I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system? Locked

Started Jun 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Beach Bum Senior Member • Posts: 1,055
I would avoid...

David Banner wrote:

For Nikon 1 to be worth it, the lenses should be proportionally smaller than MFT lenses for any given focal length range (true focal lengths not 35mm eq. focal lengths).

I didn't compare size for the main lens I'm interested in (14-140 or 10-100) but the Nikon 10-100 is actually heavier than the equivalent panasonic. I found that strange.

Just to let you know, I love the micro four-thirds system, but I would avoid the 14-140 mark I. They've announced a new version this year, but the old one from 2009 isn't very good IMO. It's probably because of the 10x zoom range, which makes it more difficult to maintain quality throughout the zoom range. With this lens in particular, it loses quality in the second half of the zoom range.

I don't know how the newer version performs yet, but my guess is it will be better.

I believe all of Panasonic's zoom lenses starting at 45mm are good. I personally like the 45-175,  but it's gotten some negative reviews because of the "shutter shock" issue at 1/60s to 1/250s. Nonetheless, I still like it.

Anyway, I suspect you'll have many of the same problems with the Nikon 10-100 because of the long zoom range.

What I would do, whichever system you go with, is split the range you need into two or more lenses to get better quality, unless the newer version of the Panasonic 14-140 solves some of the problems with the old lens.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow