Adding lenses and keeping older camera

I'm glad to see, by reading some of the 45mm Oly lens threads, a lot of people are keeping their fine cameras. I see a lot still using GF1, EP1, G1, EPL1 and so forth. In looking at posted photos I see no difference in IQ in these and the new cams, especially with a nice lens like the Oly 45 1.8 or the Panny 20mm 1.7. It seems a lot of people aren't going for the slow addition of features, not affecting IQ hardly at all.

Jere Landis said:

I'm glad to see, by reading some of the 45mm Oly lens threads, a lot of people are keeping their fine cameras. I see a lot still using GF1, EP1, G1, EPL1 and so forth. In looking at posted photos I see no difference in IQ in these and the new cams, especially with a nice lens like the Oly 45 1.8 or the Panny 20mm 1.7. It seems a lot of people aren't going for the slow addition of features, not affecting IQ hardly at all.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have been shooting with a DSLR since 2004 and with m4/3 since January, 2010. I have always put lens purchases above upgrading to the latest body. Not only do I still shoot with the GF1 I bought in January, 2010; I still shoot with the Nikon D200 I bought in 2006!

Whenever I have been tempted to purchase a newer body I've come to the conclusion that it would be kind of a boring upgrade that would only improve a small percentage of my photos by a small amount. But adding more lenses would truly expand the types of photos I am able to capture by giving me things like a wider field of view, a tighter field of view, a wider aperture, fisheye, macro, better optical quality, etc.

Even when I went from a 6MP Nikon D70 to a 10.2 MP D200 that had more resolution and less noise at high ISO by at least a stop, I always said I would take the old D70 with a quality lens over the D200 with a mediocre lens.

When someone says they are thinking about upgrading cameras just to get a newer sensor I ask them: Are you already using the best lenses you can get for your type of shooting? Are you using the best technique, including a tripod when necessary? If so, then are you really pushing your sensor to its limit that much? If the answer is yes then the newer sensor might give you enough of an improvement in enough of your photos to be worthwhile. If not, then you might be excited about the purchase initially, but later wonder why the photos you're taking look just like the ones you captured with the previous model.

Of course it's nice to upgrade cameras every now and then, and if you can afford it and you're happy then why not? But me...I'm quite happy with the GF1. For me its significant weak points are: The merely adequate LVF1 and the poor implementation of Auto ISO (this might be true for newer models as well), but the latter is only a real issue when I'm giving the camera to someone else to take photos of me with. If Panasonic announces a newer external viewfinder that is higher resolution and still compatible with the GF1, I might just upgrade my viewfinder.

I agree too with one exception -- I purchase lenses thinking about which camera format I will stick with. For example, if there are none and likely would never be high-quality fast lenses for the format, I would avoid the camera format. I chose u43 with the expectation that the lens selection will improve and higher-quality lenses will appear.

I would only be compelled to upgrade to the E-P3 for its faster and more accurate focusing.

Jere Landis said:

I'm glad to see, by reading some of the 45mm Oly lens threads, a lot of people are keeping their fine cameras. I see a lot still using GF1, EP1, G1, EPL1 and so forth.

Click to expand...

I am keeping my E-PL1, purchased as a refurb for $300.

Look at the top selling mirrorless cameras on amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Compact-System-Cameras-Lenses/zgbs/photo/3230476011/?tag=rumors0a-20

Two of the top m4/3 sellers are the vaunted (... drum roll please ...):

E-PL1
GF2

These cameras have a $400 dollar price tag. The world at large just so happens to care about price. The world of dpreview is an enthusiasts haven of early adopters that is largely detached from economic reality.

What's really interesting here from an industry perspective is how much these low priced m4/3 cameras are impacting the advanced point and shoot market space.

Jere Landis said:

I'm glad to see, by reading some of the 45mm Oly lens threads, a lot of people are keeping their fine cameras. I see a lot still using GF1, EP1, G1, EPL1 and so forth. In looking at posted photos I see no difference in IQ in these and the new cams, especially with a nice lens like the Oly 45 1.8 or the Panny 20mm 1.7. It seems a lot of people aren't going for the slow addition of features, not affecting IQ hardly at all.

Click to expand...

--Good points, Jere. My E-PL1 may be the lighter built, ugly step-sister to the E-P3, but it still turns some heads. And more important, as you said, it has virtually the same IQ, plus it takes all the same lenses, and has the same sensor. I'm not taking away from faster AF, and some of the other useful upgrades of the newer models, but the essentials are the same.

W.C.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29320396@N05/show/
E-PL1
Digilux 2
LX3
FZ18
Nikon FM
AI 50 1.8
Leica CL w/40 cron
FED 2b
Exakta VXII

I bought a Olympus UZ C750 on a lark in August of 2003. That camera had and still has great image quality but, new cameras like a lot of things get beter and better. Outdoors it is fine not so indoors. The olympus is very slow shot to shot and downloading from camera was very slow. I still like the way it did the blue in the sky, somewhat fake but the prettist blue.

I've never been big on upgrading and never been big on being an early adopter. The few times I have been I have always regretted it. I still use my old Nikon D100 at work as a matter of fact. My Nikon D200 I bought when it was released and ended up regretting it for the issues it had/has. I still have it but use it as a loaner camera.

I always wished a reasonably priced and small compact camera with a big sensor that would take my old lenses existed but 6 years ago nothing like that seemed to me would ever be made. That is when I left dpreview. I owned every lens I wanted and Nikon's upgrades were like they were now. Incremental with no real differences in IQ. This year I decided to stop by and see if anyone was converting high speed industrial lenses (like I did years ago) and just lucked up and discovered my dream camera existed! I made the mistake of getting into the Nex system but luckily it wasn't a huge investment before I discovered that m4/3 made cameras that were better suited for my needs. I've since got an E-PL1 for my son and an EP2 for myself. I know there is a newere camera but at the price it costs it really doesn't interest me. The older cameras give more IQ than I need or are capable of so why upgrade? I'll probably upgrade years from now to the current tech when it is at bargain prices. For now I'm happy spending less time here and more time taking pictures.
--
The worst vice is advice. - John Milton from The Devil's Advocate

Mynakedsoda

A good philosophy and I agree 100%, thus my starting this thread. I just hope to see how many share this thinking, by getting more posts.

Yep camera bodies come and go, but lenses are forever (or until the mount is changed)
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/

Like the Joker said: Why so serious?

Jere Landis said:

I'm glad to see, by reading some of the 45mm Oly lens threads, a lot of people are keeping their fine cameras. I see a lot still using GF1, EP1, G1, EPL1 and so forth. In looking at posted photos I see no difference in IQ in these and the new cams, especially with a nice lens like the Oly 45 1.8 or the Panny 20mm 1.7. It seems a lot of people aren't going for the slow addition of features, not affecting IQ hardly at all.

Click to expand...

It really is all about lenses. I got a GH2 in January this year and couldn't be happier. The problem in upgrading regularly is that interfaces change with every new model, so unlike film cameras, which ALL shared very similar controls, there can be a big learning curve.

One of the reasons I bought into M4/3, after size and weight vs. a DSLR, was the fact I could use my few existing Nikon lenses with the addition of an inexpensive adaptor. In the meantime, I've inherited a few more manual Pentax lenses and bought a couple Nikon and Voigtländer manual lenses.

Now, I've decided not to buy any more native M4/3 lenses, so I can be flexible and get lenses that will work with any system. NEX with manual, adapted lenses looks pretty interesting. But, I love my 7-14mm and Nokton 25mm lenses and would happily hang onto my GH2 for those lenses alone!

I know it goes against the grain, but I disagree. I think that for most people they see more improvement in their photos when they upgrade their camera body, not their lenses.

The limiting factor for most people is their ability, not their equipment. Anything that makes it easier to get a shot--especially quicker AF, easier ability to quickly change ISO/focus area/WB, etc.--will immediately pay off in terms of better pictures. Most modern lenses, on the other hand, are pretty darn good, and you usually can't really see differences until an image is enlarged (a lot). So while I have no doubt that good glass makes a difference, I think that for most people--who are not very good photographers--the difference is small.

There are exceptions, of course. If you find yourself drawn to low-light shooting then a faster lens will obviously help you take better pictures than a new body, even one with a better sensor. If you're always cropping out 90% of your images because you like to take pictures of birds, and only have a kit lens, then a telephoto will obviously give you better results. So I'm not saying that upgrading your lens lineup will always have a small effect.

Put it this way: Most people believe that the original Panasonic kit lens 14-45mm is better than the newer 14-42mm. So which setup do you think will produce better photos for the average photographer:

(a) G1 + 14-45mm
(b) G3 + 14-42mm

I'd guess (b), and it's got nothing to do with the sensor of the G3.

It really depends. As the post above mine suggests, the G3 may make more difference than a lens for someone who shoots only JPEGs, because it's JPEG output is much better.

And for someone who shoots frequently in low-light, upgrading to a new body with a new sensor may make more difference than a different lens (OTOH, switching to a faster lens may make more difference than the sensor).

For a sports photographer, better AF can dramatically improve the "keeper" rate, probably more so than a different lens.

So there's no hard and fast rule, I think. But it's certainly true that many people upgrade just for the sake of upgrading, not because the new equipment will really produce better images. But that's true of lens upgrades as well as body upgrades.

I want to applaud the thread because it has agreeable, sensible replies. Thanks, Jere, for this fine post.
--



Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.

Despite my earlier desires to upgrade cameras and possibly switch camps over to NEX, I too have come to the realization that the lens is the most important part of the camera. I feel that you will get much better and sharper results with a 12mp 4/3 camera with a superb lens compared to something like a NEX with it's so so lenses (even the Zeiss looks really soft to me).

I don't know if it is the optimized 4/3 sensor that makes it easier to design sharp lenses...or if Oly/Pana take more time to make great lenses, but the photos I keep seeing out of good M43 photographers are really stunning in terms of corner to corner sharpness, bokeh, and color rendition. Dynamic range could be a little better, but I feel new sensors are starting to negate the APS-C advantage.

So I'm sticking it out with my trusty old GF1 and purchased the Olympus 45mm and 12mm lenses to expand my arsenal of shooting situations. My only complaint about my current camera is lack of EVF and no IBIS. Hopefully Olympus will release something to suit my needs in the near future...but I feel pretty set with my lenses for the forseable future.

Btw, here's a website comparing a few different cameras (E-P3, D7000, Leica M9) and the 4/3 stands up pretty darn well if you ask me.

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2011/08/panasonic-leica-25mm-f14-micro-four_26.html

I just replaced my printer, got the Oly 45 so holding tight for a while.

SF Photo Gal
Canon 1DsIII & 5DII/Panasonic GH1-GF1-LX3