Thoughts on a replacement.

My old Panny G1 looks like it has had it's day and I wouldn't replace it except for the fact I have 5 different lens adapters for it with various lenses to boot. My question is whether the adapters will fit another mirrorless make or their specific to the Panasonis line. If they can fit another brand I'd want to go with something used with a few more Mp and less plastic if possible, but no more Panasonic. My next choice would be a current DSLR Nikon body as I have more lenses in that brand, but some in Canon, Pentax SC ank K along with Leica which I used on the Panny. I'm a casual shooter now and shoot film as well but next year I'll have more time to shoot and work at the craft. A mirrorless would be a second body.

The Panasonic mft & Olympus mft use the same mount.

Those adapters won't fit anything except Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 bodies. There are a few professional Micro 4/3 bodies around, by both makes, that are not plasticky. ;-) There are some reviews on stevehuffphoto.com, FWIW (which is the one review site I really enjoy reading).

 

For film shooting, you can pick up a Pentax, Canon and Nikon body for as little as $5 each, depending on your luck. I suppose that is not a priority as this stage though?

Yep I have all those bodies but I want a mirrorless as well. Any secondhand miirrorless bodies to watch out for?

To use legacy lenses, I would look for a camera that had in body image stabilization (IBIS) and focus peaking (assist for manual focus lenses). I would look for an Olympus EM10-II which has those features or an EM-5 Mk II. Don't know the Panasonic models that well but only more recent models have IBIS.

 

In addition, the 16mp sensors in those cameras will dramatically outperform the G1 in terms of noise, dynamic range, and resolution.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Ken Katz

Yep I have all those bodies but I want a mirrorless as well. Any secondhand miirrorless bodies to watch out for?

Gx7 you should be able to get for not too much. I see them on the auction site for a little lower than 150 and as high as over $700. It seems both extremes are off. I would think 3-500 should get you a good one. I have one of these and its a back-up role, but its a really fun camera to use and very capable.

You said "no more Panasonic" which is a shame because I agree with Uhooru that a used GX7 would be ideal. Apart from the brand label it doesn't have much in common with the G1. It has IBIS and focus peaking which will help with your legacy lenses.

You have more flexibility with regard to lenses if you choose mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera. With a DSLR you are limited to the manufacturer's lenses or third party clones. You also need to consider the "system" of native lenses and accessories. While you can use Canon and Nikon lenses on a Sony A7, for example, they are limited to mostly manual operation. Moreover, they are seldom as good, optically, as lenses designed for the camera.

 

When making a decision, it helps to make a list of features each camera offers, prioritize them according to your personal needs, and rank how well those features are implemented. Companies like Consumer Reports and DXOMark make lists of this sort, but usually score them different than you would like.

Edward.

 

Is the new Z Nikon the death nail for Sony A7's.

 

The massive range of Nikon lenses does that not tell all ?

Jonny come lately....

 

And then the serious dude on the block just takes over...sort of real world stuff.

 

Nikon or Sony....hmm...some folk prefer Sony play stations.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Allen Herbert

The massive range of Nikon lenses does that not tell all ?

All of them can be used on a Sony, too, but hardly anyone bothers.

 

The A7ii was the death knell for the A7, and they're still being sold 4 years hence.

Edward.

 

Is the new Z Nikon the death nail for Sony A7's.

 

The massive range of Nikon lenses does that not tell all ?

 

- It remains to be seen how well the Z-mount Nikons work.

 

Nikon's non-LiveView AF has been very unreliable up to now IME, needing AF fine tune that doesn't work across a zoom's entire range. Hopefully the mirrorless design will correct this.

 

What it certainly can't correct is the overly-bulky design of Nikon's pro zooms - ridiculously heavy, especially in their DX lenses - and many people swap to mirrorless to save size and weight.

 

Besides, Nikon have really left it far too late to come to this party. The Z cameras would have to have a stunning spec, or a very competitive pricing to make an impact. They have neither in my view, and anyone interested in a MILC will probably already have bought a Sony or another make.

 

Sure, some Nikon fanboys will rush to buy, and possibly live to regret it when the inevitable teething troubles rear their head.

 

And what's the point of a wider mount if no lenses take advantage of it? A new tilt/shift lens with a huge amount of shift should have been on the table from day one. Or at least an adapter. It's not even on the lens roadmap!

 

But really; a lame specification and a high price aren't going to lure that many people to the Nikon camp unless they already own a shedload of glassware, and even then there's Nikon's own D850 eating into the Z7's market share.

 

Plot-losing and foot-shooting appear to be Nikon's corporate forte at present.

Edited August 30, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

Is the new Z Nikon the death nail for Sony A7's.

The massive range of Nikon lenses does that not tell all ?

Do you think for a moment that Sony will stand by and let Nikon overtake them in the MILC market? This is economic "war," and the best plans go by the way once the first shot is fired. From a strategic sense, Nikon will be slow to compete in a way that threatens their DSLR market.

 

So far, there have been no official comparisons between the Nikon Z and Sony A9, for obvious reasons. The difference between 24 MP and 45 mP is not as much as you think, in. terms of print size, and Sony is making 150 MP sensors for medium format. 70 MP in an FX camera is well within reach. The A9 sensor is ten times as fast as either the Sony A7 or Nikon Z.

 

Nikon has 600 lenses, most of which are outdated even by DSLR standards. Sony has at least 60 lenses which are current and best of class. I, for one, started off using Nikon and Leica lenses adapted to Sony A7's, but replaced them with native lenses and never looked back. There is something compelling about corner-to-corner sharpness, even at the maximum aperture.

 

It's hard to win a race when the competition has a four lap lead.

and don't look now, but I see a rumor that looks pretty solid that Panasonic is about to introduce a full-frame body in the very near future...

I like the "death nail" better than the" death knell' sort of seems final the last nail in the coffin.

 

"While you can use Canon and Nikon lenses on a Sony A7, for example, they are limited to mostly manual operation. Moreover, they are seldom as good, optically, as lenses designed for the camera." Ed.

 

Nikon lenses are designed for Nikons.....that massive range of lenses for the err more serious photographer.

 

"Do you think for a moment that Sony will stand by and let Nikon overtake them in the MILC market? " Ed.

 

Hmm how many lenses do Sony have for their A7 range.....answer, look in your pocket.

 

Nikon massive range designed for their cameras....is there really a choice for the serious photographer?. Lets not forget most Nikon photographers have Nikon lenses.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Allen Herbert

The Nikon pedigree over generations.

 

The PlayStation dudes looking for a quick coin..

Nikon lenses are designed for Nikons.....that massive range of lenses for the err more serious photographer.

It is one thing to know nothing about the subject, and yet another to speak as though you do.

Ed, you are getting antsy. No need for it.

 

Rebuff my thoughts if you can.

 

I've used Nikon cameras since the age of 13 years....for me its always been about the handling and the instinctive feel of the camera. Important considerations for me.

 

Perhaps not for some.

Ed, you are getting antsy. No need for it.

 

Rebuff my thoughts if you can.

 

I sure can't.

 

I've been using Nikons exclusively (not continuously, though) since 1978 when I bought a Nikon FE and 5 lenses. Over the years I've gotten in and out of photography (bipolar disorder is a real bear!), and in that time I've had about 40-45 bodies and over 100 lenses. My only foray into non Nikkor lenses was when I bought a Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro lens. It gave a noticeable purple cast to the photos, so I returned it. In all these years, my Nikkors have always been consistent, color rendition wise. EVERY ONE, ALL THE SAME.

The a7 range of cameras are absoluty superb.

 

They were the motivation for Nikon to produce the Z range of cameras.

 

Bottom line Nikon or Sony.? Me, I can operate any Nikon blindfolded ;muscle memory.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Allen Herbert

Nikon lenses are designed for Nikons.....that massive range of lenses for the err more serious photographer.

Nikon lenses are designed for Nikon (and only Nikon) DSLR's, not MILC's. While they can be used on the new Nikon Z, they have no staying power to advance the line. Too much design effort is devoted to creating a long back focus distance, and not enough to image quality. It's a new world that demands a fresh outlook on lenses.

All I can say is that I've been a dedicated Nikon user for nigh on 50 years.

 

Having seen, or hoped for, the advantages that a mirrorless system can bring; I waited patiently for Nikon to bring out their MILC offering.

 

Finally!

 

To say I'm a little disappointed is an understatement. This saddens me, but the reality is that the Z cameras are not competitive on specification or price. Basically, all we've been offered is a D850/D750 with its prism replaced by an EVF and given a new mount. Full stop.

 

None of the native Z lenses on offer take any advantage of the larger throat diameter, and probably not of the shorter register either. Meanwhile, most of Nikon's existing F-mount lens range is looking dated and can't even compete with Sigma (spit!) on image quality. Nikon don't even have a decent, or sensibly priced 50mm f/1.4 prime that can take full advantage of 45 megapixels!

 

I shall not be buying into this half-arsed 'system'.

Edited September 2, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

This has been an amusing read. So Nikon brought out the Z system and Canon their R or whatever it is. More to come from other makers. Okay, so what? I've seen nothing to make me the least interested in mirrorless simply because there is no point for me. I've used slr cameras since I was about 15 and have used Nikon since the F2 was top of the line. Still do. What's the point of mirrorless really? It's lighter? Ok. Quieter? Fine. So what? I have a good stash of Nikkor lenses and they all give great image quality on whatever body I use. Film, digital, no matter. I finally realized that none of the makers, Nikon, Canon, anyone, gives a damn what I think. Us OTB's are not the target. It's my nieces and nephews who don't even know what film is and have never seen a day in which there was no computer. That generation and beyond may be interested but I see no real point to losing the mirror. Change for the sake of change.

 

Rick H.