Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?

Reply
Thread Tools

Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?

 
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2011
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The micro-4/3 looks more attractive on that basis, and brings the original
>topic well into focus!


But bringing it back to bodies. Here is my summary of Panasonic's four
current bodies:

GX1 is for people that want to look like an enthusiast
G3 is for people upgrading from long zoom P&Ss
GF3 is for people upgrading from low end P&Ss
GH2 is for people into video

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2011
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:16:34 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The GX1 is for people who want to "look like" an enthusiast? You don't
>think it's suitable for an actual enthusiast? Why? It's a very nice
>body with an excellent sensor.


No included EVF. If you want a viewfinder, and what enthusiast doesn't want
one, you have to buy the optional LVF2 for like $250. Then you have no
external flash. Your weight is now greater than the G3. And with the extra
weight you didn't get an articulated screen.

Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2011
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The micro-4/3 looks more attractive on that basis, and brings the original
>topic well into focus!


I have made notes on weight comparisons. Remember the point of going from
DSLR to a smaller sensor (e.g. m4/3) is to save weight and get longer
telephoto.

Current Nikon carry:
D300 body 925g [D7000 780g]
12-24mm 485 [10-24mm 460g]
18-200mm 565
Total 1975

Panasonic m4/3:
G3 body 336g
7-14mm 300
14-140mm 460
100-300mm 520
Total 1616

Don. http://paleofood.com (e-mail at page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2011
Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
> No included EVF. If you want a viewfinder, and what enthusiast

doesn't want
> one, you have to buy the optional LVF2 for like $250. Then you have

no
> external flash. Your weight is now greater than the G3. And with

the extra
> weight you didn't get an articulated screen.




Plus, if you bought the LUMIX X 14-42mm 'pancake' kit zoom lens, it
is a lemon. The image quality is no better than the cheaper
non-pancake 14-42mm and may even be much worse, as early examples
show a lot of sample variation.

The earlier 14-45mm kit zoom is a much better lens than either of the
14-42mm kit lenses. It has much better build quality and the optics
are far better than anyone should expect from a reasonably priced
zoom lens.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2011
Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:16:34 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>The GX1 is for people who want to "look like" an enthusiast? You don't
>>think it's suitable for an actual enthusiast? Why? It's a very nice
>>body with an excellent sensor.

>
> No included EVF. If you want a viewfinder, and what enthusiast doesn't want
> one, you have to buy the optional LVF2 for like $250. Then you have no
> external flash. Your weight is now greater than the G3. And with the extra
> weight you didn't get an articulated screen.


Viewfinder obssession is a relatively rare condition suffered by quite a
small proportion of photo professionals and enthusiasts. I, for
example, have been taking photos since at least 1962 (that's the
earliest of my own negatives I have) and shooting SLRs since 1969, any
my main body currently is a Nikon D700. But I don't miss a "viewfinder"
on my EPL-2 much at all, and DO very much miss a tilt/swivel LCD (on the
D700, too).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2011
> I have made notes on weight comparisons. Remember the point of going
> from
> DSLR to a smaller sensor (e.g. m4/3) is to save weight and get longer
> telephoto.
>
> Current Nikon carry:
> D300 body 925g [D7000 780g]
> 12-24mm 485 [10-24mm 460g]
> 18-200mm 565
> Total 1975
>
> Panasonic m4/3:
> G3 body 336g
> 7-14mm 300
> 14-140mm 460
> 100-300mm 520
> Total 1616
>
> Don. http://paleofood.com (e-mail at page bottom).


Or, if one can live with 280 mm (eq) maximum zoom (and your 18-200 mm is
only ~300 mm maximum equivalent):

Panasonic m4/3:
G3 body 336g
7-14mm 300
14-140mm 460
Total 1096

About half the weight, and very tempting simply because of that.

Are any of the sensors back-illuminated, or is that improvement still to
come?

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2011
Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:12:03 -0000, "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>"Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>[]
>>> The real shame is that the Sony NEX bodies have sensors as good as any
>>> APS-C SLR, but have little lens support. I ditched the NEX for that
>>> reason. The lack of glass (without some GD adapter) was just too
>>> limiting.

>>
>>What lenses would you regard as the minimum for an accpetable system?
>>
>>David


> A good kit zoom
> a good tele zoom
> a good wide zoom (none so far on NEX)
> a fast normal prime (none so far on NEX)
> a fast wide angle prime (NEX has one, but it isn't good)
> fast portrait lens (NEX has one! Surprise!)


There's now an alpha DSLR lens converter for NEX which adds an
autofocus facility for those alpha mount lenses which use a
camera-body autofocus drive. So those missing holes in the NEX lens
lineup can be filled with Sony alphamount lenses or third party
alphamount lenses (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Zeiss). Of course that's
extra bulk plus the converter cost.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2011
Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:55:08 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:16:34 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The GX1 is for people who want to "look like" an enthusiast? You don't
>>>>think it's suitable for an actual enthusiast? Why? It's a very nice
>>>>body with an excellent sensor.
>>>
>>> No included EVF. If you want a viewfinder, and what enthusiast doesn't want
>>> one, you have to buy the optional LVF2 for like $250. Then you have no
>>> external flash. Your weight is now greater than the G3. And with the extra
>>> weight you didn't get an articulated screen.

>>
>>Viewfinder obssession is a relatively rare condition suffered by quite a
>>small proportion of photo professionals and enthusiasts. I, for
>>example, have been taking photos since at least 1962 (that's the
>>earliest of my own negatives I have) and shooting SLRs since 1969, any
>>my main body currently is a Nikon D700. But I don't miss a "viewfinder"
>>on my EPL-2 much at all, and DO very much miss a tilt/swivel LCD (on the
>>D700, too).

>
> Gee. I guess after 40 years of shooting, I'm no longer an "enthusiast"
> either. Frankly, the need for an EVF on the GX1 is a purely personal
> decision. The LCD is excellent.


I've got no argument with personal preference!

And if I spent more than 1% of my shooting time in the sun, I might even
have a thing for viewfinders myself. But now, I find that when I am in
the sun, I can see enough to frame, which is what's crucial.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Wiss
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2011
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:19:52 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:50:50 -0500, Don Wiss wrote:
>>I have made notes on weight comparisons. Remember the point of going from
>>DSLR to a smaller sensor (e.g. m4/3) is to save weight and get longer
>>telephoto.
>>
>>Current Nikon carry:
>>D300 body 925g [D7000 780g]
>>12-24mm 485 [10-24mm 460g]
>>18-200mm 565
>>Total 1975
>>
>>Panasonic m4/3:
>>G3 body 336g
>>7-14mm 300
>>14-140mm 460
>>100-300mm 520
>>Total 1616
>>

>
>Don, that's a strange comparison. One kit maxes out at 200mm, the
>other at a 600mm eqivilant. Why?


The Nikon has a 1.5 crop factor. So I now get 300mm equivalent max. The
above, written for me, was to show how I could improve both my wide and
long ends, and have less weight. The alternatives are listed in the Nikon
section as they could be upgrades for me. I could stay Nikon DX and improve
the wide angle and reduce the weight a little.

>Add up the7-14, new 14-42 and new
>45-175 and you're less than half the Nikon kit with better coverage.


You know their lenses better than I. My list above was done last Summer. I
just looked at your suggestions. I cannot image liking power zoom. I
certainly don't like the lever on a P&S.

>Or you could add enough glass to the Nikon kit to get you to 600mm.
>Then you'd have a VERY heavy kit, no?


Which is too heavy to bother researching what lenses might fill my needs.

Don. http://paleodiet.com/definition.htm (e-mail link at page bottom).
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2012
On Dec 30 2011, 7:14*pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:30:10 -0500, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:16:34 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>The GX1 is for people who want to "look like" an enthusiast? You don't
> >>think it's suitable for an actual enthusiast? Why? It's a very nice
> >>body with an excellent sensor.

>
> >No included EVF. If you want a viewfinder, and what enthusiast doesn't want
> >one, you have to buy the optional LVF2 for like $250. Then you have no
> >external flash. Your weight is now greater than the G3. And with the extra
> >weight you didn't get an articulated screen.

>
> >Don.www.donwiss.com/pictures/(e-mail link at page bottoms).

>
> Uh, well, I'm very entuusiastic about mine, and I don't need an EVF.
> Not everyone does. But to make that claim is ridiculous.


There are other considerations. Some people don't want to have to wear
glasses when they shoot but there is no such thing as an LCD with
"dioptric correction." EVF's all have them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light? RichA Digital Photography 2 12-25-2011 07:58 PM
Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light? RichA Digital Photography 2 12-25-2011 07:57 PM
Pcos low carb diet. Low carb diet program. Cholesterol low carb diet.Low carb diet foods. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb diabetes diet. Low fat high carb diet. The low carb diet.Low carb diet pregnancy. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb calorie diet. No low carb diet. Free low carb diet. Low carbdiet meal plan. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM



Advertisments