Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Wiss, Dec 22, 2011.

  1. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
    m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
    doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
    100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
    that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
    shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.

    DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
    Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
    going to help in low light.

    Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
    Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
    more readily available.

    Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Dec 22, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

    > My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
    > m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
    > doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
    > 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
    > that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
    > shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.


    The whole point of a "mirrorless" body is to get rid of the complexity
    (expense), noise, and delay of the viewfinder system, while maintaining
    interchangeable lenses.

    Most people, including me (and I have negatives I shot going back to
    1962), are perfectly happy with electronic viewfinders, either on the
    back of the camera as LCD scfreens, or smaller ones with eyepieces. I
    know that a small minority are desperately unhappy to not have
    viewfinders, and I'm sorry about that.

    > DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
    > Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
    > going to help in low light.


    The biggest advantage is interchangeable lenses. The second biggest
    advantage is autofocus speed. Low-light performance might, possibly,
    make it in as #3.

    > Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
    > Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
    > more readily available.


    Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.

    I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
    should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
    the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).

    The Nikon D700 does very nicely in low light, but it's large and heavy
    and expensive. And most of the time 12MP is a lot more than I need.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Don Wiss

    Mort Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Don Wiss<donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:
    >
    >> My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
    >> m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
    >> doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
    >> 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
    >> that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
    >> shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.

    >
    > The whole point of a "mirrorless" body is to get rid of the complexity
    > (expense), noise, and delay of the viewfinder system, while maintaining
    > interchangeable lenses.
    >
    > Most people, including me (and I have negatives I shot going back to
    > 1962), are perfectly happy with electronic viewfinders, either on the
    > back of the camera as LCD scfreens, or smaller ones with eyepieces. I
    > know that a small minority are desperately unhappy to not have
    > viewfinders, and I'm sorry about that.
    >
    >> DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
    >> Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
    >> going to help in low light.

    >
    > The biggest advantage is interchangeable lenses. The second biggest
    > advantage is autofocus speed. Low-light performance might, possibly,
    > make it in as #3.
    >
    >> Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
    >> Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
    >> more readily available.

    >
    > Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.
    >
    > I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
    > should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
    > the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).
    >
    > The Nikon D700 does very nicely in low light, but it's large and heavy
    > and expensive. And most of the time 12MP is a lot more than I need.

    Hi,

    I recently took some low-light pictures indoors at a public event with
    my pocketable Canon S100, set at ISO 1,6000. I expected terrible pix at
    that ISO setting, and was quite pleasantly surprised. Up to 5x7" prints
    were surprisingly sharp and noise-free. At 8x10" prints, there was a
    small but visible decrease in sharpness and a mild increase in noise.
    However, good 5x7" prints were a real bonus, as I did not expect it.
    Again, a small camera in my pocket gets better pictures than a large SLR
    plus lenses left at home in my closet.

    Regards,

    Mort Linder
    Mort, Dec 22, 2011
    #3
  4. Don Wiss

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 22, 10:39 am, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
    > My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
    > m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
    > doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
    > 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
    > that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
    > shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.
    >
    > DSLRs have two big advantages over P&S: low light and wider angle. The
    > Panasonic lens people got the wide angle covered. But pushing to 16MP isn't
    > going to help in low light.
    >
    > Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
    > Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
    > more readily available.
    >
    > Don.www.donwiss.com/pictures/(e-mail link at page bottoms).


    Here's the thing. The G3 and GH2 have the best low-light performance,
    but if you compare them to the earlier G1, G2, G10, GF1 and GF2,
    you'll find they are less sensitive to light. Which means instead of
    having a 1.5 stop advantage, the newer ones are about 1 stop better.
    So, right now the G3 and GH2 are the best, unless Panasonic has done
    something new with the GX1. Now you can get a decent add-on EVF for
    the GF cameras, that puts the GX1 in the running with the G3 and GH2
    as far as versatility is concerned.

    Here's the GH2 versus the Nikon D7000

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/d7000_gh2_noise_tests
    RichA, Dec 22, 2011
    #4
  5. Don Wiss

    Bruce Guest

    Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
    <long rant snipped>
    > Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
    > Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1

    becomes
    > more readily available.



    If you need the best in low light, buy a DSLR. Don't even consider
    m43.

    All Panasonic m43 bodies produce visible noise even at base ISOs.
    The noise is not intrusive but it is there if you look for it.

    The Panasonic bodies that best control noise at higher ISOs are the
    G3, GX1 and GH2. I use the G3 and find that noise levels hardly
    change up to ISO 800. Even at ISO 1600 the noise is mostly
    acceptable. The GX1 uses the same sensor and essentially the same
    processor, so the image quality is essentially identical to that from
    the G3.

    Neither the G3 nor the GX1 compares with a good DSLR for low noise at
    high ISOs. If you buy an m43 camera in the expectation of low noise,
    you are guaranteed to be disappointed.
    Bruce, Dec 22, 2011
    #5
  6. Mort <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> Don Wiss<donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:


    >> Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.
    >>
    >> I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
    >> should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
    >> the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).
    >>
    >> The Nikon D700 does very nicely in low light, but it's large and heavy
    >> and expensive. And most of the time 12MP is a lot more than I need.

    >
    > I recently took some low-light pictures indoors at a public event with
    > my pocketable Canon S100, set at ISO 1,6000. I expected terrible pix
    > at that ISO setting, and was quite pleasantly surprised. Up to 5x7"
    > prints were surprisingly sharp and noise-free. At 8x10" prints, there
    > was a small but visible decrease in sharpness and a mild increase in
    > noise. However, good 5x7" prints were a real bonus, as I did not
    > expect it.
    > Again, a small camera in my pocket gets better pictures than a large
    > SLR plus lenses left at home in my closet.


    I just wasn't satisfied with what my Panasonic DMC-LX3 could do at 800
    or 1600 even at screen size. I upgraded to an Olumpus EPL-2 body and
    put the Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake on it, and have MUCH improved my
    ability to shoot usable pictures in low light with my secondary camera.
    Plus I play some (haven't mounted my 70-200/2.8 on it yet though).

    The moderate increase in size was worth it to me (and the LX3 wasn't
    super-small, not as small as an S90 familly).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 22, 2011
    #6
  7. Don Wiss

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:00:20 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    wrote:
    >I just wasn't satisfied with what my Panasonic DMC-LX3 could do at 800
    >or 1600 even at screen size. I upgraded to an Olumpus EPL-2 body and
    >put the Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake on it, and have MUCH improved my
    >ability to shoot usable pictures in low light with my secondary camera.
    >Plus I play some (haven't mounted my 70-200/2.8 on it yet though).
    >
    >The moderate increase in size was worth it to me (and the LX3 wasn't
    >super-small, not as small as an S90 familly).



    The Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX6 will have a larger 1" sensor,
    approximately the same size as the sensor used in the Nikon 1 Series.
    Bruce, Dec 22, 2011
    #7
  8. Bruce <> writes:

    > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:00:20 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    > wrote:
    >>I just wasn't satisfied with what my Panasonic DMC-LX3 could do at 800
    >>or 1600 even at screen size. I upgraded to an Olumpus EPL-2 body and
    >>put the Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake on it, and have MUCH improved my
    >>ability to shoot usable pictures in low light with my secondary camera.
    >>Plus I play some (haven't mounted my 70-200/2.8 on it yet though).
    >>
    >>The moderate increase in size was worth it to me (and the LX3 wasn't
    >>super-small, not as small as an S90 familly).

    >
    >
    > The Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX6 will have a larger 1" sensor,
    > approximately the same size as the sensor used in the Nikon 1 Series.


    And the Nikon 1 gets fairly good ratings for low light. Still, I think
    I'm pretty much done with fixed-lens cameras.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 22, 2011
    #8
  9. Don Wiss

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Bruce <> writes:
    > > The Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX6 will have a larger 1" sensor,
    > > approximately the same size as the sensor used in the Nikon 1

    Series.
    >
    >
    > And the Nikon 1 gets fairly good ratings for low light.



    Indeed, it is better than any m43 sensor in that respect. Of course
    it has fewer pixels, which helps a little.

    The most useful review of a 1 Series body that I have seen so far is
    the one by Thom Hogan on his new site, sansmirror.com. Obviously he
    writes from the viewpoint of a pro user, but he savages the J1 body.


    It is probably the most negative Nikon product review that I have
    ever seen from Thom, and completely justifiable from his point of
    view.


    >Still, I think I'm pretty much done with fixed-lens cameras.



    I thought that too, but now I really regret selling my Canon
    PowerShot G9.

    My Panasonic G3 is a very satisfying camera, but it lacks the sheer
    portability of the Canon G9. With the 20mm f/1.7, it gets close, but
    only at the expense of losing the reach of the Canon's excellent
    lens.
    Bruce, Dec 22, 2011
    #9
  10. Don Wiss

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:02:50 -0500, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>
    wrote:
    >On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >
    >>Why don't you just buy a standard DSLR?

    >
    >I have a standard DSLR. It weighs a ton. Plus I max out at 300mm
    >equivalent. Going higher requires much more weight. With the Panasonix m4/3
    >lenses I can go from 14-600mm equivalent with less weight than I now carry
    >for 18-300mm equivalent.



    Just don't expect (from m43) the sort of low noise/high ISO
    performance that you get with most DSLRs. You cannot have it all.
    Bruce, Dec 22, 2011
    #10
  11. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:
    >
    >> My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
    >> m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
    >> doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
    >> 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
    >> that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
    >> shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.

    >
    >The whole point of a "mirrorless" body is to get rid of the complexity
    >(expense), noise, and delay of the viewfinder system, while maintaining
    >interchangeable lenses.
    >
    >Most people, including me (and I have negatives I shot going back to
    >1962), are perfectly happy with electronic viewfinders, either on the
    >back of the camera as LCD scfreens, or smaller ones with eyepieces. I
    >know that a small minority are desperately unhappy to not have
    >viewfinders, and I'm sorry about that.


    I didn't write anything about wanting an optical viewfinder. An electronic
    is fine. I am referring to their new GX1. It is supposed to appeal to the
    DSLR people, but the electronic viewfinder is optional and when in use
    there is no external flash.

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Dec 22, 2011
    #11
  12. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    >Why don't you just buy a standard DSLR?


    I have a standard DSLR. It weighs a ton. Plus I max out at 300mm
    equivalent. Going higher requires much more weight. With the Panasonix m4/3
    lenses I can go from 14-600mm equivalent with less weight than I now carry
    for 18-300mm equivalent.

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Dec 23, 2011
    #12
  13. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss writes:
    >> Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
    >> Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
    >> more readily available.

    >
    >Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.
    >
    >I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
    >should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
    >the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).


    I agree. But 6MP would never sell. What I think they did wrong was to go
    from 12MP to 16MP on the new GX1.

    I only shoot for the web. I shoot at 1/4 size. So a 16MP camera gives me a
    4MP image. Still way more than I need.

    The question really should be what is the best light in 1/4 resolution.
    Does merging four pixels into one dot give such a resolution a better low
    light response?

    Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Dec 23, 2011
    #13
  14. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, RichA <> wrote:

    >Here's the thing. The G3 and GH2 have the best low-light performance,
    >but if you compare them to the earlier G1, G2, G10, GF1 and GF2,
    >you'll find they are less sensitive to light. Which means instead of
    >having a 1.5 stop advantage, the newer ones are about 1 stop better.
    >So, right now the G3 and GH2 are the best, unless Panasonic has done
    >something new with the GX1. Now you can get a decent add-on EVF for
    >the GF cameras, that puts the GX1 in the running with the G3 and GH2
    >as far as versatility is concerned.


    Versatility is less with GX1, as no external flash plus viewfinder. And
    with the viewfinder it weighs more than the G3.

    On this page: http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-G3-vs-Panasonic-GX1

    In comparing the GX1 and G3 it has:

    Better maximum light sensitivity 12,800 ISO vs 6,400 ISO
    The DMC-GX1's maximum light sensitivity is 1 f-stop better

    The problem is Panasonic has no best camera. The G3 with the articulated
    screen, built-in viewfinder, and flash shoe has the best form factor. But
    the GX1 is better in low light. And both have too many pixels.

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Dec 23, 2011
    #14
  15. Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

    > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >>Don Wiss writes:
    >>> Coming from a DSLR I still want the best in low light. Which of the
    >>> Panasonic bodies is this? This may be hard to answer before the GX1 becomes
    >>> more readily available.

    >>
    >>Nobody seems to care to make cameras for that market.
    >>
    >>I'm part of it too. I'd be happy for a 6MP Micro four-thirds, and that
    >>should be able to have pixels the same size as in a D3 and hence have
    >>the same low-light performance (given the same sensor tech).

    >
    > I agree. But 6MP would never sell. What I think they did wrong was to go
    > from 12MP to 16MP on the new GX1.
    >
    > I only shoot for the web. I shoot at 1/4 size. So a 16MP camera gives me a
    > 4MP image. Still way more than I need.


    I've got a 24x36 print on my wall at home (and work bought a copy at
    20x30) that I printed from a 6MP digital original. It's better than I
    could have done on 35mm film, back when I used film. It's not perfect;
    if I'd shot it on 4x5 film I think it could have been better. But it's
    very very nice, nobody would complain about the resolution.

    And I very rarely need to even THINK about going to that size from my
    secondary camera.

    I have framed 8x10 prints on the wall made from my first 2MP digital
    camera. Again, there's really nothing wrong with them technically; only
    infinitessimal value to be had by making them "better".

    The megapixel race is really crazy.

    > The question really should be what is the best light in 1/4 resolution.
    > Does merging four pixels into one dot give such a resolution a better low
    > light response?


    Maybe; but it's better to do binning before rendering RAW into RGB.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 23, 2011
    #15
  16. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >The megapixel race is really crazy.


    It is a marketing thing. I think I've figured out what Panasonic is up to.
    The marketing people are in charge of teh bodies. The GX1 is being marketed
    as an enthusiast camera. Take a look at it. It was designed to resemble an
    old Leica viewfinder camera, which was very much an enthusiast camera.

    Then look at the G3. With the built-in viewfinder and articulated screen it
    has a superior form factor. But look at it again. It looks just like all
    the high end P&S's with long zoom. What enthusiast wants to have a camera
    that looks plebeian? Hence the crippled GX1.

    Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Dec 23, 2011
    #16
  17. Don Wiss

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 22, 6:59 pm, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > >Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> writes:

    >
    > >> My complaint with the Panasonic body designers is they still think of the
    > >> m4/3 as an upgrade to P&S and not a downgrade from DSLR. The new GX1
    > >> doesn't have a built-in view finder. Didn't they notice that this is on
    > >> 100% of the DSLRs? And it has been pushed up to 16MP. Haven't they noticed
    > >> that today people post pictures on the web and not print them? And people
    > >> shooting for magazines aren't likely to be using a m4/3.

    >
    > >The whole point of a "mirrorless" body is to get rid of the complexity
    > >(expense), noise, and delay of the viewfinder system, while maintaining
    > >interchangeable lenses.

    >
    > >Most people, including me (and I have negatives I shot going back to
    > >1962), are perfectly happy with electronic viewfinders, either on the
    > >back of the camera as LCD scfreens, or smaller ones with eyepieces.  I
    > >know that a small minority are desperately unhappy to not have
    > >viewfinders, and I'm sorry about that.

    >
    > I didn't write anything about wanting an optical viewfinder. An electronic
    > is fine. I am referring to their new GX1. It is supposed to appeal to the
    > DSLR people, but the electronic viewfinder is optional and when in use
    > there is no external flash.
    >
    > Don.www.donwiss.com(e-mail link at home page bottom).


    Honestly, if someone is coming from a DSLR today, and has no
    experience with the mirror-less cameras, I'd try to test a few out,
    Sony, Samsung, Olympus, Panasonic. They all offer various attributes
    and negatives.
    RichA, Dec 23, 2011
    #17
  18. Don Wiss

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 22, 7:58 pm, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, RichA <> wrote:
    > >Here's the thing.  The G3 and GH2 have the best low-light performance,
    > >but if you compare them to the earlier G1, G2, G10, GF1 and GF2,
    > >you'll find they are less sensitive to light.  Which means instead of
    > >having a 1.5 stop advantage, the newer ones are about 1 stop better.
    > >So, right now the G3 and GH2 are the best, unless Panasonic has done
    > >something new with the GX1.  Now you can get a decent add-on EVF for
    > >the GF cameras, that puts the GX1 in the running with the G3 and GH2
    > >as far as versatility is concerned.

    >
    > Versatility is less with GX1, as no external flash plus viewfinder. And
    > with the viewfinder it weighs more than the G3.
    >
    > On this page:http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-G3-vs-Panasonic-GX1
    >
    > In comparing the GX1 and G3 it has:
    >
    > Better maximum light sensitivity 12,800 ISO vs 6,400 ISO
    > The DMC-GX1's maximum light sensitivity is 1 f-stop better


    All they are doing is adding another gain stage to get that. There is
    no reason to expect it's any better than simply "pushing" a G3 image
    in post-processing. Again, I'd experiment.
    What is a good idea that they've added to the GX1 is the grip, which
    is something you will miss using the early GF models, if you've come
    from a DSLR.
    RichA, Dec 23, 2011
    #18
  19. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, RichA <> wrote:

    >Honestly, if someone is coming from a DSLR today, and has no
    >experience with the mirror-less cameras, I'd try to test a few out,
    >Sony, Samsung, Olympus, Panasonic. They all offer various attributes
    >and negatives.


    Wide angle is important to me. It was one of the two reasons I went to DSLR
    (the other being low light). I now get 18mm equivalent. I could change my
    wide angle lens and get down to 15mm. I'm not so sure going from a fixed
    aperture to a variable one can be called an upgrade. A Panasonic lens gets
    me down to 14mm. It is their lenses that I like.

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Dec 23, 2011
    #19
  20. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss says...
    >
    >> Wide angle is important to me. It was one of the two reasons I went to DSLR
    >> (the other being low light). I now get 18mm equivalent. I could change my
    >> wide angle lens and get down to 15mm. I'm not so sure going from a fixed
    >> aperture to a variable one can be called an upgrade. A Panasonic lens gets
    >> me down to 14mm. It is their lenses that I like.

    >
    >With panorama stitching you can get as wide as you want.


    I am aware of this. I do a lot of stitching with PTGui. But that is a lot
    of work when I want to get a picture of a storefront and there is a truck
    parked in front. And stitching does not work well when there is no horizon
    in the picture.

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Dec 23, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ishtarbgl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    484
    ishtarbgl
    Apr 1, 2004
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    554
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Brian
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,078
    Bob Larter
    Jun 14, 2009
  4. RichA

    Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?

    RichA, Dec 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    219
    RichA
    Dec 25, 2011
  5. RichA

    Re: Best Panasonic m4/3 body for low light?

    RichA, Dec 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    218
    RichA
    Dec 25, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page