Tried Nex 6 & 7, Lumix G5, and E-M5, but, ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Flat view
Einst Stein Contributing Member • Posts: 782
Tried Nex 6 & 7, Lumix G5, and E-M5, but, ...

I want a camera that works good for video and super tele.

I started from Nex 6. I have tones of old lenses, including Leica M, R, Contax G, Contax SLR, and even Hasselblad. I thought I can use those lenses with adapters. After trial, I was not happy with Nex 6and 7's coloring. They looks harsh to me, the green is not freshly green, and red is not vividly red. The sky is not clean blue. Ot's contrasty, sharp, but over all, I'd describe the color to be something like the movie of sadness. somewhat between the movie "perfect storm" and "The family of Frankenstein".

I then searched youtube for all footages from Olympus E-M5, Lumix G3, G5, Nex 3, Nex5, Nex6, Nex7. I skipped those boring and annoying "Reviews", focused on the landscape, birding, etc. that were created by people who want to share their pictures/movies that were not intended to be the camera review. I found Lumix G3 and G5 look much better for my taste, and, unexpectedly, I also found FZ200 very impressive.

Since E-M5 occupies most of the threads in this forum, far more than Lumix, it's my next choice. However, I quickly dropped it after tried it in the camera store. I don't see the IQ difference between it and G5, and yet it;'s much more expensive. So I ordered G5 with the kit lens (14-42) and 45-150mm, and the 3D 12mm. I got a very good deal from B&H, I paid $49 for the 45-150.

After few days trial at home, with the new lenses and my old lenses, I found these:

1. The Hasselblad 500mm T* is almost unusable. Even with the heavy tripod, the shaking and the jittering while panning is unacceptable to watch. Yes, it's my handling skill problem. But it also means   it does not fit my usage.

2. The Hasselblad 180mm/f4 is excellent. Very sharp and the coloring is vivid and pleasant. Alas, the size is too big and too heavy. I'm not sure Id use it often even with such a wonderful IQ.

3. The Contax 135 f2.8 and Leica elmar 135mm are similar to Hasselblad 180 in germs of IQ. ELMAR 135MM is my ideal choice for that focal length. However, the sharpness is better but not much different from the Lumix 45-150mm.  Adding the AF and stabilization and zoom capability, to me they are on par with Lumix 45-150mm for practical consideration.

4. At 90mm, Leica M Elmarit is unbeatable. But again, for 1920x1080 movie, after considering the AF, stabilization and Zoom, I don't see a compelling advantage over Lumix 45-150mm.

5. At 80mm, Hasselblad 80mm/2.8 is inferior to Leica M 90mm and Lumix 45-150mm, even without considering the AF/VC/Zoom.

6. Below 50mm, Leica 50mm Summicron, Contax Zeiss 50mm/1.4, Leica M and Zeiss ZM 35mm, Zemss ZM 25mm are all unbeatable choices compared to Lumix kit lens. This is no surprising.

But in the end I still choose to return the Lumix. The reason is, I can't tolerate my shaking hands for movie. I found not much value to use non-Lumix lenses at the tele end. For 50mm and below, well, yes, I can use Leica/Zeiss lenses, but I'd rather to use the Leica camera in those cases. I dont need another camera in the standard/wide focal length range.


Now, stick to my intention, to get a camera for movie and super tele, I'm turning to FZ200. It seems a much better option. I'm not sure I'd be happy with its small sensor. ... What's your experiences? I'm sure many of your should have gone through the similar consideration.

Another concern, FZ250 should show up in a month or two. (FZ100 is announced  July 2010, FZ150 Aug. 2011, FZ200 July 2012). Maybe I should wait for the FZ250? Given the latest three FZs are all 25mm~600mm, the only differences are in the aperture size  I expect the FZ250 to be still 25-600mm, but aperture to be ~f2.  the question is, would F2 have adequate focus depth for 600mm?

Flat view
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow