Reading mode: Light Dark

GF3&G "X" size comparison with EOS 600D

Go to last post
Always thought the 500/550/600 was a pretty compact camera. Compared to the G3 and the new lens, it's a monster.

SF Photo Gal
Canon 1DsIII & 5DII/Panasonic GH1-GF1-LX3
 
IMHO these lenses+cam combos are game changers.
G3+new lens !

I wonder ... if used with these 'kit' lenses ... who would still opt for the bulcky DSLR ?
Not me.
 
Even overlaying a GH2 and the 14-45mm would show a significant size advantage of m4/3. It is a mythos that a GH2 system is not small enough to compete against entry level DSLRs in terms of size.

The new pancake zoom makes the difference spectacular in favor for any m4/3 body.
--
Thomas
 
stefaan said:
I wonder ... if used with these 'kit' lenses ... who would still opt for the bulcky DSLR ?
Not me.
Click to expand...
Oh, there are plenty of reasons for an amateur to go with the traditional DSLR's; image quality is still better, the form factor and controls have a browse appeal, lens availability is far and away better than what we get with m4/3, and it's quite frankly cheaper to go with Canikon in a lot of respects (there's no sub-$250 lens for m43 is there? Both Canon & Nikon offer several very good lenses I'm that price range). For pro's, don't get me started.

I made the same choice you did, stefaan, because the image quality was good enough and because I was and am willing to pay a premium to be able to carry 50-67% less weight (for a like-for-like kit) but let's not get carried away.
 
Agreed: DSLRs have advantages when it comes to the best lenses available, price and an OVF. You can't get around that in my opinion.
 
too bad that 14-42 lens ( nice and small as it is ) will be 399
 
Well, we always pay extra for convinience...
Neceo said:
too bad that 14-42 lens ( nice and small as it is ) will be 399
Click to expand...
--
E-PL2, E-PM1; 14-150mm f4-5.6, 14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7, 45mm f1.8
 
I'm about to make the leap from Canon 500d and 50D and a slew of L and top-line ef-s lenses to a G3. The weight and size of the X lenses are the critical factor in my switch. Prior to their appearance--when ever that is--I was strongly leaning to the Oly 4/3. The X lenses are also claimed to be high image quality. Without that image quality confirmed by independent tests, I may still wait a bit more.

Still, the Canons and Nikons biggest advantage, aside from great lenses, is a full EV or F stops more dynamic range, a bit at the black end but a whole lot at the white end. Even the Pens, with lower resolution, manage nearly a full stop of additional detail in the highlights. Forget about resolution, which is becoming comparable, and about low-light--A full stop of dynamic range is the number one reason that image makers should question turning to Pana 4/3s just yet.
 
Sabatia said:
Still, the Canons and Nikons biggest advantage, aside from great lenses, is a full EV or F stops more dynamic range, a bit at the black end but a whole lot at the white end. Even the Pens, with lower resolution, manage nearly a full stop of additional detail in the highlights. Forget about resolution, which is becoming comparable, and about low-light--A full stop of dynamic range is the number one reason that image makers should question turning to Pana 4/3s just yet.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are talking about here. The G3 goes equal with the Pens for DR at low ISO and is 1.5 EV better at high ISO. The GH2 is about one EV better for DR than the PENs at low as well as high ISO.
 
Neceo said:
too bad that 14-42 lens ( nice and small as it is ) will be 399
Click to expand...
The jury is still out on just how good the lens is, but if it's at least decent I think this is a pretty reasonable price. And if you buy it as a kit lens for a G3 then the effective price (kit price minus body price) will probably be considerably less.
 
I've always felt one of the weaknesses of the Canon APS-C line was the absence of any good standard zoom at a reasonable price. The inexpensive 18-55 kit lens is crap. Bad edge softness and plenty of CA, and the same for the 17-85. The 15-85 is a little better, but quite heavy and a lot more expensive.

Even the Panasonic 14-42mm is much better than any of these over the comparable range, and the 14-45 is better still. Eliminating the mirror lets lenses sit closer to the focal plane, and makes it easier to design lenses that perform well at wide angle.

The closest to a reasonable lens for Canon APS-C is the Sigma 17-70, which is about $400, and in my experience still not quite as good as the Lumix 14-45.

If you include primes, the all-plastic 50mm f/1.8 is reasonably sharp for $100, but that's pretty much it for bargains in Canon lenses.

However, I agree that the Canons are more responsive, and in good light the OVF is much nicer to use than the EVF on the Panasonics. However, indoors in dim light, it's the reverse. My favorite camera right now is my new G3, but I'm not throwing away the 60D or 5D Mark II just yet.
Rohith Thumati said:
stefaan said:
I wonder ... if used with these 'kit' lenses ... who would still opt for the bulcky DSLR ?
Not me.
Click to expand...
Oh, there are plenty of reasons for an amateur to go with the traditional DSLR's; image quality is still better, the form factor and controls have a browse appeal, lens availability is far and away better than what we get with m4/3, and it's quite frankly cheaper to go with Canikon in a lot of respects (there's no sub-$250 lens for m43 is there? Both Canon & Nikon offer several very good lenses I'm that price range). For pro's, don't get me started.

I made the same choice you did, stefaan, because the image quality was good enough and because I was and am willing to pay a premium to be able to carry 50-67% less weight (for a like-for-like kit) but let's not get carried away.
Click to expand...
 
it are the Nikon/Pentax sensors (Sony's!) that do a lot better at low ISO. Not the Canons. At least not according to Dxo.
 
i guess it is smaller but I am looking at the tamaron 17-50 f/2.8 for 400 ( if I go the a65 route) and a faster lense that performs better in low light and has good reviews for IQ as well.
 
Eadfrith said:
Each new Canon, 450 to 500 to 550 etc got slightly bigger and heavier.
Click to expand...
but between the 300D and 400D the Rebel became a lot smaller and lighter, many users started complaining about worse ergonomics (especially the grip).
 
SamKnopf said:
I've always felt one of the weaknesses of the Canon APS-C line was the absence of any good standard zoom at a reasonable price. The inexpensive 18-55 kit lens is crap. Bad edge softness and plenty of CA, and the same for the 17-85. The 15-85 is a little better, but quite heavy and a lot more expensive.
Click to expand...
I don't agree: the 18-55IS (the new one, not the old non-IS coke bottle) is pretty sharp into the corners, if focused correctly. I tried four of them (due to AF problems with 450D body) and all were optically very similar. It's sharper in the corners than the far bigger and far more expensive 15-85IS, and much better than the 17-85. CA isn't much worse on average than the 15-85 either, and better than the 17-85IS from what I have seen. Only at 50-55mm the Canon kit zoom is lacking in sharpness, and contrast is generally a bit low compared to more expensive Canon lenses.

If with 'good' you meant mechanical quality I agree: the 18-55 is very low cost construction, with a disfunctional focus ring etc. But what do you expect for a lens that costs $70 or so (extra on top of cost of the body).
SamKnopf said:
If you include primes, the all-plastic 50mm f/1.8 is reasonably sharp for $100, but that's pretty much it for bargains in Canon lenses.
Click to expand...
'reasonably sharp' : I don't know what you are comparing to here, but from about f/2.8 this lens must be sharper than any m43 zoom and most primes. Amazing considering the price (and too bad that again this lens has flimsy construction with a disfunctional focusing ring).
 
One m43 advantage you haven't mentioned (and that, at least for me, makes a whole world of difference) is the razor sharp focus you get from CDAF - Canon's AF is undoubtedly faster and more advanced, particularly for moving targets and sports, but suffers from back and front focusing and calibration issues that m43 is immune. That's one of the main reasons why i enjoy so much m43: pics are actually sharp, sharp, sharp.
--
http://www.nico-foto.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • User review User review
OM-5 II is a gem
Replies
0
Views
29K
Tannin
T
M
  • Question Question
Does the XF 16-80 feel out of place on the X-E5?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
31K
unceunce
U
DavidMillier
Comparison between 44x33mm 50MP Fuji GFX and m4/3 - prints
2
Replies
21
Views
38K
ahaslett
ahaslett
io_bg
  • User review User review
Just treated myself the XF 70-300 lens - first impressions and size comparison with the XC 50-230
Replies
17
Views
5K
DJ STU-C
DJ STU-C
bluevellet
  • User review User review
The Little Engine That Could
Replies
14
Views
27K
Isola Verde
Isola Verde

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