Reading mode: Light Dark

which panny camera/lens combo would you buy?

Go to last post
M

mgibbs

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
393
Reaction score
18
Location
US
Hello all-

I'm looking to spend about $1200 to get a m43 system started. Here's what I'm considering:

g2 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 20/1.7 + panny 100-300
gh1 + panny 45-200
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
or, rethink my options altogether, if the experts think I should.....

Hoping someone can push me in a particular direction. I'm an amateur (to say the least), and I've been shooting with a canon s3 for years. I mostly shoot family and nature shots, with a little action thrown in (kids running around the yard, waterskiing, etc.) Ditto for video - not sure that I need a GHx cam, but I'm sure that 1080 would be nice.

Lots of birds perch in the trees across the lake from me (a few hundred meters away), hence my desire for length - my s3 can reach that far, but the resolution and sharpness make it all but impossible to get a decent shot. I include the panny 45 - 200 with the gh1 due to cost considerations - cant swing the gh1 + 100-300 at this time.

I am currently shooting with a canon s3, but have outgrown it. I want better resolution/sharpness at the long end, and am looking forward to getting much better low light performance as well as the shallower DOF that a m43 will offer.

Any advice you can offer would be very much appreciated!
 
There is no right call on this, of course.

If it were me, I'd get the GH2. Every early indication is that it's the best of the MFT group. This is an investment, so I'd want the latest and best. It will also have the highest resell value for awhile, in case I decide this was all a mistake.

I'd get it with the 14-42mm lens.
This would leave me with $200.
Then I'd wait til I came up with the extra $400 for the 100-300mm lens.

Short term sacrifice for long term gain.

Of course it depends on how long you think you'd need to wait to come up with the additional $$$.

And given how I am with $$$ :-( ...I'd probably borrow the $400 to get the whole package soon.

M.
mgibbs said:
Hello all-

I'm looking to spend about $1200 to get a m43 system started. Here's what I'm considering:

g2 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 20/1.7 + panny 100-300
gh1 + panny 45-200
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
or, rethink my options altogether, if the experts think I should.....

Hoping someone can push me in a particular direction. I'm an amateur (to say the least), and I've been shooting with a canon s3 for years. I mostly shoot family and nature shots, with a little action thrown in (kids running around the yard, waterskiing, etc.) Ditto for video - not sure that I need a GHx cam, but I'm sure that 1080 would be nice.

Lots of birds perch in the trees across the lake from me (a few hundred meters away), hence my desire for length - my s3 can reach that far, but the resolution and sharpness make it all but impossible to get a decent shot. I include the panny 45 - 200 with the gh1 due to cost considerations - cant swing the gh1 + 100-300 at this time.

I am currently shooting with a canon s3, but have outgrown it. I want better resolution/sharpness at the long end, and am looking forward to getting much better low light performance as well as the shallower DOF that a m43 will offer.

Any advice you can offer would be very much appreciated!
Click to expand...
 
I've been using a GF1 with the 20mm and 45-200mm as my walk-around kit for the last year. It's a nice set-up, and quite versatile, but it's not my first choice for birds or fast action; when I'm going out specifically for those, I bring my DSLR.

If you're intent on the M43, the GF1 with the 20mm and the 100-300 is a pretty attractive always-with-you kit. However, even the 100-300 is not really enough reach for birds "a few hundred meters away" (the 45-200 even at 50 meters is marginal in my opinion). On the other hand, nothing you can on any camera get for less than thousands will be much better at that distance. If you decide to stroll around the lake, you'll do much better with any camera.
mgibbs said:
Hello all-

I'm looking to spend about $1200 to get a m43 system started. Here's what I'm considering:

g2 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 20/1.7 + panny 100-300
gh1 + panny 45-200
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
or, rethink my options altogether, if the experts think I should.....

Hoping someone can push me in a particular direction. I'm an amateur (to say the least), and I've been shooting with a canon s3 for years. I mostly shoot family and nature shots, with a little action thrown in (kids running around the yard, waterskiing, etc.) Ditto for video - not sure that I need a GHx cam, but I'm sure that 1080 would be nice.

Lots of birds perch in the trees across the lake from me (a few hundred meters away), hence my desire for length - my s3 can reach that far, but the resolution and sharpness make it all but impossible to get a decent shot. I include the panny 45 - 200 with the gh1 due to cost considerations - cant swing the gh1 + 100-300 at this time.

I am currently shooting with a canon s3, but have outgrown it. I want better resolution/sharpness at the long end, and am looking forward to getting much better low light performance as well as the shallower DOF that a m43 will offer.

Any advice you can offer would be very much appreciated!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_gaillard
 
yeah, i hate to wait now that i'm close to a decision, but the gh2's improved low light performance + 5 fps burst rate compare very nicely - i may end up doing as you advise - the "long term gain" philosophy makes sense....
 
not sure of actual distance across the lake. for reference, here's what my s3 can do:





this is at full zoom, decent light
 
I use the GF1 with the 14-45 and the 14-140. I also do have the 20mm 1.7 lens. If I had to only have one lens the 14-45 would be the one I would keep. I love the 14-140 when I am on a trip and I want one lens to do everything. I use the 20mm less than the others but I do use it. I have been a passionate photographer from 1956 until now and this is my favorite system. I love it. You will have great pleasure whatever you get. The tele zoom does not interest me because there are just a few situations when you can just leave it on the camera the 14 to 140 is very adequate for most tele situations.

Good Luck,

hal
 
mgibbs said:
not sure of actual distance across the lake. for reference, here's what my s3 can do ....(image skipped)... this is at full zoom, decent light
Click to expand...
DPR says an S3 IS has a 35-432 mm zoom relative to a film camera. The 100-300 zoom will give a 600mm max zoom relative to film. Looking at your bird photo, using M43, the bird would now be about 50% bigger relative to the image, In actual pixels, because of the increased MP, a cropped pic will give your more than 50%, but it will still be small. It doesn't change the earlier advice to take a stroll to the other side of the lake.

As for the choice of cameras, you can build a system gradually. Don't have to jump in and buy everything now. Start with a camera and kit lens.
 
mgibbs said:
Hello all-

I'm looking to spend about $1200 to get a m43 system started. Here's what I'm considering:

g2 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 20/1.7 + panny 100-300
gh1 + panny 45-200
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
or, rethink my options altogether, if the experts think I should.....
Click to expand...
g2 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300 Sell 14-42, buy 14-45 = $250 + $550 + 600 = $1400
gf1 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300 = $650 + 600 = $1250
gf1 w/ 20/1.7 + panny 100-300 = $700 + 600 = $1300

gh1 + panny 45-200 = GH1/14-140 kit @ $980. Sell the 14-140 for $600; Net camera $380 + $260 = $640.
GH1 with 14-45 & 100-300: $380 + $350 + $600 = $1,330 (Great kit actually)

Obviously, go the GH1. And its got the best sensor of them all, IMO including the GH2. It focus's twice as slow, but it'll be a race car compared to what you are used to.
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
 
So many potential combinations...

Just a few thoughts:
  • I find the larger bodies with built-in viewfinders much more comfortable to use with longer lenses, so when I read your interests, this excludes the GF1 IMHO (which is perfect as a light solution with the 20mm pancake lens).
  • The G2 and the GH1 are both great cameras that will very likely do what you 'need', but, of course, we all want the newest toy :). - me included, I sold my GH1, waiting for the GH2. Overall, I agree with Ann, the GH2 with the 14-140mm will give you the best allround solution.
  • all these models give you EZ zoom which takes pictures between 6 and 8MB (GH2, minimally less in the others), that should give you prints which are still considerably better than what you get with your current camera. With that, the 300mm end will turn into a 1200mm equivalent, that should give you more reach.
  • if you really want to shoot at these lengths, don't forget saving for a good tripod...
Stefan

P.S. Just saw MP's post. Good thinking, and - assuming you are in the U.S., you should get the 14-45mm for around $250 from people who sell them from sets they split up ( ask me how I know ;) ).
 
mgibbs said:
Hello all-

I'm looking to spend about $1200 to get a m43 system started. Here's what I'm considering:

g2 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 20/1.7 + panny 100-300
gh1 + panny 45-200
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
or, rethink my options altogether, if the experts think I should.....

Hoping someone can push me in a particular direction. I'm an amateur (to say the least), and I've been shooting with a canon s3 for years. I mostly shoot family and nature shots, with a little action thrown in (kids running around the yard, waterskiing, etc.) Ditto for video - not sure that I need a GHx cam, but I'm sure that 1080 would be nice.

Lots of birds perch in the trees across the lake from me (a few hundred meters away), hence my desire for length - my s3 can reach that far, but the resolution and sharpness make it all but impossible to get a decent shot. I include the panny 45 - 200 with the gh1 due to cost considerations - cant swing the gh1 + 100-300 at this time.

I am currently shooting with a canon s3, but have outgrown it. I want better resolution/sharpness at the long end, and am looking forward to getting much better low light performance as well as the shallower DOF that a m43 will offer.

Any advice you can offer would be very much appreciated!
Click to expand...
Since your budget is tight you should consider the Panasonic DMC-G1 with 14-45mm kit lens now. As you live in the US it is available from Amazon for under $400. I would invest the remainder of your money in a good tripod and one of the long lenses you have considered.

It might also be a good idea to take a look at your family photos you have taken with the S3 and see what focal lengths they were at. You may find that either or both of the Panasonic pancakes (20mm f1.7 and 14mm f2.5) should be on your shopping list.

Only go for the G1 if video is unimportant. Otherwise shell out for the G2 or GF2 when it arrives in 2011.
 
Melbourne Park said:
Obviously, go the GH1. And its got the best sensor of them all, IMO including the GH2. It focus's twice as slow, but it'll be a race car compared to what you are used to.
Click to expand...
Melbourne Park said:
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I included a sentence of yours at the end of my post, I had not seen it there. I only saw it now, well after the 15 minute edit cut off.

Incidentally, my prices were sourced from B&H. Except for the presumed second hand price of selling a brand new 14-140 for $600. Since it is still new, and since they cost close to $800, I presume you'd sell it for that $600 amount.
 
mgibbs said:
g2 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 14-45 + panny 100-300
gf1 w/ 20/1.7 + panny 100-300
gh1 + panny 45-200
or (gulp) wait for gh2 to fall to my price range
or, rethink my options altogether, if the experts think I should....
Click to expand...
How about Olympus e-pL1, 20/1.7, modern Canon superzoom.
 
markpsf said:
This is an investment, so I'd want the latest and best. It will also have
Click to expand...
Cameras are not an investment. Maybe a house or some good lenses but not cameras. Look at GH1! $1k one year ago (without the lens) and they barely sell for $500 on Ebay. And that's in one year. Next year they'll be worth what? $200?

As for OP's dilemma, I'd go with a gf1 and 20mm lens as a start ($599). See if you like it! If not, you can sell it and lose close to nothing. If you invest that much and you won't like it then, you'll lose more.
 
I looked up the specs on the S3; I see the long end is 400+mm equiv, so with the 45-200mm the bird would appear very slightly smaller, but more detailed because of the greater resolution of the m43 cameras. With the 100-300, the bird would appear half again as large.

I'm not sure what kind or how large that bird is. If it's medium-hawk-sized, 40-45cm, then I'd guess it's less than 100m away, but that's pure wild-@ss-guessing on my part. But it seems to me that for birds, you'll be pushing the limits of what inexpensive gear can do at that distance.

Although, you might try getting a cheap mirror lens (and m43 adapter), setting up on a tripod, and see what that can do for you. Since you have a fixed viewing position for these birds, a tripod makes a lot of sense regardless.

This is probably not too helpful in answering your original question; sorry.
mgibbs said:
not sure of actual distance across the lake. for reference, here's what my s3 can do:





this is at full zoom, decent light
Click to expand...
--
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ed_gaillard
 
actually, you are correct - that's an osprey. and your answer is very helpful to me. I could likely live with a shot that was 50% bigger and more detailed.

i had thought about some of those mirror telephoto lenses. people had remarked that they are difficult to focus. any insight on that?

thanks again for the reply - i wasn't sure if my desires were realistic - that's why i'm asking the experts! i appreciate your insight.
 
good point - that is a tasty price on the gf1. i'm a little leery of having a fixed focal length lens, and having to manually focus vids - 2 challenges that i haven't yet tackled...
 
you're not the only person that loves that camera - i find its size and form factor very appealing. that you're so experienced and like it so much says a lot - thanks for the reply!
 
i'd love to! the gh2 seems like the gem of the lineup, and the idea of a 10x zoom is very appealing, although i'd likely have to supplement w/ the 100-300 to shoot the "lake birds". i see myself eventually buying the gh2 anyways - maybe i should just do so intially.....
 
i think your advice to start with the kit lens, and build over time is good advice - better than making concessions in the name of covering all focal lenghts at once (which is what i'm already doing w/ the s3)....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top