Camera Lust 2

[bunn]

 I resisted temptation well last year, and never did buy a Panasonic G1. 

Now I'm glad I didn't, as I have a new lust object, the Panasonic GF1  which is even smaller than the G1 and seems to have tidied up a few loose ends, and in particular, performs gratifyingly well on speed compared to the Olympus Pen which is its closest competitior (I like taking photos of things that move about a lot like birds and running dogs, so that's important) 

Buying one will however require me to understand interchangable lenses, which I've not previously needed to worry about - as the GF1 comes with either a 14-45mm lens smaller aperture, or a 20mm lens.  The 20 mm lens is well reviewed, and comes in a nice pancake format that would make it nice and easily portable, but has no image stabilisation, a fixed focal length, so no zoom, and puts the price up a bit too.   Bigger maximum aperture: better in low light tho.  Current camera sucks rather in low light. 

 Or I could go for the default 14-45mm zoom lens, which comes with image stabilisation and can zoom, but isn't so wee and has a smaller aperture, so might be closer to what I've already got. 

I could add this 45-200mm which would probably be rather good for high speed wildlife/dog pics (I think).  

Or I could give up in  confusion, and stick with my current 4 year old compact ultrazoom, which to be fair, usually does a pretty decent job by my fairly low standards.   I've been reading reviews and information about how to choose lenses, but they all seem to focus on deciding what you want to photograph, and my photos tend to swerve wildly from action to landscape to portrait to closeup...!

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

The problem with these cameras (which used to be called 'bridge' camera, as being a 'bridge' between compacts and SLRs) is that, when they have interchangeable lenses, the choice tends to be a bit limited. Currently, it appears this camera does not have the most useful of SLR lenses, a compact zoom (18mm to 200/300mm.) When these didn't exist in SLRs, the choice used to be similar to the two zoom lenses described above, and, in the end, you had to have both.

The shorter zoom will a lot faster, and better for taking photos of moving objects - my little Lumix Panasonic CZ5 compact, which is related, has a continuous focus setting for moving objects that works very well, but eats battery power. It will be also better for landscape.

However, I love long zooms, which allow you a pick up things a long distance away and are great for detail. These lenses aren't really up to wildlife photography (my 18-300 SLR zoom isn't really good enough either) but the longer zoom is definitely better.

The fixed focal length wide-angle lens probably isn't flexible enough for you.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

My existing camera, a Panasonic FZ7, is what is more usually called a 'bridge'. It has a (non-changeable) 36 - 432 mm lens, which is probably why I've ended up taking pictures of such a wide range of things - because I can!

This new camera is a new format, micro 4/3 - a new technology, neither DSLR or compact, and the thing I like about that is that it's small enough that I would actually carry it with me. The performance is supposed to be entry-level DSLR. I've periodically considered getting a conventional DSLR, but it just seemed all too probable that it would end up spending too much time at home in a box.

There is a Panasonic 14-140mm, and a Leica 14-150mm for the GF1, but I don't think you can buy either as part of the initial kit, and as you say, that would still be a considerable reduction in zoom over my current ultrazoom... Mind you, so would 18-300mm...

So I think I've accepted the idea that no DSLR/micro4/3 lens will give me the range of options that my current ultrazoom does, but that it might give me better quality within the capacity of the lenses...

Or maybe I should just wait until the FZ7 dies, then buy another compact ultrazoom!

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I must admit that I prefer a DSLR for the composition and for the infinite flexibility - otherwise I use a compact with a 10X zoom. However, the best pictures I have ever taken are still using a film SLR.

It might be worth your while looking at the new Canon powershot whose 14x optical zoom gives you the equivalent of 392mm...

[bunn.livejournal.com]

The SX210 you mean? It is is teeny, cheap and cute, but it only has 2 zooms more than I've got now, so if I was going to go for another compact, I think I'd be best to wait for my current camera to pop its clogs then buy whatever seemed best at that point...

I think the area where my FZ7 is weakest is taking photos in relatively low light levels, and I don't think any compact will improve much on that: I *think* I'll only really get better results there with a bigger sensor, which means DSLR or 4/3rds.

I got a full version of photoshop recently and fancy having a go at shooting raw format and postprocessing too, which another compact probably wouldn't give me...

[bunn.livejournal.com]

... the Sony Nex5, out this month, also looks rather exciting...

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

My compact Lumix CZ5 is actually better at low light levels that my (Pentax) DSLR, so long as you get the settings on the white balance right and allow it up to 400 ASA equivalent.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that's disappointing!

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

A larger sensor of the same quality will always give you better pictures. This is true both in general, and for low light in particular.

Quite apart from that, sensors in DSLRs and other cameras with interchangeable lenses tend to be of better quality than sensors in compact cameras.

In addition, lenses on DSLRs etc tend to be of better quality than lenses on compact cameras.

These last two points are not universal, though.

On your particular search, I have been very pleased with my Olympus E-420 (a “conventional” four thirds camera, rather than a “micro” one), for both size / ease of handling and image quality. It isn’t as small as any of the micro four thirds cameras, but it is still very small and handy. So far, I have not reached the limits of its image quality, and I have been particularly pleased with the quality of ISO 1600 images taken at very low light levels.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought, so was surprised to hear of a DSLR that doesn't perform so well at lower light levels as a compact.

My high ISO images tend to the blobby and muddy :-(

The lens on the FZ7 is a Leica and is supposed to be remarkably good for a compact, but I'm hoping for better things from a bigger sensor...

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

I'm very interested in what you (and others) think on this subject. I too have a Panasonic FZ7, but I'd like a more compact Panasonic since I find that I don't take the FZ7 out with me because it is rather bulky.

I got the FZ7 primarily for the optics and high zoom. The zoom for achitecture shots to see a far away (usually high up) feature up close. I've been very pleased with it so far. It copes very well with capturing low flying aircraft in multi-shoot mode, thinking of EH's Festival of History last year with WWII planes and paratroopers.

But I'd like something with similarly excellent optics which is (more) compact. It wouldn't have to do the fully manual stuff (or even the semi-manual stuff either).

This post prompted me to check out what was available and I might have a more detailed look later on.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I don't mind the size of the FZ7, but definitely didn't want anything any bigger. The TZ10 might be worth a look if you are mostly wanting something with the same sort of oomph but smaller.

The GF1 body seems to be about the same height and width, but narrower - though with a fat lens sticking out, probably not much narrower in practical terms.

Miniaturisation seems to have really come on since the FZ7 came out.