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

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 can only say that, I like you, were a long time lurker and that the advice you will get from others will be probably better than mine. Here goes: 1st, forget about your DSLR friends just have a look at the photos produced by the best photographers in this forum. The really good ones are actually to numerous to list here. 2nd, you have to check and see if you are just having, GAS, (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) or you want a camera with a couple of more features than the G3. Finally, for what it is worth: the G7 is soon to be available, it's being called the little brother of the GH4 which sounds very interesting. As an owner of the GH3 I would recommend you look at it. The price might even drop on the GH3 after the after the G7 and GX7 get rolling. I hope this was of some help. jack

Dear friend, upgrade could be considered in 2 aspects.

Upgrade the body is looking for a better sensor (better high ISO images, better DR) and better features + better video. Without doubt it would be replaced again few years later when higher pixel comes, better sensor invented + more new features.

Lens would be a much longer term investment as long as you stay in the same system. UWA? Fast Prime? Telephoto? Tiny kit 12-32 + 35-100 or pro f/2.8 zooms...?

Comparing G3 to the modern day bodies (not in position to comment on Oly product) GX7/G7, GM1/GM5, you could expect to see a quite obvious improvement in terms of sharpness and ISO performance. For my experience, my G1 could go max ISO400, GF3 max at ISO800 and usable at USO1600, GX7 is good at ISO3200, usable at ISO6400. G7 could expect a bit better. As GMs and G7 share the same sensor and likely similar CPU of GX7 (G7 is newer), I expect it might be at least the same if not better. The upgrade is positive. In terms of G5/G6, the difference to G3 might be less obvious. You might have also missed a lot of new features that has been developed in the last few years after G3.

I originally also preferred dslr-like body. But after settling down with the ranger finder style GF, GXs, I now have no problem in handling them.

I would upgrade G3, specially GX7/G6 is so cheap now. In longer term, I would keep on improve my lens portfolio...

With the low price point of the GX7 or OM-D E-M10 at this point I don't see what is stopping you from purchasing either camera. Really at $500 that's pocket change territory. You will gain a lot in sensor technology and a fully grown camera system. The G3 by comparison is quite an immature camera in the development cycle of Micro Four Thirds.

You can only go one step higher really and that's to consider the new Panasonic G7 which offers finally the high end features of fast and accurate DFD focusing and 4K video in a medium range camera, but you would be doubling your costs.

At this point if you don't shoot sports or fast moving objects such as birds in flight, the GX-7 and E-M10 are great cameras with no real limitations except the obvious one which is a commonality unless you buy the new midrange and flagship cameras like the G7, GH4 and OM-D E-M1.

You could abandon ship and buy the Sony A6000 for a fairly similar price point, but you would have to look at the lenses first and think about the investment you've already made. The Fuji XE-2 falls into the same bracket but again its more expensive.

If you don't shoot fast action the E-M10 and GX7/G6 are great cameras the GX-7 is slightly more modern in terms of its sensor than the G6 but you might prefer the "real camera" look of the Panasonic G6, personally that doesn't phase me.

The only obvious gaps in your lens selection is wide to ultrawide and macro.  For landscape and architecture 24mm makes a big difference compared to you current 28mm. You can, of course, use manual panos to compensate for this e.g. 2x2 matrix at 28mm.

Prices on the G6 and GX7 are pretty good now.  I opted for the G6 because it felt right in my hand whereas the GX7 didn't.  However, I really miss the IS when using lenses without it, which pushes up the ISO to get an acceptable shutter speed.  I did not like the feel of the Oly cameras and, possibly due to having several Panasonic cameras, disliked the menus.

There's lots happening in the Panasonic space right now.  The G7 looks fantastic but still no IS. Detail on the GX8 is awaited. The FZ1000 offers an excellent fixed lens wildcard and is starting to drop in price or has offers.

If you had to buy a camera now, the GX7 would seem to be the obvious choice: good price, better sensor, inbuilt IS, familiar menu system.  You'd probably get used to the handling.

On lenses - the Samyang 7.5mm is fantastic, fun and great value.  The Oly 9-18mm may be of interest, giving good coverage for architecture and landscapes, prices may drop with teh release of the new 7-14mm Oly Pro lens. See my Flickr albums for camera and lens specific images. The tiny 12-32mm is a great lens but, perhaps, the extra 4mm does not represent great value for money unless city architecture and interiors are preferred subjects.

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.

No, there have been improvements but not significant. I have the cameras you want because I upgraded but it is not worth it. If you go that route your photography hobby will change in a camera obsession hobby. If you have specific issues it is better to look for a direct solurion then hoping a new camera will solve it. The G3 is the first of the nice 16mp cameras. Upgrading a camera wirh the 12mp sensor is more usefull.

cheers

Vincent

You are in almost exctly the same position that I was in 6 months ago, even down to the same two lenses excpt that I had converters for both Nikon F mount and Minolta MD legacies also. My former camera was the G1.

I bought a nearly new G5 for £250 and the upgrade delighted me, the new sensor was a major advance.  Like you I had no interest in video but the G5 changed that in pretty short order once I saw the result of a couple casual try-outs.

In all respects the G5 meet all my quite exacting demands and none of my many photo colleagues now decries 4/3rds it as toy cameras. Like all 4/3 cameras you must shoot in RAW to realize the full potential.

So my (very biased) advice is to go for a G5 (eBay £250) and use the saved money for the best quality lenses that you can afford.  The first step must be to swap your 14-42 for a 14-45mm, the uplift in image quality will really surprise you. Keep the 45-200mm (but avoid using it above 180mm as the image falls apart when fully extened (you will get much better results cropping from 180mm images).

If you like big skies and landscapes and your budget runs to it, add a Panasonic 7-14mm (around £500 but worth every penny) or an Olympus 9-18mm (almost as good and it can take filters too).

As to macro, the early series Tamron SP90 beats everything else including any Nikon or Canon costing under £1,000 - suitable mount adaptors are dirt cheap.  You should find a Tamron SP90 for around £150. It needs a bit of effort to get the best out of it but the results can be stunning. If you can't get on with it there are dozens of people on eBay who will buy it back from you for what you paid for it, so it's effectively available on free trial.

Alternatively, see if you can pick up an early Nikon, MicroNikkor AI 55mm macro. This professional quality lens can be found for much the same money as the Tamron but its shorter focal length can be a bit of a disadvantage when photographing insects and flowers

Hi, I'm also pretty much a lurker on DPreview, and I own the G3 14-42 and the 30 and 19mm sigmas along with some other lenses. A bit over a year ago I decided I wanted a smaller camera, and bought the Gm1, which has similar image quality to the GX7, and the other new cameras. As far as I can tell the G6 does not offer the same step up in image quality, which is noticeable with the Gm1. So if you do want to buy a new camera I would suggest you go for the Gx7 EM-10 or the G7 when it drops in price a bit.

However, I would suggest that the biggest difference in image quality you would gain would come from replacing the 14-42mm (if you use it much now you've got the sigmas), as I found the images I was getting from that lens to be pretty disappointing. As to what lens to go for, that will depend on what you need; given you've got the telephoto and some standard primes, I would suggest you buy a wide angle lens (to replace the wide end of the 14-42) or a faster lens. If you want a cheap wide angle, the 14mm is pretty nice for its price, but something like the 12mm olympus or 9-18mm would obviously give you something significantly different from the 19mm.

If you want to be able to shoot in lower light. I think a brighter lens would be more useful than a small improvement in high ISO performance. The cheaper options are the pan 20mm f1.7 and the oly 45mm f1.8 or the pan 42.5mm f1.7 if its cheap where you live as it'll have IS. If you can afford it, I would suggest the 15mm f1.7 which would give you a bright wide angle general purpose lens, I tried the 20mm f1.7 and didn't like the images i go from it so sold it, but the 15mm seems to produce lovely images (the 17mm f1.8 from olympus is the other option but haven't tried it myself).

Wow that was a rant, hope it helps!

Andy

Yes.  There has been a sizable improvement in the sensor since the G3.  The GX7 is an excellent camera and from all reports, so is the G6.  I have the GM5, GX7 and GH4 and believe that they all deliver the IQ that a I expect, that is, excellent.  You may want to take a look at the upgrade of the 14-42 since it is markedly better than the original.  The 45-200 is an okay lens, but there are others which are sharper at both ends.  Yes, you should upgrade and I believe that you will  notice a marked difference in the images that your camera produces.  The new bodies can produce JPEGs which are excellent.  Of course you have the RAW option too.

Short answer:

Go with the lenses and wait with body upgrade till later.

Long answer:

Ask yourself these questions:

• Is image quality you get from your G3 preventing you from getting images you want?
• Is high ISO performance really an issue? How often do you need to push it?
• Would a proper flash not solve low light performance problem more comprehensively? (for me, a proper flash took my casual/family interior shots to a whole new level)
• Would a new camera allow you to take photos you could otherwise make if you'd spend this money on either of the lenses you are considering?
• Does the new camera have features that your G3 has not, and are any of those features actually helpful in making you more productive and/or your photography better?

And I'm not saying that a better sensor is not a good reason to upgrade. That was a major reason for me upgrading from E-PL1 to E-M10. But that was because I started shooting more and more during night, and even some astrophotography, and it became obvious that the old sensor is not up to the task and was a major hurdle for me.

But your situation seems to be different. First of all, my E-PL1 was in a different league than your G3, and all the differences between E-PL1 and E-M10 made the decision very easy for me. In your case, it might not provide as big of an improvement as you'd expect.

If I were you, I would not be considering G5 and G6 at all. The difference is not all that big. G7 on the other hand, is a considerable improvement in every possible way.

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.

Bummer considering the Gx7 has a basic IBIS system. I would still urge you to try this one. the touch interface will make you feel at home(previous G3 owner myself). Especially considering the low prices they go for these days.

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)?

The quality upgrade between olympus bodies and the Panasonic Gx7,G7 is real. not just High ISO. The Raw files can be pushed more and there is always less noise in shadow area's.

The question whether the difference is worth 550+ euro investment(Gx7 street price) is debateable. I've payed that for mine after turning in a lens and a 200 euro contest price.

And i can't say i ever regretted it. The Gx7 is a much better camera then my G3 ever was period.

Thanks for reading the longish post!