[stormtech]

My current setup is in my sig. I really like the images I am making with my setup.

But, (and not wanting to start a pity party), I've been suffering from a joint disorder for a couple years, and recently found out it is Rheumatoid Arthritis in an advanced stage. I am getting very frustrated with the fact that there are many days (like today) where I just can't hold my K20D, especially with my Tammy SP300 2.8. I've recently bought a second K20D body to stay with the Tammy on a tripod, but I still have a hard time holding the camera even with a light lens.

So, I've been thinking about moving to a smaller system. For some reason I am enamored right now with the Panasonic Lumix G3. If I go this route I will of course research the other brands of M4/3 cameras.

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.

[johnyates]

My experience with m43 is that the IQ isn't all that different. If you can no longer use your dslr, then it's certainly worth doing. They are smaller and lighter and easy to carry. I would recommend getting an EVF as shooting using the rear monitor is difficult in some situations. The Olympus m43 cameras have in body stabilization which might work to your advantage. I have a E-PL2 and I find the image quality more than acceptable.

You also might want to consider one of the high-end point and shoot cameras. I've a Canon G9 (it's a few yrs old now, I believe they're up to G12 these days) and while the output is a bit noisy compared to a dslr, or a m43, it's certainly acceptable for most uses. I've seen some 12x16 prints from a G9 that are wicked sharp.

It's better to be out making pictures with a camera that you're able to handle rather than to not be making pictures. I would encourage you to visit your local camera store and see how they feel.

[stormtech]

Thanks for the reply.

I am so used to using a view finder from years past the it is very important to me. The G3 does have an EVF and has pretty good ratings. The Lumix lenses do have image stabilization.

Yes, being able to hold/try one would be best of course, but there are no camera stores anywhere near me. And I know I could order one and be able to return it, but I don't like doing that for some reason.

[johnyates]

The lumix lenses are also very sharp, but 2 of the nicest primes are the 20mm and the 14mm, neither of which have the OIS. But if you prefer zooms then you're set.
Another observation on IQ: You get the best results shooting raw and exposing to the right (ETTR), otherwise shadows get a bit noisy on those smaller sensors.

[jogiba]

I have the GH2 and GH1 that I use with my Pentax lenses but I have not shot any stills with and only used them in video mode since I use my K-7 and ist*DS2 ( w/AF400T & AF500FTZ TTL flash) for stills. The G3 has much less noise than my K-7 @6400 iso and does not look much worse than the K-5 when I compared the G3 vs K-5 using Imaging Resource Comparometer.
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

[stormtech]

I do shoot raw now and would plan to continue with an M4/3.

My sweet spot right now is shooting ~300mm - the Lumix offering is that would be equivalent would be the 45-200 or the 100-300. Both are f4-5.6 but do have the stabilization.

I'm still learning about the 4/3 system as I go.

I guess my main concern is the IQ - I am spoiled now by my Tammy SP 300 2.8. I realize that I wouldn't be able to match that lens with the Lumix offerings, but if I could come close I would be happy. My main walk around lens is the DA 55-300 - if I could match the images I get with that lens and K20D I would be quite satisfied.

Then of course I could get a Pentax K adapter, but then I am back to where I started with the weight/holding issue.

Thanks for your input johnyates!

[johnyates]

You're welcome.
You might want to wander over to the forums at Mu-43.com - Micro Four Thirds News and Rumors Folks there would likely have some input for you as well. There's also a buy&sell section if buying used makes sense to you.

compared the G3 vs K-5 using Imaging Resource Comparometer.
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

That's quite an interesting web site. I just compared the E-PL2 to the K5 and I was surprised that it seems from viewing the sample images, that the E-PL2 has more detail. How can this be . . . .?

[Turtle]

Hi Stormtech, I have more or less completely moved from micro four thirds to a K5. I was chasing the immediacy of an Optical VF and the serious performance of K5 sensor in low light.

I used an E-P1, which doesn't have an Electronic VF, and I didn't enjoy the shooting style. I haven't used the EVF's alot, but they are ok for most things, but action is a bit slow.

Ultimately with a good exposure the image difference is not very different. There are some lovely lenses made by each manufacturer, and Olympus has SR like Pentax, where Panasonic uses in-lense SR. I was using the Panasonic 14-140mm as my telephoto and it's image quality was actually pretty good, where the cheap Olympus telephoto lenses had great IQ.

I recommend Four Thirds | Micro Four Thirds | Products(Lenses) , it's agreat tool to get a feel for the system, the rest of the site explains things very well too.

I think that the weight and volume of the systems compared is proportionate to the sensor size. So you can expect a saving there. As for image quality, there will be a slight drop in micro four thirds compared to K20D, but it may be pretty similar. Ultimately there is no 300/2.8 equivalent, and a lense with that spec will always be big. Where you could use any manual focus 200/2.8 lense adapted on micro four thirds, and save some weight and size.

Hope this helps.
T

[stormtech]

Thanks for the forum link - off to do some reading......

[Turtle]

Sorry, the link I intended to post was Four Thirds | Special Contents | Matching Simulation.

[pxpaulx]

I go back and forth a lot between my Pentax gear and micro 4/3 cameras and lenses. I think the format has a lot to offer and is a great compliment to shooting with a dslr. As the lens lineups from Olympus and Panasonic grow, and sensors improve, it has become an almost equally viable alternative to dslr.

I just sold my Panasonic G3 over at the mu-43 forum, it was a great little camera, but I decided that I would like to get a fast telephoto prime rather than use the Panasonic 100-300mm.

On that note, if you ever decide to part with the tamron 300mm and are interested in a partial trade+cash (cash from me), I also currently have the panasonic 100-300mm up for sale at mu-43 myself!

[stormtech]

Thanks everyone for your opinions and contribution. I'm off to work now and have a lot of time to think about all this. Actually since I just started this thread, I thought I might get some negative comments about M4/3 vs. DSLR - that doesn't seem to be the case so far which I find pleasing.

pxpaulx - while the Tammy 300 is my biggest battle since it is the largest/heaviest lens I own, it will be the one hardest to part with as I just love the rendering and the IQ it gives me. I will keep your offer in mind however as this might be the direction I will be going. By chance, would you have an sample images with the G3 + 100-300 lens? My biggest hang up at this point is the rendering of the images I would get with that combination.

Thanks to all - to be continued.........

[pxpaulx]

Some lenses are just hard to part with! It took me forever to sell my 16-45mm, and the 15mm will only be pried from my cold, dead hands, haha. I will have a look when I get home, I should have at least a few samples of that combo to share.

[pinholecam]

Sorry to hear about your condition.

I have a G3. Its nice, and IQ is good enough in most respects. Only in high ISO like 1600 and above does the K5 pull away in image quality, though I'd rate the G3 comfortable enough to use at 1600 and alright at 3200 for normal viewing.
I seldom use 3200 anyway on either camera.

You have got to get used to the EVF to be certain that you like it. There is some lag between EVF and actual scene (not much, but more obvious if your subject moves about). The color accuracy is also nothing to shout about.

At this moment, I find the strength of the m4/3 series are its small and optically good primes. 12/2; 14/2.5; 20/1.7; 25/1.4; 45/2.8 (macro); 45/1.8
They form a very usable/light/small walkabout kit without costing the sky and performing really well.
Having long fast lenses like 300/2.8 or fast zooms is not a m4/3 strength at this point.
What do you use the 300/2.8 for?
Perhaps you can 'make do' with a shorter FL if all you need is shallow DOF and not reach?
A K135/2.5 or 85/2 or 85/1.4 on adapter comes to mind (MF of course, but so is the Tamron 300/2.8 on K20).

[johnmflores]

M43 is AOK

GH1 + 100-300mm



GH2 + 100-300mm



GH2 + Pentax DA35 Limited



GH2 + 100-300



Seriously, the latest Panasonics are very very good. As good as the K-5? No, but easily a match for the K20d.

GH2 + Pentax DA35 Limited vs. K20d + Pentax DA35 Limited



If a smaller, lighter camera will let you continue to take photos, I say go for it. There a multiplying effect of a smaller sensor too - smaller camera, smaller lenses, smaller tripod, smaller bag, and ultimately, smaller wallet.

Best of luck