[pinholecam]

M43 is AOK

GH1 + 100-300mm





Best of luck

Wow!
Fantastic shots from the 100-300mm

[jolepp]

I have had the G3 for two weeks or so: it seems like a great piece of kit. Compared to my K-5 it is very small and light. In most ways I'd say it is very similar to the K-x (high ISO, build quality and features in general) I used to have, only much smaller, an EVF instead of an OVF and no in-body stabilizer of course. The G3 OVF is very nice, in particular low-light manual focusing with adapted lenses works better than with the K-5 OVF IMO (noise and some lagginess nonwithstanding - in good light there is just a minute lag). For tripod use G3's articulated LCD would seem to be a boon.

IQ-wise I don't think there will be a problem with the body itself; this will depend on the glass, as usual. Currently, the choice of native lenses could be larger, but there would seem to be native replacements for the DA 16-45 (14-42ish kit zooms and fancier jobs such as the collapsing pancake zoom in a similar range) as well as the DA 55-300 (-200 -300 telezooms), there is also a native 45mm macro. Also, because of the ~20mm register distance it would seem that there is an adapter for just about any kind of SLR lens which allows manual use provided that the lens itself allows for aperture control. I have a cheapish PK-adapter which has allowed me to use my Pentax lenses such as the DFA 100 and M50 with the G3. I suppose you could keep using your DFA 100 and the 300mm Tammy with one. With the 2x (vs. 1.5x) crop factor you might be able to replace the Tammy with something 200ish (*) for a lighter and more compact kit especially keeping in mind the wealth of adapters that can be had (otoh no built-in SR with the Panasonics, Olympus has this though). An comparatively economical manual macro option with a similar FL to the native offering would be the the 55mm Vivitar (Panagor).

(*) with tripod mount / space for a mount ring, I'd say, for anything as substantial as a 200mm 1:2.8 prime ... otoh, improved high ISO might make something slower (= lighter, smaller) viable (there is *a lot* to choose from in the ~200mm 1:4 in the used market ).

[stormtech]

I am just overwhelmed by all the responses - thanks so much everyone!

First, I'll try to address some specific questions/comments:

johnyates: Thanks for the "comparomete" link - very interesting results! That has given me some assurance about the IQ of these little cameras.

Turtle: I am in agreement in that not having a viewfinder at all would not work for me. After a 10 year hiatus, I picked my photography hobby back up a year ago. I am in such a habit of using a viewfinder that I couldn't image being without one. Hence my struggle with an EVF on the G3. Not only the fact of it being EVF, I need to try one to see the actual size of the VF and the view I get. And another thing I've learned is that the Olympus and Panny lenses are interchangeable - didn't know that.

pinholecam: Coming from the film era, even going as high as ISO800 is just wild to me. I am so used to shooting ISO64 and ISO100 film that I have carried that along to my new DSLR era. That is one reason I've kept with the K20D - while being able to shoot much higher ISO with the K-5, I haven't found the need......yet. The only question that comes to mind with an M4/3 using for example the 100-300 f4-5.6 - will I see the same effect of light transmission with that lens as I would with the K20D with the DA 55-300 f4-5.8 at the same ISO setting? And again - seeing the EVF for myself is now an important step in making a decision. I just don't know if I could ever get used to shooting using the LCD screen.

johnmflores: WOW - JUST WOW! Thank you so much for taking the time in posting those comparisons. There you have the comparison of the K20D and the Panny M4/3 right in front of my eyes - I couldn't ask for a better comparison! I am very impressed with the Panny images - to the point that you have answered my main question. I know now that I can expect at least similar IQ from the Panny as I have with the K20D with appropriate lenses. I am just floored by those images!

jolepp: Your comparison about the viewfinders sounds promising to me - thanks for a very well worded description of something that is very hard to describe. And as far as focal lengths, my main walk around lens right now is the DA 55-300, so as you suggest, I wouldn't have a problem covering that focal length with one of the M4/3 lenses. I also did a lot or work with my DFA 100 this past summer shooting my wifes many flowers - I guess I could keep that lens to be used with an adapter, or try out the Panny 45 2.8. I don't do any actual macro work, but consider my flower shots more of a close-up style. I intend to do a lot more of that type in the future, so a good sharp macro or close-up lens is very important to me.


This is a lot of information to absorb, but I love learning about new things - especially when it comes to photography gear. At this point, a lot of my initial questions have been answered - especially that of IQ. Now it comes to the point of 2 items for me:

Will I like the EVF and find it usable for most of my shooting?
Will I like the feel when I hold such a small cameras?

When I first came back to my hobby after a 10 year hiatus, I settled on the K20D mainly for the heft of the body. I have big hands, and am used to larger cameras from the film era. I begin to wonder if I will have just as much trouble holding a small light camera being it is so small. The only way I can answer that is to use one of course.

And one other response I omitted I think - my shooting is done 99% at home here - all outdoors. I have a field, some woods, and 1 mile of river frontage in the mountains of western Pennsylvania. I did a lot of flower shots this past summer, and have plans of shooting a lot of small birds this winter at/near the feeders (Chikadees and the like). Working off a tripod is very restriive for any type of fast moving wildlife - I bought the Tammy SP300 for this use, but have now found that I just can't hold it. Hence my quest for something I can handle hand-held. Another option is to try a DA*300 on my K20D if I would find I don't like these small M4/3's.

Here are a few photos from the past summer that I can share:

Zenfolio | stahr

I am happy with those photos and need to be able to produce the same with a gear change.

Thanks to all!

[jolepp]

What I did with the G3 was buying it with a "30 days money back if not happy for whatever silly reason [, provided you have not wrecked the camera]" -kind of deal. Initially the thing felt just too small, it took a bit of use to get comfortable; now the K-5 has started to feel kind of huge .

Ergonomics inevitably suffer some with a body so small, there simply cannot be a substantial, contoured hand grip for example. Also I guess the K-5's build quality, tactile feedback of the controls and general "solid feel" had spoiled me to an extent so that the G3 initially felt a bit flimsy in comparison although the build quality etc. is in fact very decent, just a bit more "entry level", pretty much like K-x vs. K-5. Also, G3's "entry levelness" shows in that it does not have all the external controls of a K-5 (or, say, a Panasonic GH2). Of course fitting all those in the limited real estate would be a problem. The most important things have been smartly assigned to the existing controls / buttons though and the customizable quick menu and user/custom modes would seem to help a lot to make the rest accessible.

---

Last edited by jolepp; 11-19-2011 at 02:08 AM.

[jolepp]

Another nice thing about the micro four thirds and it crop factor of 2 is that the plentiful, fast 50ish lenses become a very useful (IMO) portrait/candid pieces; in particular when using them in low-light (high ISO) the slightly increased DOF could be considred an advantage in that one gets a generally useful amount of DOF with faster apertures. Of course this also means that the ultra thin DOF simply is not there.

[stormtech]

Thanks for the additional info jolepp.

I'm to the point now where I just have to try one. While looking at all the specs and reviews I could find (I did lots of reading last night!), it seems my only concern left is the handling of such a small camera. Your opinion of handling jolepp is appreciated when you compared it to your K-5. I realize that with the small size there will be drawbacks, but with any change like this, one has to give it time as you suggest.

Now my problem is that I've looked at these cameras so much, I've started the eye the GH2 as a contender as well mostly for the size of the grip and the many more manual controls. But I've also read that the custom function buttons on the G3 are easily assignable, I think I can work with that - again will have to get used to some changes.

I'm liking this idea more and more - especially if I do as I plan and try it out before selling off my current gear. Also the fact that I can use an adapter to use my current Pentax lenses on it is a huge plus.

[Nuff]

I've ep1 with 2 primes. I had more lenses and I've sold them since I got my k5. I'm surprised that people recommend 14mm 2.5. It has horrible purple fringing, it's practically in every photo and it's some of the worst I've seen. That's on Olympus body, I know panasonics try to fix it a bit.

Another thing to note is not being able to pull much detail out of shadows. If you do you will get lots of noise, so you better get the exposure spot on first time. The oldies jpeg engine is very good.

For me it's a good portable camera when I want something small. Also my gf uses it a lot. Since its smaller than k5 and image quality is decent.

I'm selling the 14mm lens and keeping 20mm prime, just to use as a point and shoot camera. I used to have the 7-14mm zoom and it was much better quality lens than the 14mm prime.

The noise in shadows is what really annoys me about m4/3 cameras. Actually even blue sky will have noise in raws. The jpeg engine on my Olympus fixes it up.


http://jarek.smugmug.com

[johnmflores]

Now my problem is that I've looked at these cameras so much, I've started the eye the GH2 as a contender as well mostly for the size of the grip and the many more manual controls. But I've also read that the custom function buttons on the G3 are easily assignable, I think I can work with that - again will have to get used to some changes.

I'm liking this idea more and more - especially if I do as I plan and try it out before selling off my current gear. Also the fact that I can use an adapter to use my current Pentax lenses on it is a huge plus.

If you plan on using longer zooms, than perhaps the GH2 is a better ergonomic option. The price has been dropping too - I've read reports of $1200 for the GH2 + 14-140. They're also releasing a firmware update next month that promised improved low light performance among other things.
Panasonic announces upcoming firmware update for DMC-GH2: Digital Photography Review

I'm surprised that people recommend 14mm 2.5. It has horrible purple fringing, it's practically in every photo and it's some of the worst I've seen. That's on Olympus body, I know panasonics try to fix it a bit.

Another thing to note is not being able to pull much detail out of shadows. If you do you will get lots of noise, so you better get the exposure spot on first time. The oldies jpeg engine is very good.

For me it's a good portable camera when I want something small. Also my gf uses it a lot. Since its smaller than k5 and image quality is decent.

I'm selling the 14mm lens and keeping 20mm prime, just to use as a point and shoot camera. I used to have the 7-14mm zoom and it was much better quality lens than the 14mm prime.

The noise in shadows is what really annoys me about m4/3 cameras. Actually even blue sky will have noise in raws. The jpeg engine on my Olympus fixes it up.

jarek's Photos | SmugMug

I haven't notice a lot of PF issues with the 14/2.5



I'd like to try the 7-14, but I've purchased way too much this year and the 14 is light enough to mount on a camera on a moving vehicle.

The above has been PP'd. I looked at the original though and PF seemed well under control. Maybe it is in-camera (GF2) processing at work.

I do agree that the M43 cameras have less latitude for exposure correction. It's best to get it right in camera.

[Nuff]

PF is something that I come across a lot, since I do a lot of trips to snow. I can post some uncorrected examples later. I've a lot of photos I want to put up on my website, but PF gets so bad I need to PShop a lot of them. It gets a bit tiresome.


http://jarek.smugmug.com

[Tord]

My main question at this point - what should I expect as far as image quality if I make a move to an M4/3? I am thinking that I won't get the IQ and rendering that my Tammy SP300 2.8 gives me (I just love the images taken with this lens), but can I expect something close? I realize the best way is to buy a camera/lens to experiment with, but the cost is prohibitive without selling my current gear.

I know this is a tough question - just hoping for some opinions from those who have shot both Pentax DSLR with comparable lenses and an M4/3.

Before you do the big jump, why not test the NEX-5N?! Superb APS-C camera, weighs less than many Micro 4/3rds, that with the right adapter can use many K Mount lenses (in manual mode). For me, it take slightly better shots than the K-5 (nicer rendering, similar 16MP size sensor _ if more advanced), but isn't water-proof. Had mine just a little while, but take a peek here: Long distance shot - the last swan for this year?! | Flickr - Photo Sharing! All the later of these shots were taken with K Mount lenses on a NEX-5N!

My wife bought the E-PL1, a very nice camera, which also can use our K Mount (with the right adapter), but the NEX-5N runs rings around it, sad to say! To her E-PL1 she bought the Panasonic 20, and the Olympus 9-18 wide angle zoom, both superb (if you after all will stick to micro 4/3rds!).

Now she uses her NEX-5N, almost exlusively, sparing her K-5 for the rainy days! And so do I, unless I bring along my XZ-1!

[jolepp]

I seem to recall reading somewhere (*) that some Panasonic lenses (such as the 14mm) rely on the CA/PF correction which only Panasonic bodies currently provide; hence combining these with an Olympus body might not work that well. (It might be possible to remedy this in PP with the lens profile though (?)).

(*) photozone.de u43 lens tests, most likely

[johnmflores]

Before you do the big jump, why not test the NEX-5N?! Superb APS-C camera, weighs less than many Micro 4/3rds, that with the right adapter can use many K Mount lenses (in manual mode). For me, it take slightly better shots than the K-5 (nicer rendering, similar 16MP size sensor _ if more advanced), but isn't water-proof. Had mine just a little while, but take a peek here: Long distance shot - the last swan for this year?! | Flickr - Photo Sharing! All the later of these shots were taken with K Mount lenses on a NEX-5N!

Tord, how do you use the NEX-5N with longer lenses? Handheld? Tripod? I've found longer lenses much less stable when using the rear LCD, but I've found the LCD easier to use than a VF when on a tripod.

[jolepp]

NEX-5N doesn't have a built-in EVF (it has that as an accessory though).

[johnmflores]

NEX-5N doesn't have a built-in EVF (it has that as an accessory though).

Exactly, so do handhold long lenses or use a tripod?

[RyanW]

The G3 is nice, I just got one two days ago.

Some thoughts on lenses. The Olympus lenses are usually smaller and lighter than the Panasonic equivalent. Olympus like Pentax, puts shake reduction in the body rather then the lens. You'd have to use an Olympus body to get the shake reduction.

There have been lots of recent threads about shake reduction on the Olympus bodies not being very good for long focal lengths (search for "ibis" at dpreview), lots of folks just leave it off if they are not trying a slow shutter speed with a shorter focal length. You can use either Oly or Panny lenses with an Oly or Panny body.

Panny currently has the newer generation of sensors. Hope you find something that suits you.