General discussionIf you aren't sure which forum your post would be best housed in, post it here. Some posts and threads may eventually be moved to other forums.
HI Patrick,
i have almost made the decision to get one of these too, as a second camera for my wife to use next year as I have D5000, I cant do point and shoot. so I for one will look forward to your opinion on the G3..............thats if i havent taken the plunge before
There is always a dilemma for people interested in Micro Four Thirds - Olympus or Panasonic? In-body IS (Olympus) or in-lens OIS (Panasonic, though not on all lenses), EVF built in or add-on optional extra?
As both you and Patrick have opted for the G3, I guess the integrated viewfinder is perhaps top of the list of priorities?
My priorities were the viewfinder, size, cost and not least performance, as I have had four thirds before my Nikon format is not an an issue.
I need something that will point and shoot for my good lady that is easy to handle but maintain SLR quality as it will probably use it more.
And in that vain I ordered it earlier this evening
My priorities were the viewfinder, size, cost and not least performance, as I have had four thirds before my Nikon format is not an an issue.
I need something that will point and shoot for my good lady that is easy to handle but maintain SLR quality as it will probably use it more.
And in that vain I ordered it earlier this evening
The viewfinder was high on my list of priority's as well, the viewfinder of my Canon G10 is pathetic and its not always convenient to use the screen for composition.
One interesting fact, I used a SD card with some images made with the Canon and I could view them on the Panasonic, I thought the file formats were incompatible.
Anyway here are two images made in the garden this evening, one at 800ISO the other at 160ISO, can you make out which is which? (without peaking at the exif data)
They were both taken in RAW brightness corrected and smart sharpened exactly the same.
The viewfinder was high on my list of priority's as well, the viewfinder of my Canon G10 is pathetic and its not always convenient to use the screen for composition.
One interesting fact, I used a SD card with some images made with the Canon and I could view them on the Panasonic, I thought the file formats were incompatible.
Anyway here are two images made in the garden this evening, one at 800ISO the other at 160ISO, can you make out which is which? (without peaking at the exif data)
They were both taken in RAW brightness corrected and smart sharpened exactly the same.
Patrick
The first has more depth of field so the aperture must be smaller, so it has to be the higher ISO shot
The first has more depth of field so the aperture must be smaller, so it has to be the higher ISO shot
Ian
I have taken your advice Ian and today acquired a second hand 14-140 lens, had a good trade-in deal on the 14-42 kit lens.
Much better built lens, much smoother to use, test shots show the optics to be pretty good too.
I am negotiating for the 7-14 so will probably have bought that by tomorrow.
The two lenses should make a comprehensive kit to cover most photo opportunities, and less weight than my Canon 7D with the Sigma f2.8 24-70
Here is a shot taken in Stratford-upon-Avon on Saturday (with the kit lens), I inadvertently set the ISO to 3200. Still a very usable image.
I have taken your advice Ian and today acquired a second hand 14-140 lens, had a good trade-in deal on the 14-42 kit lens.
Much better built lens, much smoother to use, test shots show the optics to be pretty good too.
I am negotiating for the 7-14 so will probably have bought that by tomorrow.
The two lenses should make a comprehensive kit to cover most photo opportunities, and less weight than my Canon 7D with the Sigma f2.8 24-70
Here is a shot taken in Stratford-upon-Avon on Saturday (with the kit lens), I inadvertently set the ISO to 3200. Still a very usable image.
Patrick
I have today picked up the 7-14 f4 Panasonic lens, just one word to describe it (at least after taking a few test shots) WOW its a little cracker. Light weight, smooth as silk very, quick focusing, and so far the test shots show optical super. Just love it.
My experience with the 4/3 system thus far, Panasonic in particular is making me seriously consider my Canon gear. Do I need it?
Here is a quick image or two, the first 7mm end about 6 or 7 inches from the flower.
f8 1/500sec 800ISO. Just converted from RAW no sharpening or additional contrast adjustment.
The second image again no sharpening or additional contrast adjustment.
f6.3 140mm 800ISO.
A cracking set of images Patrick, i picked our G3 up last week too, I must say
the image of the guitarist is very good, but i do have reservations about the 14-42mm kit lens. I have found that it can be quite soft on some landscapes I have taken but quite sharp in the mid range of zoom.
One thing i have stopped doing is comparing it to my Nikon as i can always find something on the negative side.
What you have shown is that with the right lenses the G3 is a match for anything in the same price bracket, and that 7-14mm lens does look to be the way to go to get those super crisp shots like those flowers
A cracking set of images Patrick, i picked our G3 up last week too, I must say
the image of the guitarist is very good, but i do have reservations about the 14-42mm kit lens. I have found that it can be quite soft on some landscapes I have taken but quite sharp in the mid range of zoom.
One thing i have stopped doing is comparing it to my Nikon as i can always find something on the negative side.
What you have shown is that with the right lenses the G3 is a match for anything in the same price bracket, and that 7-14mm lens does look to be the way to go to get those super crisp shots like those flowers
I wasn't that unhappy with the kit lens, but I did find it cheaply made, plastic mount and a bit rough when zooming. I traded it (£55 and a bit more discount equalling about £70) for the 14-140 second hand now that is smooth and well made. But that 7-14 is superb bit of glass.
We have a studio night at the club next week so I shall be seeing how it compares with the Canon, I shall use both cameras side by side (not the wide angle not very flattering for the model).
I've also found that the kit lens is not very smooth when zooming, but adequate for the reason we bought the set up, the G3 body is very nice to handle. I can live with the kit lens but will be looking at some secondhand lenses for the longer zooms.
The dilemma for Micro Four Thirds users is that there are plenty of lenses available (30-odd Panasonic, Olympus and Sigma ones and others coming from new brands to Micro Four Thirds) but only Panasonic ones are optically stabilised because Olympus exclusively uses in-body IS.
You can of course use an adapter and fit any of the 20+ Four Thirds lenses from Olympus, Sigma and Panasonic and you will get almost full functionality but slower AF.
Perhaps the star lens in Micro Four Thirds recently has been the Olympus m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 - it's very fast, amazingly sharp (even wide open), tiny and it's very affordable at around £250. It makes a very compelling portrait lens with an equivalent focal length of 90mm.
Panasonic today announced a compact 45-150 (90-300) f/4-5.6, which is optically stabilised and shouldn't be too expensive. See:
Hi Ian,
I have re aquainted myself with the FtU site as im still amember from my Oly E500 days.
The new 45-150 lens does look interesting as does the 45-200 as the extra zoom would suit the horse photos I like to take.
Also now im running to systems Panasonic and Nikon there is a financial issue to consider so the budget end of either market is my target area.
Hi Mike - it will be interesting to see how you respond to the G3 Your Nikon D5000 has a better sensor especially in dynamic range, but the difference is not like night and day. Noise is pretty similar. I'd be very interested to know how you feel about the respective results you are getting from the two cameras.
Linear Mode
