Comparable m4/3rds gear to match my DSLR?

<p>I'm considering going into m4/3rds, but would like to acquire m4/3rds gear at least equal to the quality of my current Canon DSLR gear, which includes: T1i, 35 f2, Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM. I mention this gear only to give you an idea of the quality level of my DSLR gear. The Canon T1i is considered "entry level" or "consumer grade", but the lenses might be a cut above. So what gear (brand, model, etc)of MFT gear would you consider as maybe equal to that of my DSLR gear? I know this might be hard to answer, but if you could at least get me started, I will do the research for further details. Could I get a good camera and a couple of better than average MFT lenses to go with it for $1000? I'm fine with good used gear. Very few pieces f any of my camera gear has been purchased as NEW anyway....and I'm totally fine with that.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I'd look at the OM-D, 17/2.8, and 45/1.8 to start. That's going to be about $1700.</p>

<p>For $1,000? Nope, not even close second-hand.</p>

<p>Third-party companies like Tamron do not make lenses for this system other than the 1-2 cheap things Sigma offers, so you are not going to find less expensive third-party f2.8 zoom lens options for micro four-thirds, and if you bought this particular Tamron lens second-hand, you probably got it relatively inexpensive. Third-party lenses of this type simply do not retain high values second-hand. If you ever try selling yours, you'll find this out. The Canon equivalent is significantly more expensive and the only micro option that comes close is the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, which is a 24-70mm equivalent field of view, quite a bit wider than the Tamron on your Rebel, and it's quite a bit more expensive at $1,200.</p>

<p>There is no micro equivalent to the Canon 70-200mm f4L. The current tele zooms are pretty good, but none are a constant f4 or optically as good as the Canon.</p>

<p>The 35mm f2 Canon lens on your Rebel acts like a 56mm lens. The Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4 is the 50mm equivalent for micro four-thirds and costs over $500 new, and if you were to find one second-hand, it would not be much less than that. Stores can't keep them in stock it's so popular, and for good reason. It is excellent.</p>

<p>So, I'm already up to $1,700 for the Panasonic 12-35mm f2 and the Panny Leica 25mm f1.4, and we have not even looked at a body yet.....or a tele zoom.....or a flash....or anything else.</p>

<p>I think I'm being a little misunderstood, and I apologize for confusing you folks. I only indicated my gear to give you an idea of the quality of what I currently have. Not for you to offer suggestions of MFT gear to match, say, the DSLR focal lengths. Actually, I'm thinking that some "kit" type lens, and/or a nice prime, AND maybe some tele in MFT would suffice.</p>

Yes, when the subject line says "comparable gear to match DSLR"......

 

 

The kit normal zooms are decent, but nothing to write home about optically. When a body + kit lens is only $100 more than the body only,

let that set your expectations. The 12-50 that comes with the E-M5 for $300 extra is ok. I have seen some excellent work done with it. I do

not particularly like my copy though. I prefer just carrying my three prime combination of the 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8.

 

 

The 40-150mm f4-5.6 M. Zuiko is a really nice, very light tele option. I own the more expensive 75-300 f4.8-6.7 M. Zuiko and love it, but it

alone blows your budget.

 

 

The best bodies will also be tough with a $1,000 budget. The Olympus E-M5, Panasonic GX-1, G3 and GH2 bodies will give you the best

image quality. The GX1 is the best priced, but it does not come with an eyelevel finder. You have to buy that separately.

<p>I would suggest either a G3 or a GH2 complete with the 14-140 lens, that is 28-280 AoV with the x2 crop factor. That should cost about $1150 last time I looked, a bit but not much less 2/h becuase this gear is good. With 16Mp you can usually afford to crop to effectively get more 'reach'. If I want a wide view I stitch. I have the G3 and that lens. There is quite a range of Olympus and Panasonic as well as some other makers giving a good range of lenses for the M4/3 standard but I prefer to not change lenses although I can.</p>

<p>Greg & JC,<br>

Thanks for the suggestions. I will certainly do the research on the equipment that you have mentioned. That will get me started, at least. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>Bob</p>

<p>[[i'm considering going into m4/3rds,]]</p>

<p>Considering? Is that why you had a classified up selling your Panasonic G1 with kit lens in May?<br /> In July of 2011 you posted a WTB telephoto zoom lens classified for your "newly acquired E-PL1."</p>

<p>[[i know this might be hard to answer, but if you could at least get me started, I will do the research for further details]]</p>

<p>You know full well what equipment is available, how to research it, and how to determine if it meets your needs, which appears to be limited to buying equipment, selling it, and claiming ignorance of the entire experience.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think it's a bit curious to go into this with a stated $1000 budget and expect to match > $2500 worth of Canon EOS. There's a thought in the back of my head that this is a troll post.</p>

<p>However, from a value perspective, I think Lumix G3 + 14-42 + 45-200 + 20/1.7 is a fine kit that represents pretty good value on the dollar. Noticeably smaller and lighter than a comparable DSLR kit without giving up too much. I think this would probably go a little beyond $1000 though maybe there are a few used bargains to keep the price down. You probably already know that m4/3 doesn't really have a lot of 'fast zoom' choices now -- perhaps sensibly Panasonic and Olympus have been putting most of their initial efforts into the lighter and more compact lenses that a system that is deliberately aiming to remain more portable than DSLRs needs to have.</p>

<p>[[There's a thought in the back of my head that this is a troll post.]]</p>

<p>Glance through the OP's posting and classifieds history for additional insight. Nothing contributed to this thread will have any affect on the OP. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rob, Rob. Just what is a TROLL anyway? That bullie thing under the bridge in "Billie Goats Gruff"?<br>

My G1 and those 14-42 and 45-200mm lenses did not impress me. My DSLR gear did a much better job. I was very disappointed, so I sold it off. The size, weight, and feel of the G1 and lenses was GREAT, though. But after thinking about it, and continuing more research into MFT, I'm thinking that my G1 might have been somewhat NOT up to the task. Neither of those lenses seemd very sharp. And the tele also became quite inferior the longer it became. And believe me, I'm no expert. If I could see something was inferior, you guys could see it a lot sooner.<br>

Maybe another camera might be better. Like a G3, or E-PL3? If those lenses are really more decent than they seemd in my brief experience, I would think all could be had for near $1000, then. Right?</p>

<p>Robert, the 45-200 is a reasonably decent lens for the price but I wouldn't expect it to match the excellent but significantly more costly 70-200/4L. It (and the m4/3 standard zooms you might consider in your stated budget) aren't much different now than they were when you supposedly tried them before. In this price range it's somewhat par-for-the-course for tele zoom performance to fall off towards the long end, but tests I've seen suggest this lens is better than average in this respect, and not at all bad for it's $245 price. Compare against, say, a Canon 55-250 IS or non-L 70-300 IS for a fairer fight.</p>

<p>I think you'll find the G3's sensor, AF, and EVF superior to your old G1 but perhaps different (some strengths, some weaknesses) rather than <em>better</em> than your DSLR kit. The T1i is old enough that I think you might find high ISO performance on the G3 better despite the T1i's larger (and slightly lower-res) sensor. In this sense I think it reasonable to say that m4/3 has matured a bit and closed the gap significantly vs. lower-end DSLR's, but <em>most</em> of the available zoom lenses for m4/3 are not particularly high-end in terms of performance or price.</p>

<p>Thanks, Andrew. I appreciate your comments. Perhaps the G3 with both lenses that I had would be a good combination. I realize they can't compete with the Canon "L" g;ass yet, but the higher ISO advantage (of the G3) might be a good thing, too. I would need to keep my 70-200 for the purpose of the grandkid's hockey games. Works very well for that, and I realize the MFT is not yet ready for such applications. I will look into the G3.<br>

Thanks. </p>

<p>Robert, I'd skip the Olympus 17mm f/2.8. Although it's small, optically it's just not a very good lens. Try the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 ASPH instead. Not perfect and slightly slow to focus, but much better optically. You can pair it with the excellent Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and if you need something wide the Olympus 12mm f/2 or the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5.</p>

<p>The only interesting zoom lens that I can think of, is the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8. It's compact, relatively fast, it has image stabilization, a useful zoom range and the image quality is very good. If your budget allows it, do try the Olympus OM-D E-M5 system instead of a Panasonic camera. My experience is that the image quality of Olympus camera's is better. The OM-D is very configurable/versatile and a joy to use, especially with the optional grip. The build in stabilization is very effective too.</p>