_Photographer_: I want to buy this camera but I noticed that the 12800 ISO looks very inferior compared to the Sony Nex-5 or the Fujifilm x100...
How much do you really use 12800?
What do you recommended to buy? budget: 899$
You're not getting the X100 for $899.
You can the Nex-5 for less (considerably less), and it's going to be better in very low light. But your choices with the Nex-5 are limited to Sony lenses. And you have to decide if its shooting experience is for you.
Another choice is the Sony A35. Very nice camera, APS-C sensor, smaller than the typical DSLR, fast focus - but ... same aesthetic as a DSLR,which is a bit tired. However, you can use many Sony and Minolta and third parties lenses with that.
Hand held? At one second, conceivable given stabilization. Although that's pushing things ...
Looks nice and sharp for twilight.
HubertChen: Pentax delivers a new class of camera. It has almost all of DSLR handling features at the size of a pocket camera. To me this is a winning concept. I already have a very small APSC DSLR (Pentax with Pancake lens). I am looking for a camera that is significantly smaller, yet handles like my DSLR. To me it seems only the Pentax Q fits the bill. And with significantly smaller I mean camera __and__ lens. This is why e.g. a Sony Nex does not fit the bill. The camera is small, but the lens is not. So if I can get the small camera with DSLR features only in case I sacrifice sensor size, so be it. You only can take pictures with a camera you have with you. A Sony Nex or Olympus Pen I would never carry with me at all times. A Pentax Q I might. I now carry with me a Fuji F 50. I am happy enough with the image quality, but when using creative control handling is too slow. I am expecting that the handling of the Q is excellent and fast. I am waiting for this camera since years.
Hi Hubert, hope you stick to your convictions on this one. I believe you're right - there is so much more than to amateur photo taking than image quality. Being able to grab the photo you want, with the creative elements presented how you want them.
My guess on this little bug is there will be a certain niche of photographers who will just love this camera. Hopefully enough for Pentax to make a go of it ...
OK, just checked the size compared to the A55 and they are similar, except for the G3 being an inch slimmer. The lenses on the G3 will be smaller for a given focal and f-stop too. And it's about a $100 less expensive.
Although the Sony does have built-in image stabilization ...
Yes, comparison to the Sony would much more interesting.
What I don't get ... why not compare the G3 to the Sony A55? They are the same styling, and roughly the same size if I'm not mistaken, both with 16MP sensors and articulated screens.
The main difference being the fast as heck auto focus of the Sony and of course the Sony's larger sensor.
Seems the natural comparison to me, not to a big-honkin' Canon ...
BoloaP: Why not a tilting monitor on E-P3 (while E-PL3 has one)?I am the happy owner of a Lumix G2, Initially it seemed just a toy but then I found very very useful it's flip-out monitor, take picture from the floor, from above your head, from behind a parapet ... Much more useful then touch-screen ...Why is a flip-out monitor so little valued? Why so few cameras have one?
I prefer using Oly's electronic viewfinder, especially in sunlight. It does swing up for many of the interesting point-of-view shots, and for telephoto ranges being against your forehead helps to stabilize the shot.
I have an articulated screen camera (A55 Sony), but still use the viewfinder on that almost exclusively.
Loga: Anyway, IMHO in this case someone should choose rather based on FOV, taste of image (color, contrast), size, AF or price issues, not on DOF control - simply because the difference in this dimension is almost non-existant. This Leica 25mm seems to be a good performer, however, not a real portrait lens (and I don't think it has been intended to be). You can take environmental portrait with the 20mm too, and take a little closer with 25mm, but I suppose (maybe I'm wrong) you can't take head portrait with the 25mm either due to perspective distorsion (at least 45mm needed).
And one more thing with DOF: don't be disappointed because the new oly is 1.8 and not 1.4. It seems almost the same DOF. But in terms of shutter speed (and therefore ISO settings) it does matter.
My guess is that at 45mm or 50mm, Panasonic/Leica felt they would have to put in OIS, adding another couple hundred dollars. Also, they would ave their own 45mm and Oly's 50mm m43 offerings to compete against.So, probably a rational choice for them, but ... Maybe to have pushed it a bit to 35mm? Ah well, things are what they are.
The 25mm will be a bit better for portraits, the 20mm for scenery. If you have a preference there, that could and should heavily influence a decision. I like both.
The 25 has a coating to help keep the glare down, and so contrast up, easily seen in the outside photos. A lens hood would help with that too, however.
The difference between 20mm and 25mm, coupled with the wider aperture necessitates more/wider glass in the 25mm. That and the coating makes for a more expensive lens.
In comparison with the other Pana-Leica lenses, this one is the least expensive yet. I think they're learning - not so 'telephoto' so as to require in-lens OIS to keep the cost down.