Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wally, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. Wally

    Wally Guest

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:13:45 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:11:43 -0800, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2013-02-07 14:10:59 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>
    >>> A friend of mine is looking to buy a new camera and has asked for my
    >>> comments. I suspect he is mainly interested in a light-weight camera
    >>> for use on his numerous travels and is not a serious amatuer
    >>> photographer. He has written in an email:
    >>>
    >>> "I don't know whether to buy a Panasonic G3 or the more recent G5.
    >>> Price is not an issue, but the G3 is smaller and lighter which is
    >>> good, but the G5 has a sharper LCD screen plus a few more features,
    >>> so. They both get a very even number of marks from me."
    >>>
    >>> ... which gives some idea of what is important to him.
    >>>
    >>> I don't know anything much about this class of camera and would be
    >>> grateful for any helpful comments from those who know them.

    >>
    >>The self appointed 4/3 king is Rich. However from what I can see there
    >>isn't too much between those two Panasonics.
    >>The major differences are in frame rate 6f/s vs 4f/s; HD video quality;
    >>MP4 video; Aluminum front plate vs plastic; improved battery life.
    >>
    >>Here is the dpreview comparison, cutting to the chase I would go for
    >>the newer and slightly better featured G5:
    >><
    >>http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...cts=panasonic_dmcgh3&products=panasonic_dmcg5
    >>>

    >>< http://tinyurl.com/amsdn92 >

    >
    >
    >I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. Are there any other cameras
    >hhshould be considering.


    Sony RX100, one of the best inventions of the year according to Time
    Magazine.
    http://tinyurl.com/bmvuwvg

    I own one. Great camera!

    W
     
    Wally, Feb 8, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wally

    Wally Guest

    On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:21:53 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Wally says...
    >> Sony RX100, one of the best inventions of the year according to Time
    >> Magazine.
    >> http://tinyurl.com/bmvuwvg
    >>
    >> I own one. Great camera!

    >
    >Perhaps but the sensor is quite small and the lens is not
    >interchangeable.


    The sensor is small compared to a DSLR's, but very big compared to a
    compact camera. And it is a compact camera.

    It is amazing how big the sensor is compared to the small size of the
    camera.

    The lens has a convenient zoom range. The advantages of it not being
    interchangeable are a smaller camera, no risk of dust on the sensor,
    lower cost, easier to use, and tighter tolerances.

    And from what I understand, many buy (very bulky) entry level DSLRs
    and never buy another lens for it. In such cases it is better to buy a
    camera with fixed lens.

    I DO have DSLRs, and a set of lenses. I use the RX100 for casual
    shooting. It is so easy to take everywhere. As a result, I get shots I
    would not have got otherwise.

    A side effect is that my 17-55mm f2.8 Canon lens gets much less use
    now. That lens cost twice as much as the whole RX100. OK, that lens/
    DSLR/external flash combo gets easily better results... but is very
    inconvenient to lug around.

    So the RX100 wins because of convenience.

    W
     
    Wally, Feb 9, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wally

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 9, 11:25 am, Wally <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:21:53 +0100, Alfred Molon
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >In article <>, Wally says...
    > >> Sony RX100, one of the best inventions of the year according to Time
    > >> Magazine.
    > >>http://tinyurl.com/bmvuwvg

    >
    > >> I own one. Great camera!

    >
    > >Perhaps but the sensor is quite small and the lens is not
    > >interchangeable.

    >
    > The sensor is small compared to a DSLR's, but very big compared to a
    > compact camera. And it is a compact camera.
    >
    > It is amazing how big the sensor is compared to the small size of the
    > camera.
    >
    > The lens has a convenient zoom range. The advantages of it not being
    > interchangeable are a smaller camera, no risk of dust on the sensor,
    > lower cost, easier to use, and tighter tolerances.
    >
    > And from what I understand, many buy (very bulky) entry level DSLRs
    > and never buy another lens for it. In such cases it is better to buy a
    > camera with fixed lens.
    >
    > I DO have DSLRs, and a set of lenses. I use the RX100 for casual
    > shooting. It is so easy to take everywhere. As a result, I get shots I
    > would not have got otherwise.
    >
    > A side effect is that my 17-55mm f2.8 Canon lens gets much less use
    > now. That lens cost twice as much as the whole RX100. OK, that lens/
    > DSLR/external flash combo gets easily better results... but is very
    > inconvenient to lug around.
    >
    > So the RX100 wins because of convenience.
    >
    > W


    It's not a great camera, no fixed zoom cameras are. You are far
    better off getting an interchangeable lens camera of some kind.
     
    RichA, Feb 9, 2013
    #3
  4. Wally

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/9/2013 5:48 PM, RichA wrote:
    snip>

    >
    > It's not a great camera, no fixed zoom cameras are. You are far
    > better off getting an interchangeable lens camera of some kind.
    >


    Nobody posting a question like the OP did is even going to consider a
    "great camera." They just want a reasonably decent camera to take
    images. IMHO, Here is an expensive, but decent camera, suitable for
    general use.

    <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/891920-REG/Leica_18461_D_LUX_6_Digital_Camera.html>



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 10, 2013
    #4
  5. Wally <> wrote:

    > The lens has a convenient zoom range. The advantages of it not being
    > interchangeable are a smaller camera, no risk of dust on the sensor,


    No risk of dust? Are you absolutely sure?
    The lens extends against the air pressure, creating a partial
    vacuum inside?

    Bulls.

    The lens extends, air (containing dust) is pumped into the camera.
    The lens retracts, air is pumped out of the camera.
    No shutter to keep the air and dust from the sensor.

    You need working dust filters to keep out the dust ... and
    that costs money!


    > lower cost, easier to use, and tighter tolerances.


    Tighter tolerances?
    How so? Are the cameras built better than ILCs? If so,
    how comes? Are plastic tubes and a budget[1] plastic gearing
    (with all that implies!) more exact than a bayonet?


    > And from what I understand, many buy (very bulky) entry level DSLRs
    > and never buy another lens for it. In such cases it is better to buy a
    > camera with fixed lens.


    Entry level DSLRs aren't bulky, never mind very bulky. A high
    end DSLR with a f/2.8 300mm lens is bulky. A DSLR is usually
    not pocketable, but that's a completely different thing.

    As to the "only one lens" thing: the DSLR even then has a
    large sensor. It depends a lot on how you use your camera
    (and which lens it is that you use) if that matters.

    [...]

    > So the RX100 wins because of convenience.


    For you and your specific convenience and your specific
    quality needs, yes. For everyone? Come on!

    -Wolfgang

    [1] And you are on a *tight* budget due to the pressure of EVIL
    and DSLR entry levels from above. And everyone else is
    in a cut throat competition with you, and on price as well.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 24, 2013
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:40:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Wally <> wrote:


    >>> The lens has a convenient zoom range. The advantages of it not being
    >>> interchangeable are a smaller camera, no risk of dust on the sensor,


    >>No risk of dust? Are you absolutely sure?
    >>The lens extends against the air pressure, creating a partial
    >>vacuum inside?


    >>Bulls.


    >>The lens extends, air (containing dust) is pumped into the camera.
    >>The lens retracts, air is pumped out of the camera.
    >>No shutter to keep the air and dust from the sensor.


    >>You need working dust filters to keep out the dust ... and
    >>that costs money!


    > I've just finished watching a TV program about the making of the
    > recent BBC program about Africa. At one stage the photographer filming
    > ants in the desert takes of his large and expensive lens from his
    > large and expensive camera and tips the lens up and pours a stream of
    > sand out of it.


    Which wouldn't happen with non-interchangeable lens cameras
    .... because you couldn't take off the lens even if you wanted
    to remove the sand that worked itself inside!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 26, 2013
    #6
  7. Wally

    John Turco Guest

    On 2/26/2013 6:27 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-02-26 00:59:48 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>
    >> I've just finished watching a TV program about the making of the
    >> recent BBC program about Africa. At one stage the photographer filming
    >> ants in the desert takes of his large and expensive lens from his
    >> large and expensive camera and tips the lens up and pours a stream of
    >> sand out of it.

    >
    > < http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/nikon-lens-mugs/ >
    > <
    > http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban/catalog/productdetail.jsp?id=25558891
    > >

    > < http://100milligrams.com/nikon-2470mm-lens-thermos-coffee-p-261.html >
    >
    > ...and you could check Amazon.



    All very amusing! I wonder whether they have (and/or need) Nikon's
    permission?

    John
     
    John Turco, Feb 27, 2013
    #7
  8. Wally

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/26/2013 7:27 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-02-26 00:59:48 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>
    >> I've just finished watching a TV program about the making of the
    >> recent BBC program about Africa. At one stage the photographer filming
    >> ants in the desert takes of his large and expensive lens from his
    >> large and expensive camera and tips the lens up and pours a stream of
    >> sand out of it.

    >
    > < http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/nikon-lens-mugs/ >
    > <
    > http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban/catalog/productdetail.jsp?id=25558891
    > >

    > < http://100milligrams.com/nikon-2470mm-lens-thermos-coffee-p-261.html >
    >
    > ...and you could check Amazon.
    >
    >


    My daughter gave me one a a present. But, she gave me a Canon, so I
    wouldn't make a mistake. ;-)

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 2, 2013
    #8
    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. Bruce
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,635
    John Turco
    Sep 25, 2010
  2. RichA

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    RichA, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    229
    RichA
    Feb 8, 2013
  3. Paul Ciszek

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    Paul Ciszek, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    205
    Paul Ciszek
    Feb 9, 2013
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    200
    Paul Ciszek
    Feb 9, 2013
  5. John Turco

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    John Turco, Feb 10, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    208
    John Turco
    Feb 10, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page