"Full HD 1,920 x 1,080, 60i (sensor output is 24 fps) (FHD: 17 Mbps)"

I think that should be OK. I would have preferred 24Mbps (I would have preferred it not be AVCHD)...

3) The kit lens is only f4.0 to f5.8 so I'd hope you can get some faster lenses with this system.
[quote]

Basically, you can mount any lens ever made to this camera. Well, exagerration, but there are Leica M mount converters out there, PL mount and Arri mount, C mount -- so all those movie lenses can be used. And converters for every 35mm Lens format in common use as well.

[quote]4) Do the lenses have true manual focus rings? I'd hope so.

What do you mean by "true"? As in mechanically linked so it moves when the camera autofocuses? No. But you do have manual focus, you can turn AF off, and of course, you can use lots of manual focus lenses with adapters. (And the "fly by wire" focus of the G1 got good reviews.)

"The LUMIX DMC-GH1 concept goes much further than simply recording HD movies. Apart from the movie recording capability of conventional digital cameras, the DMC-GH1 also features a Creative Movie mode, which lets the user set the shutter speed and aperture manually to make even more impressive movies."

(Panasonic press release on dpreview)

seems someone has learned from Canon ;)

Things I do not understand:

Why did Panasonic do 24p into 60i pulldown? I understand the reasons for this when recording to TAPE, but when going to flash memory? That's just burning storage/recording time.

Disappointments:

Formats: Doesn't shoot 1920x1080i60 or 1920x1080p30.
I guess that's for next years models.

Bitrate: 17 Mbps instead of 24 Mbps, or higher, ala Canon 5D2
I guess that's for next years models.

Canon certainly demonstrated the bigger sensors+glass can put the bitrate to excellent use.

Now for someone, somewhere to post raw footage from this camera for evaluation.
It would be interesting to see how footage from this compares to Panny's own HMC-150.
That may be part of the reason it doesn't do a higher bitrate or a higher frame/field rate.
But that's pure speculation on my part.

I was kind of hoping Panasonic would screw up and have the Gh1 record at 24Mbps like the HMC150. I just don't think 17mbps is going to cut it for my needs. Now I am hoping that since Nikon dosen't have a professional video camera line to protect they will jump out from the pack with a high quality video codec camera.

I have the Canon 5d. I love its image making capability, but it would have been nice to have the fold out LCD this camera has.

Has anyone here groaning about 17 vs 24 bit even done a comparison before? The difference isn't that great, in fast action the extra bits help but it isn't day and night. Besides think of the price point and intended market. If it's video footage is at least as good as the D90 with less rolling shutter then at the price point it's already done it's job.

I have compared the two rates and I can see the difference in fast moving scenes which is what I shoot. I would have thought that at least one DSLR combo cam manufacturer would have tried to trump or meet the quality of the Canon 5D MarkII codec. The GH1 has a lot of great control features that the 5D does not, and is a definite improvement in that respect, but unless it can deliver a close or superior image to the 5d then I don't think it could be considered a professional piece of equipment. Combining the best features of the GH1 and 5D would be a real winner.

I'm a bit confused by the format choice of AVCHD and M-JPEG. I assume one will be better image quality than the other...Just have to wait and see.


M-JPEG offers 720p30 which although less space efficient than AVCHD, is much easier to edit. The 1080i60 and 720p60 are going to need a minimum of a 2.66GHz QUAD core to playback smoothly.

Otherwise, you'll have to convert to an intermediate codec.

By the way, don't know how many AVCHD products support 720p60. Maybe none.

Removing 2-3 pulldown may not be supported by any AVCHD products. Of course, 60i can be edited even with 2-3 pulldown -- just not the best option.

PS: Also critical is what audio codec is used with M-JPEG. A lot of NLEs will not like M-JPEG with AC3. They want PCM. Bottom-line, with the ability set shutter-speed, 720p30 may be the best option. Of course, we still don't know the data-rate. I'll try to get sample on Weds.

Mark,

I wouldn't expect anyone to try and match the Canon 5D2 codec.
Reason? These are consumer market products, so expectations are going to be 24 Mbps, tops.

Canon, in pushing their codec to ~42 Mbps, is clearly playing in pro territory.

Why did Panasonic do 24p into 60i pulldown?

Because the camera puts out video over the HDMI port. So, I believe they do this so that they can send the same stream out the port as they are recording to flash. [/QUOTE]

The 1080i60 and 720p60 are going to need a minimum of a 2.66GHz QUAD core to playback smoothly.

I'm able to play back H.264 720/60p and 1080/60i on my 2.4Ghz Core2Duo. But maybe there are some dropped frames I'm not noticing.

Removing 2-3 pulldown may not be supported by any AVCHD products.

As I understand it, the canons that shoot 24p record it as 60i as well, or some of them do. After conversion, you have the original 24p without loss of quality.

Canon, in pushing their codec to ~42 Mbps, is clearly playing in pro territory.

Well, 42Mbps MJPEG is probably about equal quality to 21Mbps H.264. So the 17MBps of this camera doesn't seem that much lower quality. (Am I right in thinking the 5D records video as MJPEG? Their site is vague.)

but unless it can deliver a close or superior image to the 5d then I don't think it could be considered a professional piece of equipment.

It's not considered a professional piece by anyone or even panasonic. Look at the marketing materials, look at the website. Who is this intended for? This thing is less than half the price. As it stands the 5DMK2 is barely a pro body in the first place, canon will be the first to tell you that, and it's video is largely a novelty feature, they haven't designed it for a proper production format or broadcast or what have you.

Remember these are the all among the first of their kind, none of these are supposed to be true hybrids yet. You might be expecting too much.

Mark,

I wouldn't expect anyone to try and match the Canon 5D2 codec.
Reason? These are consumer market products, so expectations are going to be 24 Mbps, tops.

Canon, in pushing their codec to ~42 Mbps, is clearly playing in pro territory.

If I remember correctly -- the Canon uses M-JPEG. So 42Mbps isn't pushing the bit-rate at all. That's low for HD M-JPEG.

If I remember correctly -- the Canon uses M-JPEG. So 42Mbps isn't pushing the bit-rate at all. That's low for HD M-JPEG.

The Canon 5D Mark II uses 42 Mbps MPEG-4 in an Apple QuickTime MOV wrapper.

See here, second paragraph.

Canon Digital Learning Center - EOS 5D Mark II: Movie Mode Basics (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2186&productID=249&articleTypeID=125)

The Canon 5D Mark II uses 42 Mbps MPEG-4 in an Apple QuickTime MOV wrapper.

So much for my memory. :)

But now I understand why there are reports of crashing while editing long clips. I don't know of any other device that pushes long GOP MPEG-4 to such high bit rates.

Of course, Canon has to use a super high bit rate because it seems they are using the now out of date MPEG-4 codec rather than the far more efficient h.264/AVC codec. Strange choice.

According to Apple, H.264 is MPEG-4 part 10. So H.264 is actually a subset of MPEG-4.
See here:

Apple - QuickTime - Technologies - MPEG-4 (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/mpeg4/)

So it could very well be that what Canon is identifying as MPEG-4 is H.264.
Either way, I don't know anyone else who is pushing this codec to that high a data rate.

If you look at the properties of the clips from the 5D Mark II, you can clearly see that it’s H.264.

If you look at the properties of the clips from the 5D Mark II, you can clearly see that it’s H.264.


Oh that I could be so lucky ;-(

But getting back to the original topic of discussion...

What this confirms is that even if Canon didn't get all the bits and pieces fully baked for professional use, they certainly went for the gusto when it came to the codec+bitrate. All of which means these consumer oriented cams, at roughly a 1/3 of the price, are unlikely to measure up to the Canon 5D2 codec+bitrate. I would be VERY pleasantly surprised if they went over the 24 Mbps maximum specified for recording to tape. Of course, these don't record to tape, so why that is a concern/issue, I don't know, other than the raw processing power/silicon that it requires.

But it does provide a convenient stopping point for manufacturers targetting a consumer market.

What would be really cool would be for someone to run the HDMI output into something like the FlashXDR or the to-be NanoFlash and see what the results look like.

What I don't get is why Nikon doesn't come out swinging and make the perfect DSLR with video option. They don't have a video product line to protect and could make a killing if they'd do it right.

Lots of Canon owners are using Nikon glass anyway, why not sway them with a great camera?

Things they need to improve:

1) better codec or bitrate or both
2) little less skew please (faster read times)
3) full manual control over ISO, shutter, and aperture while in video mode
4) 1920 x 1080
5) 24p, 30p, 60i as options
6) mic input


Nikon is in perfect position to do this, Canon and Panny have to sell more expensive "proper" video cameras. I'll keep hoping.

The D300 have been out for a while so I suspect we shouldn’t have to wait long for a successor which should hopefully have an HD video mode.





http://nikonrumors.com/2009/02/04/nikon-d400-book-coming-in-july-2009.aspx

What I don't get is why Nikon doesn't come out swinging and make the perfect DSLR with video option. They don't have a video product line to protect and could make a killing if they'd do it right.

Nikon is in perfect position to do this, Canon and Panny have to sell more expensive "proper" video cameras. I'll keep hoping.

Man, what a perfect way to say it. The other companies, sure, you can see why they keep the lid on the tech. But Nikon? No high end video products.

Perhaps they're simply doing the best they can wit what they have... or are waiting for the competition to wear themselves this year.

john

Japanese companies can be very aggressive, but also be very careful about the fights they pick.

In the early 1980's Yamaha Motor thought it would take on Honda in motorcycles. Honda responded by almost crushing Yamaha. My memory is that the head of Yamaha Motor was forced to apologize, personally, to Honda for his impudence, and then resigned. Not what you would call a proud moment. But once done, Honda relented, things went back to "normal" and Yamaha survived.

As things are now, Canon and Nikon are the two companies that are cleaning up in the camera/photography business, collectively commanding ~85% market share. Everybody else is fighting for scraps. I don't think Nikon is going to do anything that could and probably would trigger a market share war and hammer margins. Especially when the economy already stinks.

Of course if Nikon produces exactly what you want, I'll be very happy to be wrong.
But it is something to think about.

Because the camera puts out video over the HDMI port. So, I believe they do this so that they can send the same stream out the port as they are recording to flash.


Thanks for the explanation Liza. I am sure you're right.

It's still annoying, because it means a good chunk of their 17 Mbps datastream is being wasted storing what are in fact redundant fields. Storage that could have been used for either higher quality at the same data rate or longer record times at the lower 'true' data rate.

Given that HDMI is an uncompressed output, I would have preferred in 24p mode they simply remembered to repeat properly the uncompressed fields they have already recently decoded and transmitted rather than baking the pulldown into the compressed datastream. Oh well.

By comparison, the Canon 5D2 can go straight for the codec+bitrate quality gusto because operating at 30p, it is doing precisely zero frame pulldown. So unless I'm missing something, this Panasonic ends up operating at an effective ~1/3 the bitrate of the Canon. How does everyone here think that will measure up and compare?

Actually doing a rough calculation, Both doing 1920x1080:
Canon 5D2, 42 Mbps, 30 frames/sec., so about 1.4 Mb/frame
Panny, after subtracting for pulldown, more like 14 Mbps, so 14 Mbps, 24 frames/sec., so about .583 Mb/frame.

If you don't like the numbers, tell me what I did wrong.

Just to be fair, another camera, doing 1920x1080i60 or 1920x1080p30
with 24 Mbps ends up with ~.8 Mbps / frame.

This should be close to where the Panasonic HMC150 and Canon Vixia HF S10 live.

What this comparison leaves out of course is the difference in lenses, sensor size, raw detail resolving power, depth of field characteristics, and low light sensitivity differences of the sensors. This is a comparison ONLY of what Panasonic has done with the codec.

On one webpage I saw quite a lot of adapters are already available to use a large range of lens types for the Micro four Thirds mount. I was surprised to see that even C-mount was included in the options. Now, I have several C-mount primes, so this is a very interesting possibility to explore. But I find it hard to believe that a C-mount designed for Super16mm can cover a Four Thirds sensors area? Is it really possible? I hope so...

But I find it hard to believe that a C-mount designed for Super16mm can cover a Four Thirds sensors area? Is it really possible? I hope so...


The sensor size is listed as 18mm x 13.5mm.
I believe a Super16 frame is 12.5mm x 7.4mm frame size.
So using a Super16 lens may be like using a lens intended for an APS-C sensor on a Full Frame 35mm camera.

Sad but true...

Thanks Bill. It's complicated for me to know: some C-mounts are regular 16mm, having slightly less coverage than the Super16mm lenses. Then the camera itself has several aspect ratio options on the sensor, so exactly what size will the 16:9 video aspect ratio be? Hopefully, it will use the maximum sensor width and be cropped top/bottom. But strange that someone has made a C-mount adapter if it's not really usable (I can't remember what page I saw it on now -- I've recently been darting from different forums all over again, like I did when the D90 first came out, trying to nail down what my personal rig might be made up from if I got a G1H).

Well, I browsed a few photography forums and it seems some still photographers have already been using C-mount lenses on the Lumix G1, so this is very encouraging for us. This is what I learned:

The C-mount flange-to-film/sensor distance is 17.526mm, and for MFT it is 20mm. So any C-mount lens will have to intrude about 2.5mm into a MFT camera. Because EVF cameras have no mirror box this isn't such a problem. However, beware some C-mount lenses have extended optical elements beyond the lens threads, and this is a distance too far for the workings of the camera. Simplistically, if nothing extends past the lens thread, you will probably be ok.

This is not to say a particular lens will have a big enough lens circle (some older cine lenses have a very small diameter rear element). But since video is shot in the camera's 16:9 aspect ratio this gives the best chance of escaping corner vignetting. If you are framing for 1.85 or CinemaScope, you'll have even more cropping potential to clear a vignette from an otherwise useful lens.

There are so many different C-mount lenses out there, made over a long period of time, so personal recommendations about what works for MFT will be useful for people buying lenses unseen over the net. My usual C-mount advice is to be prepared for extra collimation costs for older lenses, and this may be even less forgiving when used on a densely packed camera sensor.

Sorry, forgot to include the links -- these were the two best sites I came across today (new to me) which you might find interesting:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/ (see the MFT section -- couldn't get direct link to work).

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44

Another consideration I found out about C-mount/MFT adapters is that the designs include a stepped inner ring (to recess the C-mount lens). If the bottom barrel diameter of a C-mount lens is larger than the adapter ring, this will stop you being able to screw the lens fully home. In acknowledgement of this importance, the adapters often quote the diameter of the step ring (in the one's I have seen so far online, it's anything between 36.9mm to 37.2mm). So C-mount lens choice for the GH1 will be partly governed by this mechanical restriction (though some enthusiasts have already had a bit shaved off their lenses to solve this!). You have to physically measure the bottom barrel diameter of a lens because it's not usually something which will be quoted (doesn't normally matter), so this is another hurdle to be mindful of when buying.

So, if you can find a C-mount lens, that hopefully doesn't need expensive servicing, with a small enough barrel diameter to fit the adapter ring, without an overly extended rear optical element to plough into the internal buffering, which has a wide enough circle to cover 16:9 on the GH1 sensor without vignetting -- phew! -- then you should be good to go.

Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through, but I'm encouraged that some of these still photographers have been surprised with the "character" of these older cine lenses. I thought the new Fujinon machine vision lenses for megapixel cameras might be a good bet (reasonable price, very sharp, no hunting around in the second hand market), but I think their lens barrel diameter might be too much for the current adapters for the reasons noted above. Perhaps someone could measure some? I'll shut up now...

Thanks Bill. It's complicated for me to know: some C-mounts are regular 16mm, having slightly less coverage than the Super16mm lenses. Then the camera itself has several aspect ratio options on the sensor, so exactly what size will the 16:9 video aspect ratio be?

The information I quoted is most of what I know about C-mount.
And the C standing for 'Cine'.

I ended up getting a nice mini-history of movie film formats.

Historic sub-35 mm Film Formats & Cameras (http://www.saunalahti.fi/animato/filmhist/filmhist.html)

16 mm film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film)

I thought it might be worth redoing these calculations given we now know the GH1 is NOT wrapping 24p inside a 60i container.

Actually doing a rough calculation, Both doing 1920x1080:
Canon 5D2, 42 Mbps, 30 frames/sec., so about 1.40 Mb/frame
Panny GH1, 17 Mbps, 24 frames/sec., so about .708 Mb/frame.
Canon Vixia HF S10, 24 Mbps, 30 frames/sec., so about .800 Mb/frame
Panasonic HMC150, , 24 Mbps, 30 frames/sec., so about .800 Mb/frame

So for Panny to crank the GH1 bitrate up, that will be next years model.
I still think u4/3rds would be a hell of a platform to build a real video camera around.
But that's probably just my imagination running wild.
On the other hand, this will be the first time I know of that a camera manufacturer specially designed a pair of lenses just for video work.

I thought it might be worth redoing these calculations given we now know the GH1 is NOT wrapping 24p inside a 60i container.

MY sample was pure 24.0. By June, Pana could have added pulldown.

Unless they are watching the feedback.

MY sample was pure 24.0. By June, Pana could have added pulldown.
Unless they are watching the feedback.


Trying to be depressing, or does it come naturally? ;-(

I was looking at the Panasonic GY-HM100U & HMC150 and imagining them rebuilt around a u4/3rds lens+sensor core. It was nice while it lasted. Among the nice things about this format for Panasonic is that it will be very difficult for Canon, Nikon, or Samsung to easily match the zoom range and light weight of u4/3rds lenses as they are trying to build on an even larger sensor base (APS-C, FF 35mm).

Ok , I need a little help understanding how C Mount lenses can be used on m4/3 cameras . My understanding is that most C Mount lenses for 16mm don't even have an image circle large enough for s16 . So how could they , if 16mm camera aperture is about 10.3 x 7.5mm and m4/3 sensor size is 18 x 13.5mm , work without real bad vignetting , and maintain infinity focus ? thanks

No power zoom and now this:

[PMA] Panasonic SLR Camera Reflects Difficulty of AF Development

Panasonic Corp exhibited its lens-interchangeable camera "DMC-GH1," which will be released by the end of July 2009, at the Photo Marketing Association (PMA) show.

The camera can record HD video in 1080/24p or 720/60p AVCHD format. And it can output 1080/60i video on a TV when decoding (replaying) HD video, according to the company. The SoC hardware to improve image quality and the image sensor's pixel structure in the DMC-GH1 are the same as those seen in the DMC-G1.

The DMC-GH1 (prototype) has an auto focus (AF) video recording function that users might find strange. Specifically, the AF function does not work when the zoom ring is turned after the video button is pressed.

There are two methods of avoiding this problem.

(1) Focusing the camera on the subject by half-pressing the shutter button after rotating the zoom ring.

(2) Presetting the AF mode dial on the upper left hand side of the camera body to AFC mode (which continuously focuses on different subjects like a camcorder) before pressing the video button.

In other words, the first method uses AFS (auto focus-single) mode (in which the camera focuses on the subject only when the shutter button is pressed), which is useful for doing things like filming a movie. For example, to produce a movie effect, it is possible to focus on a man in the foreground while he is speaking and shift the focus to a woman in the background as she starts speaking.

On the other hand, this mode is not suited for following and shooting a running child using the zoom function, for example.

Though the second method is effective in such a case, still camera users usually shoot images in AFS mode. So, they have to remember to switch the AF mode dial to AFC before pressing the video button. As far as I could tell from the exhibited model, however, the camera's focus in AFC mode did not seem very accurate.

If the trouble of switching the dial causes a negative user experience, what must be done is very clear. It is to automatically switch the mode to AFC when the video button is pressed, even though the AF mode dial indicates AFS. And Panasonic should tell users that the AF mode dial can be used only for still images.

When I asked Panasonic at its booth if it is planning to add a function to automatically switch to AFC mode, the company gave me two different responses. One person denied it. But another neither confirmed nor denied it, just saying the camera is still under development.

I don't know which is the case. But supplementary explanation of the first person was interesting because it was about the difficulty of the development of the unprecedented auto focus function.

First, the DMC-GH1 is equipped with a 4/3-inch image sensor. And it has a much shallower depth of field than, for example, broadcast cameras with a 2/3-inch image sensor. Therefore, it is difficult for the camera to automatically continue to focus on the moving subject and shoot a movie that does not make viewers feel uncomfortable.

Moreover, Panasonic developed the AF capability of the DMC-GH1 based on the DMC-G1's AF function, which can be used only for taking still pictures. The DMC-G1's AF is very accurate in AFS mode, and it was realized through sudden focus shifts and slight camera shakes. So, this is possible only with still images.

It will take more time for Panasonic to eliminate the problems caused by such motions and achieve a high focus accuracy in AFC mode, said the person who denied the possibility that the company will enable the camera to automatically switch to AFC mode.

======

This is interesting because I kept trying to see what the switch did and when I asked the rep he avoided a direct answer when I said a lower quality AF mode was used when shooting video.

Kurth -- you are right, in theory C-mount lenses do not have practical image coverage for the MFT sensor. But it seems some C-mount lenses have a larger image circle than was necessary for 16mm or even S16mm. It is this unexpected extra which has made them usable for the MFT sensor. I'm as surprised as you; I thought I knew a little bit about C-mount cine lenses and this was a total unknown to me. However, I have to accept the fact that there are stills photographers using these lenses on the G1 right now. As expected, some lenses vignette on all the available aspect ratios and won't be any good, but amazingly a few do not vignette even on 4:3. Obviously, shooting in 16:9 gives video users the best option to escape the worst effects. However, since this extra coverage is coming from the edges of the lens which was never designed to be seen by a film frame, there may be softness as well as illumination fall off. At the moment, it's our friends the stills photographers who are making discoveries in this hit and miss affair, so we wait until more reports come in concerning the things we want to know about the performance of specific lenses (see my previous posts about what to look out for). Check out those photography links I posted and see for yourself what the photographers are saying about it and look at their sample images.

John - I followed a number of links to different sites and every example of a c mount lens on the g1 vignetted . Now these were all 4/3 and not 16/9 images but from my understanding the 16/9 image is wider on the sensor , so the problem would be worse . I'd love to be able to use c mount but I think that the scarlet will be the first camera to use them effectively obviously because the sensor is smaller . If Panasonic could issue a firmware mod that could , for c mount lenses , sample the video image from a smaller part of the sensor ( also increasing effective focal length ) then that would be cool. I'd love to be able to use my ole' 9.5-95mm ang.. Maybe the s16 canon lenses would work but they are very expensive .cheers/k

Kurth -- some examples I saw were clearly reported as having no vignette with 16:9, and this was confirmed by the image samples presented. I also saw many "white wall" tests showing the image circle fall-off. I spent many hours going through so many threads on several forums I did not keep a record, but the impression was certain lenses were usable, which certainly surprised me. At the moment only the G1 is available, so the filmmakers have to wait for the GH1 to carry out their own experiments to find out what's what. I have some C-mount primes which I will try on the GH1 if I get it.

yeh , I also have a 10mm ang that might be nice - I also have alot of canon fd mount lenses which might be more useful - someone somewhere should do a compatibility list when it's time . With this camera and with the scarlet , c mount lenses might become harder to find !

Kurth -- I made these quick notes when I was originally looking at the still photography websites. They are also hoping to get some sort of combined data about what's good and what's not. These contributions come from the getDPIWorkshop forum:

SOM-berthiot 25mm f0.95: “vivek” said covers all frame aspect ratios, but needs machining to fit adapter.

Pentax 25mm f1.4: “Monza” said covers 16:9.

Canon 50mm f1.8 TV lens: “wjlapier” said covers all frame aspect ratios.

SOM-Lyter 1” f1.9: “wjlapier” said covers all frame aspect ratios. Some edge smear.

Wollensak 1” f2.5: “wjlapier” said covers all frame aspect ratios. Some edge smear.

Bausch & Lomb 26m f1.9: “butterdada” said covers all frame aspect ratios. Soft when wide open.

My apologies if I got some of these conclusions wrong. Thanks to all these guys for putting down their money to find this stuff out for the rest of us.

There's a great c-mount lens compatability chart that's being maintained here:
G1 C Mount Lens Compatibility List - Google Docs (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p9kkgjwEQQQ-HJwvNDobeEw)

And here's a list of all the lens adapters available for the G1, and where to get them:
Panasonic Lumix G1 Lens Adapters (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dx428wg_10fdvsmtd7)

thanks - after a fast glance at the chart , it appears that no wide lenses are covered , and the first real coverage starts at 25mm , except the 10mms' which seem to have confusing contradictory info . So my take is that c lenses might not be the way to go . Canon FD lenses , which are also cheap and available on ebay and nearly as fast , and have no problem with image circles seem to be a more viable option . Here's a site that has all of the FD options . I really wish someone would try the c mount zooms ! Imagine an angenieux on this camera with 20-200mm reach (i.e. the 9.5-95mm)

Canon FD lenses - Main Index Page (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/index.htm)

I've got a few FDs' starting at 17mm and they're great lenses . Remember you have to double the FL for m4/3. Also seems I remember that Pany has a 20mm in the m4/3 pipeline which will preclude any adaptation.

Joe -- that C-mount lens compatibility list is a great link! I haven't been on that forum for a little while and there was talk about making such a list, and now here it is!

Kurth -- thanks for that FD lens link. I've been coming round to this option myself, though you need really wide 35mm camera lenses to combat the 2x MFT crop. Normally ultra wide lenses are out of my price range, but Canon FD are an "orphaned" lens series, which makes them more affordable for me. I think a 20mm f2.8 would be a good compromise for me, and if I go down the Samsung NX route instead, that is even less of a crop for a 35mm camera lens.

Thanks again for those links.

John - I bought a tokina FD mount 17mm f3.5 on ebay for 90 bucks a few years ago . That'll be 35mm , my favorite focal length on m4/3 .The canon FDs' usually go for less than $100 . The new Panasonic 7-14mm f4 also looks very nice , but quite expensive to obtain ultrawide . This is the reason I'll be open to also getting a new rebel , if it has video , to use my tokina 12-24 f4 . The rebel will be cheaper than the 7-14mm pany . Actually one could buy a rebel and tokina 12-24 for the same price as the 7-14mm . It'll be fun deciding which camera to buy next won't it ? And if Nikon enters with some more models shooting video - whaooo ! Truthfully , I've been waiting for the one -camera solution all of my life , since super8 days , and now it's here , and I want them all ! Actually , for the last year , I've been shooting with my compact so I could have both with me , but while the still files are good , it's still too unresponsive , and the video isn't good enough .The only complaint I have so far with m4/3 is the ergonomics . I hope nikon or olympus will rethink the problem since they have no video market to protect and give us a truly revolutionary camera ....or Red will , one or the other . Video is coming to still cameras and it's coming like a tornado.