Is an upgrade from Lumix G3 viable for a noob photograhper?

krj38 wrote:

Hello all!

While I've been a long time lurker in this forum, this is my first actual post.

I'd like to ask for your opinion, as I'm struggling to make a decision. First, I should outline my profile as a photographer, as I believe it's crucial to my inquiry. I'm a casual photographer who takes pictures for fun. The majority of my photos fall into the following categories: street, landscapes, wildlife (if I'm lucky enough to encounter some during my walks), macro and "travel" photography. I'm just one of those blokes who hoard jpgs on their hard drives or in the cloud. Moreover, I'm not into recording videos, so stills' quality are the only thing that matters.

Currently I have a Lumix G3 with which I'm exceptionally pleased. I have the came for 2 years now. All my friends are DLSR people who ridicule me for having such a small camera (that's why I can't really ask for their opinion, because their advice would be "get a proper camera"). With the camera, there are the lenses: 14-42mm kit, 45-200mm tele, and two prime Sigmas: 30mm and 60mm.

It's worth mentioning that I try to keep my photography on the budget and not invest too much money in it, as it doesn't "repay" due to my attitude to photography as a past time. With the background, now to my question.

I'm considering upgrading my camera to either a Lumix camera (GX7 or G5-6-7, which I prefer because of looks) or an Olympus OM-D E-M10. As I see it, the new cameras are 'significantly' better thatn a G3, which shows especially in higher ISO shots, with G3's threshold of low noise is at 1600 ISO, and the other two cameras extend to 3200 ISO. They also have a better dynamic range. But. Are these improvements really worth the extra money I could invest in a new lens? For the cost of the upgrade to a better camera, I could get the Olympus 60mm macro lens or Lumix 100-300mm telephoto lens (not to mention a prime wide-angle lens), both lenses would create new possibilities to use my camera.

As all my cameras were Panasonics, I feel an attachment to the producer. I also like how the G series' cameras design (not so much the GX7). Nonetheless, Olympus looks nice and has inbuilt image stabilisation, which could be a great help with the Sigma primes I own.

So my question is this: should I indulge my whim, stretch my budget and upgrade the body. Or should I wait another year or two for a real improvement in image quality, and get a nice new lens instead? In other words, will the difference between the bodies' capabilities be noticeable for a amateur/hobbyist photographer (not a pixel-peeper, by any means)?

Thanks for reading the longish post!

I think a large number of folks on this forum will sympathise with all you say. The fact is that you're always on a  balancing compromise path with any camera system. You've invested a lot of time and money in Panasonic MFT and that's fine. You are losing out on on some of the benefits of DSLR land, and you're gaining in other ways. We've all been there!!!

In my experience which mirrors yours in many ways, the biggest cost factor is glass and so that then drives your body choice in the future.

Although all 16mp sensors, between your G3 and the current G6 - GX7 G7 there has been a lot of development and I think it fair to say that by comparison on identical subjects in identical settings etc the G3 will flounder a bit. However that bit may be in a range you never encounter - very low light etc etc. YMMV of course. Waiting for a real improvement in MFT may be a long wait.

The first decision (IMHO) is body. I personally find the Olympus MFT bodies very angular and the placement of the strap mounts digs into my right hand when using a wrist strap. So, go and fondle, handle, hold a few Olys and see how you feel.

Repeat for Panasonic - you may still find G6 in the shops but not for much longer and the G7 ain't there yet. The GX7 has built in stabilisation IBIS so may provide a good choice lenswise though you'll have to like the feel. I must admit I like the GX7 feel - very solid - but the small grip is a bit of a nuisance as I just carry right handed on wrist strap with fingers balancing the body. Can't do that with a GX7.

Costwise, right now you can get a G6 body and 14-42 kit lens in the UK for £300.

Body alone not much cheaper and it always pays to get the glass if you can. I think that you would see an improvement over the G3 in low light/indoor - churches, museums that sort of thing.

GX7 around £440 for the same combo.

G7 around £680 ditto.

The 7's also come with the 14-42 mk2 lens which is better than the original.

Looking at some of the samples so far from the G7 I reckon it is a real winner and one day in 18 months I may be able to afford one.

The 100-300 may feel a bit out of balance on a G3 but would bring a whole new world of fun. You could then wait a while for the G7 to come down, sell off your G3 and kit lens, and pick up a G7+kit which may be down to sub £500 by then.

I'd get some more nice glass for the G3 - personally I'd love a 60mm macro. Then wait till the G7 comes down and trade out what you don't need towards it.