results and a sexier image than their cell camera.
If by chance you can hook them with a good P&S, then if there is further interest, they will advance into a DSLR and spend the rest of their lives fussing over lenses and accessories to continuously develop their craft.
I can easily see the Sony Cybershot HX1 being the “2009 camera of the year”

What they had in mind is that G1 is the first camera that redesigned the many decades old SLR by throwing away the mirror and doing everything (like focusing) without it. No other manufacturer was willing to do this to the SLR so far as not to break things that work.
If you think about this the mirror was added to SLR ONLY because there was a film behind the glass and there was no other in lens focusing and through the lens viewing possible (save some failed experiments with prisms). The whole SLR did revolve around this fact that there MUST be a mirror that also needs to quickly move up.

You may see that this design is somehow becoming technically obsolette as the contrast based focusing (the only major thing left that differentiate DSLR from PS) is getting faster and faster. Once you build it so it is as good as the phase-detect through mirror I can guarantee you that all manufacturers will happily throw away the mirror with all the expensive mechanical things and redesign cheaper mirror-less cameras with EVF and live view. Including Sony. And soon nobody will remember there was once a mirror.

So in the way the G1 is the first pioneer in the mirror-less camera design. It is not the best DSLR mind you, but it is first of the many future DSLR.

Also Panasonic did two things which may fool you into thinking it is just one thing - 1. it got rid of the mirror and 2. shortened body thus requiring new lens design.
I don't think other manufacturers with many lesnses will go for the 2. but trust me, they will go for the 1. sooner than you may think.

they should have said that then, instead they said that a camera is redefining photography, not that a camera is redefining the photography market. Thats different. Again my whole point.

C

edit: And, I don't agree with either sentiment. The G-1/Samsung format will not last the long winter season. It will never gain as much momentum as DSLRs ever. The design restricts them to a niche market as I have been saying (and others) from the outset. Smaller...., does not revolutionalize anything.

I started ages ago developing B&W, my first real camera, a Minolta SRT100, think I paid $140 in the early 70's. Progressed to X700 bodies and used them for years (didn't think auto focus was such a big deal), before finally going digital. Got a Sony 828, and had to move to the A700 (the true next generation of a great Minolta camera) and use some old lenses. Just sold the darkroom and old 35mm stuff over the last couple years and got good lenses for the A700, tammy f2.8s. There are major developments in photograghy like the original SLR (Minolta always the best in my view) and digital, not those like the subject of this article. Thinking back, what I love about digital, you can see it real time and the pictures are free, simualr to developing B&W. I still take pictures the way I did with the SRT100, which I still have, meter doesn't work, but will never leave me. Hopefully photographers will continue with the basics to take a good pictures. My best to all, great site Carl.

I enjoyed your piece and admit to experiencing some of the same surprise and cynicism upon reading the article in Popular Photography. But like some others have already stated, I think you have to take the source into consideration. Just look at the name of the magazine. It isn't called Definitive Photography, Artistic Photography, High-end Photography, or even just Photography. It's POPULAR Photography! You know, sort of like Popular, or more accurately, Pop Music. So I guess they think that for the masses who use P&S cameras and want to take the next step but are somewhat intimidated by those big, clunky and terribly complicated DSLRs, the G1 is blazing a new path. Admittedly it is a somewhat feeble first attempt, and they admit as much in the article. Nevertheless, I guess they really like the idea.

And another thing to remember is that from the perspective of this magazine, the phrase "refine and redefine photography" actually means "refine and redefine the photography market"! From their perspective it's all about the flow of consumer cash.

Finally, while all the comments about photography being centered around the individual and artistic expression and not equipment are completely correct, I will concede that when I made the move from film to digital it did refine and redefine my photography to some degree. And once again, when I made the move from digital P&S to DSLR it once again refined and redefined my photography in some important ways. So if Pop-Photography really thinks that this new technology will move large segments of the market from P&S to the next step, I guess I can sort of see why they use words like refine and redefine, even if it doesn't really apply to me or most of the photography enthusiasts I know.

What I find rather funny is that last fall when the camera was first being released in Tokyo there was quite an advertising blitz and it couldn't have been more different from all the hoopla I've heard in this country. Basically it was being touted in Japan as a camera for women (yes, they can still get away with that sort of approach in Japan) because it is small, cute, colorful and snazzy, but at the same time somehow mysteriously mature. The billboards and ad posters had these beautiful young women dressed in gorgeous silk kimonos that matched the colors of the camera! Obviously no one in Japan was taking this camera quite as seriously as Popular Photography.

I played with one in the store for a bit and basically found what I expected. Electronic view finders sorta suck! Oh sure, it was a bit better than my old DiMage 7i, but still not even remotely similar to an optical viewfinder. But boy oh boy, it sure was small, cute, colorful, snazzy and yet somehow mysteriously mature! :)

>>"And another thing to remember is that from the perspective of this magazine, the phrase "refine and redefine photography" actually means "refine and redefine the photography market"!"

Then why didn't they say that then? They could have, you know?

Full page add.

First, Pop Photo makes the claim this camera is redefining photography, then Panasonic actually believes it.

Absolutely amazing. "Don't mind us, We're just redefining photography"

Yeah Panasonic, you just go ahead and believe that. Man that comes off so arrogant.

Absolutely ridiculous. This is exactly why I penned this article. Just be careful what you believe, so many companies will sell you an image just get your money. Never underestimate yourself as the greatest equation in the output of your photography.

Carl

I joined Alphamountworld a while ago when I was considering what direction to go in relation to dlsr cameras. I have owned and still regularly use a Sony R1 but wanted more in terms of focal lengths. I am a very experienced (if not very good) photographer and had tried Canon and Olympus and nearly (I now wish I had) invested in a Sony dlsr. Instead I was one of the first UK buyers for the Panasonic G1. I liked the small size, the continual live view and didn't find the evf a problem, except for continual shooting of (say) motor-sports. I really liked the articulating screen and, by and large, found the IQ from the kit lenses to be pretty good.

I have been waiting for an extension to the lens line-up and found, to my horror, last week that they are issuing a 7-14 (14-28 equivalent) uwa lens for the amazing price of c£1100. Now, if this up to the quality of the Olympus 7-14 I might not buy it but would understand the price. But I doubt that it will be because Panasonic openly state that they are using both optical (in the lens itself) correction but also software (in camera) correction. I understand and appreciate that it may not be possible to design such a small lens with full optical correction but what they are asking me to pay £1100 for is a lens that is not fully optically corrected either for jpeg or RAW. Uncorrected RAWs from the kit lens show a huge degree of distortion and I have no doubt the same will apply to any other lenses they produce.

I'm not a Luddite and appreciate we are in the digital age and maybe this is the future but I, and others on Panasonic forums, have come to the conclusion we are being ripped off.

I do like the camera but don't want to fix legacy lenses (Olympus or Panasonic) onto it as this defeats the purpose of the small size. I'm now probably going to sell the G1, get a lower-end Sony plus a decent long tele-photo and combine this with my R1 to give me the same focal lengths as the G1 with its 2 kit lenses and then look for a wide angle as well.

To go back to the original theme of this thread, the G1 definitely doesn't re-define anything. It's a good idea, now ruined (IMHO) by Panasonic's pricing policy for anyone seeking to build a system.

John

Hi John

Panasonic are not the only manufacturer to apply software correction to their lenses. Hasselblad also apply software based correction (it's one of the reasons the H3D is now a closed system, as opposed to the H1 etc). Their lenses are most definitely top tier and the software correction corrects for things that would be hard if not impossible to do "in-lens".

Why not wait and see what the quality of the 7-14 is like. For £1k it's bound to be good.

If you look at the level of optical distortion on the pannie kit lens, it's pretty shocking really

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/414-panasonic_1445_3556?start=1

I am not against in camera corrections, but surely users should expect better than this, I can only imagine how much distortion is present on the ultra wide angle zoom. Could be a real issue for non ACR users..