Considering "Upgrade" from LX3 & DSLR to GF1

I am a casual photographer and have LX3 and 20D with a few good lenses (17-40L). I'm considering replacing them with GF1. Any comments?

I'm not expecting the qualify of GF1 to be better than 20D with L lenses. I'm expecting GF1 has "good enough" quality for casual photographer like myself.

In fact, I'm struggling with my 20D. Frequently, I found LX3 produces sharper images and more punchy pictures that my 20D w/ 17-40L. Anyone have similar struggles with their SLR?

vinchoi said:

I am a casual photographer and have LX3 and 20D with a few good lenses (17-40L). I'm considering replacing them with GF1. Any comments?

I'm not expecting the qualify of GF1 to be better than 20D with L lenses. I'm expecting GF1 has "good enough" quality for casual photographer like myself.

In fact, I'm struggling with my 20D. Frequently, I found LX3 produces sharper images and more punchy pictures that my 20D w/ 17-40L. Anyone have similar struggles with their SLR?

Click to expand...

punchier does not mean more accurate however

I, also, am toying with the idea of adding an interchangeable lens camera to my lx3. The GF1 is very tempting, too. If you can wait a few months, you will probably have even more choices.

The Samsung NX10 is very intriguing, to say the least. And with a possible replacement for the Lumix G1, you may want to wait to see what that will be.

But, if you can't wait, the GF1 won't let you down. I have taken pictures with the GF1 and the 7 - 14mm lens, and that is a lot of fun, though a lot of $$.

Good luck!

--
Tom

I see a lot of posts from people who say they don't get as pleasing results from their DSLRs compared to simpler cameras. In many cases, the users aren't taking the time to learn how their DSLR works, how to use it, and how to set controls for to achieve desired results. Reading the manual is vital to understanding how a DSLR works (and any other machine, for that matter, but especially something as complex as a DSLR) and you're not going to get great results without doing so.

A DSLR may be too much for some photographers to master, either due to their innate abilities or just their lack of desire or time to learn a new machine. In this case, a simpler camera is a better choice and may deliver more pleasing results.

The new m4/3 cameras are certainly interesting, fairly capable designs, and cute too, but they're in between compacts and DSLRs; more complicated than point and shoots though possessing better IQ but less capable than a full-fledged DSLR in both focussing and high ISO performance. They're not quite pocketable with anything other than a pancake lens mounted.

Brooks Lester said:

I see a lot of posts from people who say they don't get as pleasing results from their DSLRs compared to simpler cameras. In many cases, the users aren't taking the time to learn how their DSLR works, how to use it, and how to set controls for to achieve desired results. Reading the manual is vital to understanding how a DSLR works (and any other machine, for that matter, but especially something as complex as a DSLR) and you're not going to get great results without doing so.

A DSLR may be too much for some photographers to master, either due to their innate abilities or just their lack of desire or time to learn a new machine. In this case, a simpler camera is a better choice and may deliver more pleasing results.

The new m4/3 cameras are certainly interesting, fairly capable designs, and cute too, but they're in between compacts and DSLRs; more complicated than point and shoots though possessing better IQ but less capable than a full-fledged DSLR in both focussing and high ISO performance. They're not quite pocketable with anything other than a pancake lens mounted.

Click to expand...

Completely in agreement. I've had my lx3 for about 9 months now, and I'm trying to learn things about it every time I go out with it. I only started using the white balance presets, recently. Very cool and very nice results. AWB is "ok", but no substitute for setting manually, and so easy to do.

And having fun with EZ settings for creative zooming is something I just started to experiment with. Now, the other aspects of shooting, composition and subject matter is challenging for me. But nothing beats going out and just practicing with all the "free" film you desire.

--
Tom

Having owned my LX3 for all of two hours, my perspective is unusual, but may be relevant.

My initial impression is that a DSLR (I have a Canon 1Ds and had a 20D) is far simpler to use than an LX3! The LX3 offers soooo many options for taking photos; a 20D is simple in comparison.

My LX3 was bought after a month of agonising, looking at the 1Ds and 20D with some decent 'glass', and considering the GF-1, the G1, the LX3 and the S90. I decided in the end that none of those 4 could replace a true DSLR, and, in any case, I wanted something to complement it.

I decided that a G1 or GF-1 could replace a DSLR for a lot of wide general purpose stuff, but the GF-1, in particular, wasn't great for longish tele work, with no viewfinder. Also, a true DSLR is still more responsive.

So, I'd concur about keeping the 20D, and getting to know and love it better. A small compact will cover the times when the 20D is too big. But, IMHO, having just a GF-1 would be far less capable than a DSLR-compact pair.

Stuart

I have done just that..Lx3 to Gf1 with 20mm 1.7.

People talk about these cameras as back ups to dslr..but I think they work really well together ( one in each coat pocket ).

Fast wideangle ...Panny's 7-14 is way too expensive...Lx3 half price of that lens.

Its also a nice little competition between each camera . The Lx3 wins for me , its a mini marvel.The DOP is great ... the 1.7 is best for shallow focus & cant be stopped down enough in low light to produce the same results as the LX3's lens.The GF1's operating speed trumps the Lx3.

Wish ther were some real fast wide lenses for the GF1.Will snap up lumix 18mm 2.8 whenever thats out.Cant help thinking when there is at last a large range of panny lenses out there will be many more 4/3 cameras on the market or even GF2.? EP3

StuartBell said:

Having owned my LX3 for all of two hours, my perspective is unusual, but may be relevant.

My initial impression is that a DSLR (I have a Canon 1Ds and had a 20D) is far simpler to use than an LX3! The LX3 offers soooo many options for taking photos; a 20D is simple in comparison.

My LX3 was bought after a month of agonising, looking at the 1Ds and 20D with some decent 'glass', and considering the GF-1, the G1, the LX3 and the S90. I decided in the end that none of those 4 could replace a true DSLR, and, in any case, I wanted something to complement it.

I decided that a G1 or GF-1 could replace a DSLR for a lot of wide general purpose stuff, but the GF-1, in particular, wasn't great for longish tele work, with no viewfinder. Also, a true DSLR is still more responsive.

So, I'd concur about keeping the 20D, and getting to know and love it better. A small compact will cover the times when the 20D is too big. But, IMHO, having just a GF-1 would be far less capable than a DSLR-compact pair.

Stuart

Click to expand...

Welcome to the lx3 club, Stuart! Wait 'till you start messing around with 'Dynamic B&W', under FILM, and even, 'Film Grain', under Scenes. Yes, these are not just P&S cameras, they are computers with lenses.

--
Tom

I considered the GF-1 + 20mm combo, but although the focus control that's possible with a large sensor and wide aperture is wonderful, that combo is twice the price of an LX3. Add a standard zoom and you have more cost and a non-pocketable package.

And if I want razor-thin DOF. I've got the full frame DSLR!

Stuart

I have to agree with Brooks and Tom on this. I used DSLRs for many years and now use only the LX3 and a G10. The LX3 is a complicated piece of work and requires much practice and study to really master its use. Great camera, and I use it much more than the G10 now.

kitsap2 said:

Brooks Lester said:

I see a lot of posts from people who say they don't get as pleasing results from their DSLRs compared to simpler cameras. In many cases, the users aren't taking the time to learn how their DSLR works, how to use it, and how to set controls for to achieve desired results. Reading the manual is vital to understanding how a DSLR works (and any other machine, for that matter, but especially something as complex as a DSLR) and you're not going to get great results without doing so.

A DSLR may be too much for some photographers to master, either due to their innate abilities or just their lack of desire or time to learn a new machine. In this case, a simpler camera is a better choice and may deliver more pleasing results.

The new m4/3 cameras are certainly interesting, fairly capable designs, and cute too, but they're in between compacts and DSLRs; more complicated than point and shoots though possessing better IQ but less capable than a full-fledged DSLR in both focussing and high ISO performance. They're not quite pocketable with anything other than a pancake lens mounted.

Click to expand...

Completely in agreement. I've had my lx3 for about 9 months now, and I'm trying to learn things about it every time I go out with it. I only started using the white balance presets, recently. Very cool and very nice results. AWB is "ok", but no substitute for setting manually, and so easy to do.

And having fun with EZ settings for creative zooming is something I just started to experiment with. Now, the other aspects of shooting, composition and subject matter is challenging for me. But nothing beats going out and just practicing with all the "free" film you desire.

--
Tom

Click to expand...

--

rkhndjr said:

and I use it much more than the G10 now.

Click to expand...

Then don't ya think it's about time for a new sig pic?
--

rkhndjr said:

rkhndjr said:

The Amateur Formerly Known as 'UZ'pShoot'ERS' 'Happy Shootin' ! Comments, Critique, Ridicule, Limericks, Jokes, Hi-jackings, EnthUZIastically , Encouraged... I Insist!



* rrawzz'at'gmail'dot'com * http://www.pbase.com/rrawzz *

rkhndjr said:

rkhndjr said:

Tz5aLx3Fz50Fz30C8080wzE100rsC2100uz

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

vinchoi said:

I am a casual photographer and have LX3 and 20D with a few good lenses (17-40L). I'm considering replacing them with GF1. Any comments?

Click to expand...

One thing to take into account is that you can buy an adapter ($70) for the GF1 and use your L lens. Those two combined should be a formidable team.
Of course, only manual mode will be available then.

Look here: http://www.enjoyyourcamera.com
(I'm not affiliated.)

My guess is that the GF1 can easily beat the 20D. MFT can't quite blow past the current crop of APS-C DSLR's (12-15 MP) but the 20D is fairly long in the tooth (2004). A friend of mine shoots with the 20D and I am not bowled-over by his results. He may be able to squeeze more performance out of it and good glass helps, but there there are limits (sensor).

--
JF

vinchoi said:

I am a casual photographer and have LX3 and 20D with a few good lenses (17-40L). I'm considering replacing them with GF1. Any comments?

Click to expand...

Since the launch of the first MFT (Micro four thirds) camera I have used a combination of a LX3 and a G1 for all my photographic needs. Here is how I use them:

LX3 - this is my take everywhere camera. It lives on its strap around my neck in its leather carrying case. In particular it goes cycling and walking with me and on holiday/vacation.

G1 - at present I only have the 14-45mm and 45-200mm lenses together with all my legacy Canon FD mount and M42 lenses from my film SLR youth. I would like to add further MFT lenses as and when my budget allows. If the GF1 had been available when I bought my G1 in December 2008, I would probably have gone for the GF1, although I do love the electronic viewfinder and articulated LCD display of the G1 and have little need for video, although that may change. The G1 gets used for the serious stuff such as local press photographs, landscape and architectural studies as well as portraits.

I never print larger than 8 x 10" or A4, so the higher resolution of dSLR sensors is wasted on me.

That assumes that resolution is the be-all and end-all. On that, the GF-1 will beat the 20D. But I'd be pretty sure that the 20D's AF speed beats the GF-1, and as for the available lenses - and it's lenses which make photos - what can the GF-1 offer to compare with the Canon 35/1,4L, the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, the 70-200/4LIS, the 300/2.8LIS and the DOF control which they offer? Nothing. A GF-1 can replace a DSLR and kit lens, but for serious action and/or tele work, it doesn't come close.

Stuart

Rossuziers said:

rkhndjr said:

and I use it much more than the G10 now.

Click to expand...

Then don't ya think it's about time for a new sig pic?

Click to expand...

I don't mind admitting that a friend made this one. I have no idea how to make a sig pic and am too lazy to learn)

Rossuziers said:

--

Rossuziers said:

Rossuziers said:

The Amateur Formerly Known as 'UZ'pShoot'ERS' 'Happy Shootin' ! Comments, Critique, Ridicule, Limericks, Jokes, Hi-jackings, EnthUZIastically , Encouraged... I Insist!



* rrawzz'at'gmail'dot'com * http://www.pbase.com/rrawzz *

Rossuziers said:

Rossuziers said:

Tz5aLx3Fz50Fz30C8080wzE100rsC2100uz

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

StuartBell said:

That assumes that resolution is the be-all and end-all. On that, the GF-1 will beat the 20D. But I'd be pretty sure that the 20D's AF speed beats the GF-1, and as for the available lenses - and it's lenses which make photos - what can the GF-1 offer to compare with the Canon 35/1,4L, the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, the 70-200/4LIS, the 300/2.8LIS and the DOF control which they offer? Nothing. A GF-1 can replace a DSLR and kit lens, but for serious action and/or tele work, it doesn't come close.

Click to expand...

So true, and the reason I sold out years ago. Cost of good glass.

StuartBell said:

Stuart

Click to expand...

--

1971_M5 said:

My guess is that the GF1 can easily beat the 20D. MFT can't quite blow past the current crop of APS-C DSLR's (12-15 MP) but the 20D is fairly long in the tooth (2004). A friend of mine shoots with the 20D and I am not bowled-over by his results. He may be able to squeeze more performance out of it and good glass helps, but there there are limits (sensor).

Click to expand...

You think the sensor will be more of a factor than good glass? I had just about all the DSLRs from Rebel to 30D and never saw any difference when using L lenses.

1971_M5 said:

--
JF

Click to expand...

--

Like some others I have the LX3 and DSLR combo too. A Canon 30D with some red stripe L glass. Obviously the 30D beats the LX3 on every photografic and IQ aspect you can name. And not by a small margin either. Except for one 'little' thing... the Canon suffers from severe dust problems since the LX3 joined its ranks.

I've taken more shots with the LX3 during the 8 months I have it than I did with the 30D in 3 years. Not because I like it so much (which I do) but simply because I take it with me where I leave the DSLR at home. Slip it in your (coat)pocket and go. Pretty much regardless what you're going to do. Very different than 'bringing you camera gear along'. Not only physically from lugging a brick of camera around but also in your mind. That how it works for me at least.

I've also noticed that people tend to respond / change their behaviour / body language much less whit an 'innocent' little cam at the scene than with a big 'intimidating' DSLR pointing around slapping its mirror.

I also find it something of challenge trying to get the best possible results from such a little cam. Trying to work around and minimize its limitations during shooting and in PP can be very rewarding, strange as it may sound. 'Look what this little rascal is capable of!!' The only thing that keeps annoying me is the poor(ish) low light/high ISO performance of the LX3 (and it's still about the best P&S at this).

That said, I'm also looking at the GF1 from a best of both worlds perspective. But it's just too big to be pocket cam and I fear I'll end up on the same merry-go-round as with a DSLR. Buying lenses'n stuff and carrying more camera gear around than I want to with the same result once the novelty wears off. Dust problems...

So as it stands now, I'm very seriously looking at and waiting for the Leica X1. More pocketable by its shape and lower weight than the GF1. Limited by its fixed (but beautiful) lens and silly quirks but also with great manual operation and controls and providing unmatched IQ and high ISO performance for a cam this size, especially in RAW.

I'll might end up buying one...

Richard.

rkhndjr said:

You think the sensor will be more of a factor than good glass? I had just about all the DSLRs from Rebel to 30D and never saw any difference when using L lenses.

Click to expand...

Once you get to 8Mp or so, except for huge prints, more Mp are irrelevant. Newer sensors will be better than older ones at high ISO.

As for the difference of L lenses, you simply haven't looked at the actual images; a portrait on a 135/2L wide open with its creamy out-of-focs areas can't be emulated with a tele zoom at f/5.6 and zoom-like bokeh. Ditto a wildlife shot with a 300/2.8L with its incredibly fast focussing and resolution, the shallow DOF pulling the subject out of the background. No consumer zoom at 300mm will come close to producing a similar image.

Stuart