Great... but would you sell your dSLR or digital RF for it?

Never traded or sold a camera? You must have found the perfect one for yourself or you've got a huge stockpile. I

upgrade a lot and rarely see the point in keeping old ones around unless they were really special, like my first SLR (the

Pentax K1000) or my lovely 4x5. It's confusing enough to decide which one to bring with me on a trip without the

complication of having very many choices. :)

<p>No, not for me. I'd buy a M4/3 to complement my other gear, film and digital. M4/3 appears to be a great format, I just want to see it mature a little more rather than me become an early adopter. But YMMV.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

<p>I bought the G1 in late December primarily for a smaller/lighter camera (after trying a G9 and a used 400D). I've used Canon APS-c bodies since D30 and the 5D for almost 4 years. After I bought it I found a lot more to like about it than just size/weight. I won't sell my 5D--there are a few situations where its the better choice but for 90% of my shooting now its the G1. I have the GF1 with 20 f/1.7 coming Wednesday. This will give me 2 bodies for travel, a small option for day to day. I have the 14-45, 45-200, Oly 9-18, 17 f/2.8 (bought for my small/faster lens for the summer until the 20 came out) and I shoot most of the time--or at least more than 50%--with MF lenses. <br>

I am considering selling a number of my EF lenses, but will keep my 5D, certain lenses--but for most of my shooting the G series works very well. Prints up to 13 x 19 and a 2 over 2 pano is terrific for large prints for landscape. My initial feeling about how I would shoot with the G1 changed and I'm delighted to have a small, light camera that I don't have to rationalize the 'whys'.<br>

Diane </p>

<p>Surely not. Micro 4/3 is great for travel and I'm planning to buy a GF1 (or maybe another mFT body) for that purpose. Maybe I will sell some DSLR lenses I use especially for travel, but there are a few good reasons to keep my DSLR:<br>

Portraits - until now 4/3 and micro 4/3 is not first choice if you want highly blurred backgrounds.<br>

Sports - fast series shooting, fast zooms<br>

Rental - you can rent all the big white teles if you need it - I don't think there is a comparable offering for 4/3 <br>

Happy shooting<br>

Ulrich</p>

<p>No but it is a useful complement. I have the G1 which I first bought to use old FD lenses and still primarily use with FD lenses. The kit lens with the G1 is disappointing but the performance in good light at low ISO is impressive. It cannot replace a DSLR for me as it is totally unsuited to sports applications. Higher ISO quality is not great, the AF system is useless for any real moving subjects and the lens range is very limited. There are too many things that a high end Canon / Nikon SLR system can do that the G1 cannot such as sports, long exposures (the noise is bad even at low ISO on the G1 - I suspect due to sensor heating), low light, studio / flash (this may be unfair but I am heavily invested in Canon), perspective control lenses, macro (again possibly unfair as this is a lens issue) and portraits (the using a fast FD lens such as the 50 F1.4 or 85 F1.2 gives good results but you need a tripod to focus).<br>

That said I think the system is a much more compact and higher performance solution to a compact camera and a great alternative for someone buying a consumer DSLR with kit lenses. For travel (climbing / hiking) I find it quite useful but it has some limitations - the battery life is poor - especially in extreme cold and the camera is not very robust.<br>

I have added a shot taken with a Canon FD 80-200 F4 zoom to show that I the G1 is not all bad - just not as versitile as a true DSLR.</p><div></div>

<p>This has been very interesting to follow. So far, it seemed to me most discussions on m4/3 cameras centered on adapters and old, manual focus lenses. Much as I understand that point, it seems very much a geek thing and has little to do with the quality of these cams as tools being higher (or not) than AP-C ones. But, I do not have old glass. And reading Michael Reichman's review of an M to m4/3 adapter I am not getting any just to use them on a G1 or similar (He said, "the theoretical advantages [of Leica primes] also don't seem to actually deliver when the photons hit the silicon".)</p>

<p>So, I'm with the OP in finding the idea intriguing, but not quite sure about its merits. This thread has provided some answers: Less weight and bulk, "good enough quality" versus technical overkill, immediacy of the shooting. But, if you'll bear with this unbelieving Thomas a little longer, would any other entry dslr not fit the bill as well? Member Brad has long propagated his 450D over the xxDs amidst the two wheels and a top display are bare neccessities crowd. Why did Yoshio not get a 500D, keep his Canon glass and shoot other mounts with adapters? The small Canons are hardly bigger or more intimidating than a G1, they adapt anything the G1 does bar LTM/M afaik, they are almost as light ...<br>

I would be really interested to hear why you preferred the G(H)1 over an XXXD, or an E-620 for that matter.</p>

<p>Hendrik</p>

<p>Keith,</p>

<p>I am a Nikon shooter and own a GH1. I use my Nikon D90 mostly indoors with available light to photograph my fast moving son. For this type of photography (and action photograph in general), wide aperture lens (for creamy bokeh) and a dSLR with excellent AF capacity is needed. I use a D90 plus 17-55/2.8 or 35/1.8 or 50/1.4, and GH1 is no way near what the Nikon can do. Mind you that D90 is not even a pro level camera. The GH1 is not the ideal tool for action photography where fast and accurate AF tracking is needed. It does OK at ISO800 but at ISO1600 or up, the images from the D90 is much better, and the D90 has better dynamic range. Another problem with the current GH1 or EP1 system is the lack of wide aperture lenses. If you are using a slow kit lens (the Nikon 18-200 falls into that category), you may be better off to just get a P&S, such as the LX3 and G11 to really save on weight and cost. Wide aperture lenses not only help in shooting at low light but will give you the "pop" you get when the background is nicely blurred. The images that I get with the Nikon 17-55/2.8 has a 3D look to it while those images from a slow kit lens look 2D and flat. BTW, with the D90/17-55 combo, I can AF with no hunting when the room light was dim for showing slides; this low light performance will just blow my GH1 out of the water. Another overall deficiency with the m3/4 system is the lack of sophisticated flash systems and this is an area where Nikon and Canon are much better. The flash that comes with the EP1 is a joke and overpriced, as compared to Nikon's SB600, which is just the middle of the road in Nikon's line up. </p>

<p>In short, if you mainly use your camera in good light and you do not shoot fast moving objects or care about shallow DOF, you do not need a dSLR.</p>