A question for the Photographers

Personally, I own the GF2, I really like the compact size, ease of use, and the lens availability- main reason I purchased the camera in the first place. I currently only own the kit lens (14-42mm), but the 14mm f1.7 and the 20mm f2.5 are really appealing to me for their compactness and low light capabilities. I'm in the process of saving up for the 14mm on ebay when people jump ship for the new Lumix X lenses. The 14mm will make an excellent landscape camera, handles low light well, and from what I've read is a good lens for video on the GF2.

The availability of lenses is hard to beat with the Panasonic system cameras, as is the price. If you can find yourself a used GF1 or GF2 and a lens or two I think you'll be under your $1000 budget easily. Just my two cents, but I'm no geeky camera guru like the above crowd so take my two cents for what it's worth.

For me dof control allows another creative tool. I definately utilize it on the trail especially when hiking with kids. So much focus on hiking tends to on where you are but some of my favourite pictures are of who i am

I am also a 1 system person so the advantages of dof control for me extend into my day to day shooting.

To answer your question an up to $600 u4/3 body and either the 20mm lens or the 45mm lens depending on where your interests lie. Or if you want something with a little more reach one of the 40-150's

del

After looking at the specs of all the mirrorless cameras and their lenses, I nixed the NEX because of both lack of lens variety and weight of the lenses. I don't know if bigger heavier lenses is a design/manufacturing problem or intrinsic to the larger sensor, but the NEX lenses make this a much heavier option than Pana Gs or Olys Pens.

I like the idea of making a budget by buying an older generation G or Pen, except that its only the newer generation that has the better quality video. Also the newer generation of both focuses significantly faster and more accurately. That said, a PL2 or GF2 with the kit lens, 20 f1.7 and x 45-175 would give you an extremely capable, quite light system for under $1k.

My number one regret with going 4/3s is the lack of long telephoto lenses for shooting wildlife. The only lens for the Pana(Lens stabilized) is the 100-300 zoom, which is not bad.
But after owning and much using a Canon 300 L f4 IS, and before that the older 300 non IS and, when I was younger and could lug it around, 500 f4.5–no zoom, including the L zooms, can compare to the resolution and color richness of a prime tele. And neither Pana nor Oly are making one or even suggested that they will make one. This is very disappointing to this wildlife photo lover, who, like B. Gross, usually keeps a tele on the camera and in the bag waiting for jewel shots.

This is what the 300 f4 L IS will do, hand-held. Nothing in the m4/3 stable comes close. Still, I've gone 4/3 so I can take quality images and video while backpacking, which I stopped taking my L teles on years ago.

It might be helpful to remember µ4/3 is but three years old–quite an infant in the industry but nevertheless has exploded in terms of available gear. The two key participants are on their third generation of bodies already and the lens count is in the dozens. Expect tons a new gear over the next year, including increased targeting of the pro market.

Sigma are getting off their duffs WRT µ4/3 so we can anticipate shrunken editions of several dslr lenses, doubtless including looong teles like the 50-500 "Bigma."

And then there's the entire 4/3 lens catalogue, which are all adaptable to µ4/3 while retaining their full capabilities. This is where the Oly IBIS bodies have a big advantage over Panny, as you'll retain IS regardless of which lens.

Absurd example: if you have a vast bank account and Charles Atlas' physique, grab a Zuiko 300/2.8, an EC14 or a EC20 teleconverter, and attach a dainty E-P3 and VF2. Voila: wildlife rig for the ages. Less absurd example: ZD 50-200 with EC14.

I'm eventually going to give digiscoping a try with a µ4/3 body and my spotting scope. Could be interesting.

Cheers,

Rick

Hi Rick, I agree that m4/3s is moving quickly. DPreview just announced a converter to use Canon EF lenses on m4/3s, though its $450! The whole point of going m4/3s is to save weight, and lugging legacy lenses and converters defeats the whole premise. So I will wait for the m4/3 native prime teles, though got the Pana 100-300 to get me through. Also getting the 45-175 X lens, which will give me 350mm equivalent(without arguing about equivalence conversion)which is not bad for 7 oz. Lots of commenters on the m4/3s forum on DPreview say it will be a long wait for m4/3s tele primes, as wildlife photography is not the m4/3 target. I hope they're wrong. Its a huge market–Outdoor Photographer used to have 700,000 paid subscribers.

Hi Mark,

The Redrock Canon adapter is kind of a goofy thing. Evidently the Canon aperture drive is electronic and the adapter provides power to close it in third-stop increments (default at rest is wide open). Pretty kludgy and I presume aimed primarily at cine applications. Interestingly, there's no AF capability and Canon's drive-by-wire lenses can't be used at all.

The Oly MMF-2 4/3 adapter retains all lens functions and is about the size of an extension tube. It's not cheap at $170 but not almost $500, either. I'd surely use a few of my 4/3 lenses with µ4/3, at least those not replicated in the new system. Because of the whole phase-detection/contrast detection AF compatibility thing, they're better suited to stills than video.

Hard to predict whether we'll see µ4/3 long tele primes, if we do I doubt it will be soon. The market expects zooms and that's mostly what it gets, although the latest fast primes have a lot of folks excited. This seems like a niche third-party lens makers could fill pretty easily.

Wildlife and sports place the greatest technical demands on camera gear. Since going digital I now dabble in both but realize the gear required to "get serious" costs tens of thousands. In the meantime I depend on a heaping of luck to succeed with either.

Exciting times to be a gear geek.

Cheers,

Rick

I would buy a G3 with the kit zoom lens and a 20/1.7. Might be a little more than $1000.

The G3 is not a large camera — it's almost exactly the same size as my GF1, and it has an excellent built in EVF. My wife carries her G1 with the 14-45 zoom with the lens hood mounted in a small waist pack we got at Wal-Mart. It rides on the front, for easy access while hiking. The G1 is larger than the G3, and this system works just fine. (Hint for anyone using that Wallymart waist pack with a camera – use a tiny safety pin to limit the zipper travel, otherwise it can open all the way and dump your camera on the ground. Ask me how I know this….)

As for waiting for the mythical new enthusiast's GF-whatever, sure, I'm holding off on a new camera right now until I see what happens in a few months. But I already have plenty of cameras, so I can wait. If you need a camera now, get what's out there now. This applies to any kind of technology — there is *always* something better on the horizon. You can wait forever, and not take any pictures.

Nex 5N is the camera for you.

Take Nex5n +16mm and it is small and light.

Someone said that Nex has lenses that are too big. Let me explain – Nex has some of the largest sensors before you get to DSLR territory. Due to the size of the sensor and the fact that this camera has interchangable lenses – it is not possible to make them as small as point and shoot. If you take your P&S camera apart – you will see how tiny the sensor is – which makes a small built-in lens possible.

Nex by far has the best quality (in fact better than some DSLRs) and video that is nothing short of stunning…And because you can change lenses on it – it can small and light or big and heavy. And with the special adapter – you can use Alpha lenses including some true marvels – Minolta, Zeiss and Sony lenses – primes or zooms (including full frame ones).

Yes you can get smaller and lighter cameras, but nothing that will take images as good as Nex5n or Nex 7.

Yes, you can get camera that will take better images or video – but nothing as small and light as Nex5n or Nex7.

Don’t forget the Ricoh GXR. It has modules with large senors, too. Now it has a module for the Leica M-Mount lenses, also. Some people are saying that it might even be better than the Leica cameras in many ways. The quality of the GXR A-12 sensor photos is astounding. And because of the ability to change sensors with each module, who knows what the future holds for the GXR. Rumors have it that an A-12 sensor zoom lens is now in the works.

A lot of digiscopers are saying the GXR is ideal. Here is a Kowa video introducing it.

For those of you who are seeking more information about mirrorless cameras, here is one lead. The new November 2011 issue of Outdoor Photographer magazine has an article that compares standard DSLR cameras versus mirrorless, plus the brands and models of mirrorless.

Prior to reading the article, I didn't know that mirrorless only uses contrast detection autofocus, so that pretty much kills it for me.

–B.G.–

1 – Nex5n and Nex7 can use phase detection with Alpha mount lenses, which makes focus much faster.

2 – Nex5n was just reviewed by Dpreview.com (which is known among photogs as a reliable and competent testing shop) and gave it's Gold Award.

3 – the review you have read was done with the older models. New models Nex5n and 7 are more advanced and have more features and options. When the magazine issue went to print, the new Nex models have been just announced. Only a handful of camera review shops had them for testing and all of those had signed NDAs. So even though 5n and 7 were "included" in the review – they were compared only based on the published specs and not an actual test. Furthermore, of all the camera's in the article – it was the lightest camera with the largest sensor (here, larger is actually better), highest video framerate/quality AND widest ISO range.

4 – why does it kill it for you? If it works well – why do you care if it is one or the other?

5 – can any other smaller/lighter camera be used with as wide lens collection as Nex and have full AF and not require manual mode?

6 – Nex5n was recently tested against a $7,000 Leica M9 – which is one of the best small digital cameras. Only it can't use nearly the same number of AF lenses as Nex. Even with a basic kit lens Nex did pretty well. Leica may not have had the most expensive lens mounted, but a 50mm prime with a price tag of $350 vs a kit lens thrown in with the camera should give you an idea. Now if one was to put a Zeiss lens on the Nex – Leica would have really hard time justifying the price tag of the M9.

7 – As i said before – you can use nex with 16mm slim, wide angle or mount it on a 600mm f4 prime, 300mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 or any other Minolta/Sony lens including Zeiss and get phase detection AF to boot.

Here are a few excerpts from the review:

---

The NEX-5N's image quality is excellent. The 16.1MP sensor in the 5N is capable of capturing images that rival some of the best APS-C format DSLRs on the market, and up to ISO 6400 image quality is impressive. Even at ISO 12,800, image quality is perfectly acceptable for online use and for small prints, and far ahead of most of the NEX's Micro Four Thirds competitors

---

In terms of image quality the NEX-5N sits untouched at the top of the mirrorless interchangeable lens compact category. The low-light capability of its APS-C format CMOS sensor matches or exceeds what we've come to expect from the best of the current crop of APS-C DSLRs as well. Considering its sub $700 price point this is truly impressive, and makes the 5N a very attractive option for anyone looking to upgrade from a compact camera, or even as a second body alongside a more conventional DSLR outfit.

---

"why does it kill it for you?"

Since most mirrorless cameras can't use phase detection autofocus, and since contrast detection autofocus is much slower and much less precise, then mirrorless cameras are mostly for scenery or something general like that. I don't spend much time shooting scenery. I've already found that contrast detection autofocus works poorly for wildlife and fast-moving subjects.

–B.G.–

The contrast detect AF in the Panasonic cameras is fast — about as fast as a consumer DSLR. Not even close to my 1D Mark IV, of course, but they are made for entirely different purposes. I'm not carrying that thing on a hike.

The image quality of the micro 4/3 is very good in print. I'm looking at a 16×20 that I just made from a G1 with the kit 14-45 zoom, handheld, of a foggy later afternoon scene at Mt Rogers that was shot during a hike a couple of weeks ago. There is much fine detail in the dead trees that holds up very well. I suspect that a GH2 or G3 would hold even more.

The NEX system looks very good, and if I were starting from scratch it would be in the running. But the m4/3 has a very large selection of bodies and lenses, and can pretty much handle whatever you need. If possible, the best thing is to handle both in a shop.

"New models Nex5n and 7 are more advanced and have more features and options."

The Outdoor Photographer article refers to the Sony NEX-5N and lists it with contrast detection autofocus only.

–B.G.–

Again – this is because they only looked at the spec of the camera before more information was available. There is an adapter that only works with Nex5n and Nex7 that gives it ability to use phase detection AF and some superior glass.

It is really a mistake on their part for not writing this information, as it is quite significant. It greatly improves AF speed and allows for some true gems to be mounted on the camera.

I have 70-210 f4 Minolta which was designed by Leica, 50mm f1.4, 24-70mm f2.8 Zeiss and others that i can't wait to try on Nex.

It's just as well. I don't think that I will cast aside $12K worth of lenses to try out a new untested camera.

–B.G.–

Phase-detection focus is the current speed champ and the gap is closing quickly, but it's not there yet. The three new Olympus µ4/3 bodies added parallel CDAF processors that take them closer to real time focus with compatible lenses. Where they fall flat is running dlsr lenses designed for PDAF, where the response is poky.

The driving force here is video, as DSLR video is comical until the camera is rigged up with cine gear to pull focus and run the aperture in real time. This transformation makes them broadcast and even cinema quality, but irrelevant for backpackers. The mirrorless cameras can do these things out of the box, with no rigging required, and PDAF enables them to follow focus in real time (with system lenses). This is their hole card, at present, for folks interested primarily in video.

Fast forward a few years and dslrs will be photographic dinosaurs, but not yet. In the meantime, anybody upgrading from their P&S or phonecam will be torn which direction to go: mirrorless or dslr. The answer can only come from a careful appraisal of your projected uses. It's easy to get distracted by other folks' goals, or unrealistic goals.

Cheers,

Rick