Panasonix gx1 vs entry level dslr

...you would have the same issue with a dSLR.

As for myself, I'm moving FROM a DSLR (Nikon D7000) to Panasonic GH3 (and LX7). Reason? Weight, primarily. And I don't think a less expensive DSLR -- e.g., Nikon D5200, Nikon D3200 -- will give you anything better than a good Mirrorless camera. I don't know the GX1 so I can't comment on that.... DSLR's aren't going away, but many commentators -- and not just on this site -- are of the opinion that Mirrorless is *a* future, if not *the* future! Good luck in your decision!

The obvious advantage of a DSLR is the sensor size. I'm sure you are aware of this but it came to mind. Personally, if I had the money I would still be using a DSLR. Overall they are just more in keeping with very fine photography. IQ is so much better if using good lenses.  VF on it is so much nicer, also. But the lenses have to be top quality if you expect really good pictures. Just the way I feel, and I no longer use a DSLR but am satisfied with my LX3 and GF-1.

--
Russell Smith
Eternity was in that moment.

Wouldn't setting the WB appropriately be something to try before switching camera systems?

What advantage other than that do you think a DSLR will provide for you?   Any auto-setting is guessing what you want, while a good camera like yours is able to be told what you want (if you know what it takes to get out of it what you want).

--

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

see there is where you are wrong and that is unfortunate advice.

sure your gf1 is inferior to entry level dlsr, the current top line of mirrorless are not, a somewhat crucial point.

jakob

That is the real question and I am not entirely sure. I am trying to feel it out to figure out if there is something that a dslr will give me that the mirror-less products will not. Perhaps the view-finder would be a nice have.

I will be using my camera for vacations, business trips, around the house occassionally (like to take pictures of my dog), sports events and occassionally for trying to take beautiful pictures of scenary. So action shots might be important

I think ideally, what I will want is something that will stand the test of time and offer affordable lenses.

You just acquired something fitting that description two weeks ago.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

I did not mean the GF-1 specifically, I meant any DSLR would be an overall better choice if size does not bother you. Can't get around that fact.

--
Russell Smith
Eternity was in that moment.

Its tiresome but someone who does not know about this issue might actually believe you on this so even though you will dispute it with more lack of knowledge i will give a few examples to why your statement is wrong.

Now I think you are actually mixing things up here, there is off course some truth in the fact that if you want the very very best IQ then  you need the best range of DSLRs, but that is also not true, you could then state that you would need the best large format digital cam.

Now what if you dont care about cam size but need a cam that shoots great video as well, is ANY dslr then a better choise.

What if you want to be able to shoot in dim light with large aperture and avoid super shallow DOF is any dslr then better ?

According to many reviews the OMD-EM5 is on par with say Canon 7D which also underlies the error in your very general statement.

Jakob

I think this for want of a better word is b*****S

Comparing my G5 with starter/mid range DLRsm and using affordable glass - I am prepared to go head to head with any DSLR in my comfort zone of subect matter

If somone has a high end DSLR with great glass they wiil blow me away but you'd sort of expect that when my total kit cost is £1000

--
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter

At the moment (in terms of current technology)...

DSLRs are better in terms of:

1. sensor size, and thus low ISO performance (though mirrorless is catching up)

2. PDAF, mainly the for high-speed/action photography, sports. (still a way to go for CDAF)

3. OVF, has infinite resolution, no refresh lag (but EVF is catching up).

4. abundant supply of third-party competition, which drive down lens prices. f2.8 constant zoom in Tamron/Sigma is way cheaper than Canikon

5. (marginally) grip, but mainly because of size / ergonomic designs

Mirrorless is better:

1. size, hands down (except the GH3 is a beast...)

2. weight, in terms of lenses, 500g for a 100-300 supertele (200-600 equiv), find that on a DSLR?

3. Great intercompatibility between olympus and panasonic lenses /accessories. So less lens buying when you switch systems... (unless you go for EOS-M / Nikon J1/V1, Pentax Q etc.)

The reason for a DSLR would be more accessories from lenses to under water housing to studio lighting gear to a DSLR being more rugged for heavy use. Maybe shooing weddings or commercial use like sporting events like horse racing for example.

Generally speaking I look at micro four thirds as a mini-DSLR. I have both the GX-1 and GH-3. I also believe the lens makes the camera better. With a DSLR the 2.8 glass is more costly say $1,000 more than the 35-100 2.8 etc.

With a DSLR you will typically have a larger camera bag, larger filter size for fast glass usually 77mm to the 58 mm.

What I do not know since I don't use $5,000 DSLR bodies is how they integrate when it comes to working with a computer like I assume a fashion photographer would use like Sports Illustrated or Playboy. They may use medium format digital like Hasselblad stuff that costs $10,000 or more for a digital camera & one lens.

You will find it easier to use external battery packs with a DSLR like Quantum (QTM.com) stuff. If it is a white balance issue look at the Expo Disc for custom white balance.

Last, check out Tom Hogan's site he is a Nikon user for a reference point for a DSLR. If you have a question email him and he will respond, at least the few times I had a question.

I own the GX1 and like it very much.  It cannot compete IQ wise with even entry level DSLRs like the D5100, D3200, and the K-30. And without the add-on EVF, the GX1's LCD for composing images, and for good handholding technique, simply cannot compete with a DSLR.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of high ISO, color depth, and DR, but even the top-of-the-line EM-5 and GH3 do not equal the current or last generation of entry level DSLRs like some of the ones I mentioned above.  The two mirror-less cameras have many wonderful high-end features that aren't found on all entry level DSLRs, but if you are talking image output, the DSLRs still have the edge for low-light shooting, less noise at base ISO, DR and richer colors due to superior color depth. My answer will not be popular, but the laws of physics still hold true and the larger sensor cameras, even the entry level ones, have made technological/IQ gains right along side of all the other formats.  So as m43 IQ/sensor performance has gotten better, so too has APS-C IQ/sensor performance (see the D5200).

All that said, for street photography, the GX1 and a lens like the 20 1.7 is a tough combo to beat for size, focus speed, and good IQ. Composing in bright light with the 460 K LCD is a little tough, but doable, but it's I find the best images are rarely taken in bright light anyway.  You may add the EVF at some point to make composition at bit easier in all kinds of light.

I've never had any WB issues in daylight with the GX1, but if the OP is experiencing issues with WB, shooting RAW or RAW + JPEG will allow you to fix any WB errors in post.

Good luck, Markus

I don't think a gx1 can compete with a DSLR image wise but it might come close.

The newest range of the Pens would be better, matching some DSLR`s image wise and they are easily small enough to fit into a jacket pocket with the right lens, like the Pany 14 or 20mm.

Photography's all about compromises, the GX1 is sure good enough for street photography.

I just dumped the D7000 for m4/3 and the GX1 is one of four bodies I have acquired since last summer.

There is no contest where portability and video capability are concerned, and the image quality in RAW is so close that I don't even think about it (and I shoot low light a lot.)

So I see little reason to shoot APS-C Nikon unless you are shooting wildlife and you want the tracking abilities.

If one wants unequivocally better image quality, then the next step up should be the D600 ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

If that is true, then you may be needing a skills upgrade. The GX1 does in fact compete easily with last-generation (and probably current generation) APS-C in many circumstances. Try shooting RAW, for one thing.

In almost all circumstances, the difference is irrelevant. I can even hand hold longish lenses, it comes down to technique and there are many ways to improve your stance or brace the camera. Still, I prefer to use my G5 or GH2 when I want to shoot long lenses so I can plant against my eye, but that different has everything to do with the EVF and nothing to do with any inherent dSLR advantage.

You need to learn how to read those DXOMark graphs ...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/793%7C0/(brand)/Olympus/(appareil2)/698%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon

What you should note in that graph is that the comparable ISOs are one bar apart, with the OM-D at the left in every case. And since that point is higher than the same point for the D5100 (same camera ISO), you will come to realize that the current m4/3 generation has equalled or eclipsed the last APS-C generation. In that particular graph, the OM-D is about 1/3 to 2/3 stops ahead at each set ISO.

Really, you need an informational adjustment as you are spouting some inaccuracies and misleading people here ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

The intrinsic benefit of full frame (135 format) is in low-light (high ISO) noise, and razor-thin depth of focus with good fast lenses. These advantages are due to basic physics, and won't change with future technology.

Additionally, DSLRs incorporate phase detection autofocus, which permits predictive autofocus on subjects moving along the lens axis.  PDAF is prone to focus errors and miscalibration but its still very useful should you find yourself on a sports sideline.

If you need those capabilities, then get a DSLR, preferably full-frame.

That said, for relatively static subjects shot in better than moonlight, where you don't need eyelash-deep depth of focus, there's no intrinsic advantage of DSLRs over m43 cameras. And the m43 format means your camera-lens combination will cost and weigh approximately half of the full-frame equivalents. m43 is a sweet-spot compromise.

Someday I plan on getting a full-frame DSLR to supplement my m43 kit, but may pass on that idea if Olympus or Panasonic implement on-sensor phase detection in a future body, and a fast super-telephoto prime in the 250-300mm range.

I wouldn't bother with an APS-C format camera, as frankly the APS-C specific lenses are rather disappointing. On DxOmark opitcal metric scores you can compare m43 lenses with DX and EF-S lenses - the best m43 lenses (75mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.4) are better than anything that has been produced for Canikon's prosumer lines.

All DSLR`s gave was a bad back and since switching to M4/3 my back is better and so is my bank balance, have you seen Canons prices for there lenses that compare to Panasonics 12-35 and 35-100, there at least 30% dearer

For vacations and business trips a smaller camera would be better.

Action shots should be fine with M4/3 unless your trying to stop something like an arrow in flight

Pictures of dog, a compact would do.

Scenery, almost any camera

The future`s looking very bright for smaller camera, Fuji have just stuck phase detection auto focus into a compact, and M4/3 will follow at some point or use a hybrid system.

Jakob,

He is not mixing things up.  Matter of fact, he is ABSOLUTELY right!  The omd-em5 might be a good camera, and it might be on par with the Canon 7D, but they are both not great for serious work.  Why do you think people don't use the 7D as their first option when it comes to weddings or any high-end paying jobs?  There is a reason for that.  I have used the em5 for a short period of time, and I can tell you, even the 4 year old Nikon D700 out perform the em5 hands down on image quality.  Yes, the em5 is a lot smaller and lighter, and it has video, but we are just taking about image quality here.

Halai