Joining the team

[ben_pike]

<p>Just thought I'd share the fact that I have now suplimented my EOS 7D with a DMC-G3. Decided that this body offered the best compromise to test the water with M4/3. The main reason for the change is that I am increasingly finding the EOS too heavy for a walk around camera, but I wasn't ready to ditch a vewfinder. I quite like the swivel screen though - I always thought the fixed screen on the 7D was only useful on a tripod.</p>

<p>If I like the G3 enough and don't miss the 7D too much then I'll build a kit and upgrade the G3 to OMD or similar in a few months, but i think I'll be running them together for a while first.</p>

<p>On that note, is there any pointer for the next lenses? I got the kit 14-42, but am already looking at the 14-42 compact, one of the pancakes - Which is considered the best - and the 100-300 or is the 45-200 better? Any opinions on these options would be appreciated.</p>

<p>I look forward to putting my shots into the weekly forum in due course.</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Bought my wife a G3, along with the 20 1.7 and 45-200. I think the 45-200 is probably more versatile because its short end pairs well with the standard zoom. As is, remember that 45mm is already pretty long for the short end of a general-purpose tele zoom -- that's 90-400mm equivalent. The 100-300 would be sensible if you don't care about using it for portraits but want it for wildlife.</p>

<p>The 20 1.7 is tiny, sharp, and fast.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

If you like pointing your camera at people then consider the Olympus 45mm f/1.8. It's a beautiful portrait lens and is very reasonably priced.

 

I was very close to picking up a G3, but in the end went for Olympus's in-body image stabilisation and (to my eyes) better out-of-camera jpeg colours. I suspect that whatever current m-4/3 camera one chooses, one will always end up with a winner.

[ariel_s1]

<p>I wouldn't go from the 14-42mm to the 14-42mm compact, unless you really need the size. They are similar optically, if not the nod going to the non-compact model. Plus, jumping from kit lens to kit lens is just burning money. Either live with it (which is what I do), switch to a prime lens setup, or wait for more serious lenses to be released. I am disappointed with the 14mm and 17mm pancakes, as they're rather poor optically for prime lenses (besides aperture, you're better off just staying with your 14-42mm for image quality). The 20mm is respectable, but hard to find in stock. The 25mm is even better, if you're willing to pay $600 for a normal lens. The 45-200mm and 100-300mm are fairly different lenses, as the 100-300mm has a minimum equivalent focal length of 200mm, so it's pretty much a super-telephoto, as even zoomed out all the way, it's a pretty high magnification. Decide if you want a normal telephoto lens like the 45-200mm (similar to about the 55-250mm on your 7D), or if you want a really long, wildlife, safari-type lens (the 100-300mm is similar to the 100-400mmL lens on your Canon). If I were in your position, I'd look at:<br>

-Either the 20mm or 25mm<br>

-Olympus 45mm f/1.8<br>

-Either Olympus 45-200mm or 100-300mm, although having 600mm equivalent in a handholdable lens is pretty impressive</p>

<p>I wouldn't upgrade from the G3 to the Olympus E-M5, unless it has features that you absolutely require. Image quality is similar to identical. If you really want to upgrade, wait and see if the GH3 brings anything new to the table.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>There's also a new Panasonic 'X' 45-175 - not clear that it's optically any better than the 45-200 but is a bit more compact and has features/characteristics you may or may not care about like internal zoom and power zoom. The Olympus 45-150 is smaller & cheaper but would be unstabilized on your G3.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I wouldn't upgrade from the G3 to the Olympus E-M5, unless it has features that you absolutely require. Image quality is similar to identical. If you really want to upgrade, wait and see if the GH3 brings anything new to the table."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree -- If anything, I'd wait at least for another release cycle. Another question is mixing lens & body manufacturers -- Panasonic prefers in-lens OS while Olympus relies on in-body sensor-vibration so there may be some usability issues with certain combinations, plus each manufacturer's body will generally better-support in-body processing for lens correction (distortion, CA).</p>

 

[ben_pike]

<p>Thanks for the responses - I looked at the 45-175, does anyone know if this is any good at the long end? 45mm is now on my list - I may hold off on the pancake or look at the Sigma 30 as an alternative.<br>

Had a quick walk earlier and the difference in weight is staggering. I think I'm going to get on with it for a walk around - I always shoot raw, so in camera jpeg is not a concern for me.<br>

My only real reason for looking at the OMD is the in camera IS, but agree better wait for the next incarnation. I'm hoping that some faster zoom lenses come along soon though provided they don't add too much weight.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Certainly the 20mm 1.7 is a good pick. Has no optical stabilization but is tiny and sharp and bright. I plan to buy the 45mm Oly because Panasonic wants too much for its 45mm. I have lately been using my ED Zuiko 14-54 2.8 to 3.5 (first series) zoom with an adapter. That is an old but goodie zoom lens that is not currently offered in a micro configuration. I have no trouble holding it on the G model size wise. I have little doubt more choices will appear in the next year -sooner than later- as these cameras gain ground. </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>I, too, will soon be dipping my toes into the Micro Four Thirds waters: I was able to find an E-PL1, brand new with kit lens, for $279 shipped. I should have it in a day or two. They even threw in an accidental damage warranty at no charge. At that price it was just too good to pass up.</p>

<p>I've also ordered a RainbowImaging Pentax-K adapter so that I can use my existing K-mount lenses, and may add the Nikon-F adapter at some point -- my small, light Nikon Series E lenses should be a lot of fun to use again.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Not that it helps you much, but I just pre-ordered an OM-D E-M5 to shift from film to digital. I am getting a Panasonic 14/2.5 pancake and Sigma 30/2.8 with it initially. That should cover most of my basic photographic requirements and they both seem to be pretty decent lenses. In generally, I just don't really like zoom lenses, even really high quality/fast ones. Primes are my thing. My plans are (based on current released lenses) to get the Pany 7-14, 14/2.5, 20/1.7, Sigma 30/2.8 and Olympus 45/1.8 in the near term (next 2 years). After that, it depends on my financial situation and what is released for MFT. Eventually I'd like to get the Olympus 12/2 and the upcoming 75/1.8, but both purchases would be well over 2 years out. I plan on repurposing my Zuiko 100/2.8, sigma 70-210/2.8 APO and Sigma 400/5.6 APO for long telephoto glass for the next few years with the adapter I have until the long lens lineup of MFT gets filled in better (and I have more money for that matter).<br>

My wife has an E-PL1 right now with 14-42 (version 1) kit lens on it and I plan to get her the Olympus 45-150mm lens for her birthday next month.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>RT, not sure about that RainbowImaging Pentax-DA adapter. I am rather unimpressed with the similar e-bay adapter I have -- hope the RainbowImaging one is better. The 'throw' on the aperture is loose & sloppy, no click-stops and short so hard to partially stop down with much precision. Furthermore, the locking mechanism is kind of crappy (forget which was the issue, the K lock or the m4/3 lock) so take care and don't drop any Pentax Limiteds!<br>

Due to the crappy stopdown ring, my adapter is probably better suited to Pentax lenses that still include the aperture ring. Unfortunately, the probably better adapters (e.g. Voigtlander, Novoflex) are ridiculously pricey considering there's no glass or electronics. I'd be interested to hear your opinion of your adapter.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Andrew, the one I purchased is just the plain K adapter -- it doesn't have an aperture ring. That's fine with me because the lenses I plan to use with it are "A" lenses that have their own built-in aperture rings, so I can set the aperture directly on the lens itself. The only DA lens I have is the original 18-55, which I might try using on the E-PL1 just for fun, but probably wouldn't use it very often.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>The new olympus macro M. ED 60 mm f2.8 can be a good choice </p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>I would have to cordially disagree with the author of this thread.</p>

<p>I've been shooting with the Canon EOS 7D with battery grip for nearly 2 years. And the secondary camera is the Canon EOS 40D. I'm 58 years old and have the standard aging body with the normal aches and pains . Yet, I manage to lug around these two digital cameras with very little effort. </p>

<p>In comparison to the E-30 and E-3, both with battery grips, I see very little difference in the weight department. I've used these cameras for the previous 2 years and have essentially retired them.</p>

<p>I would never trade resolution and image quality for a lighter system, especially when the 18 mb images of a Canon 7D far exceed the cropping and resolution of ANY Olympus camera or ANY of the 3rd party m4/3 cameras.</p>

<p>For me... at least the hype of the lighter m4/3 doesn't seam to draw any appeal.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

Ken, fair enough that the difference is worth it to you but the m4/3 are considerably smaller yet again than the E-30 and

E-3, particularly if those cameras have accessory grips.

[ken_max__parks]

<p>Andrew, I realize they're smaller and lighter. But for me, the trade off for less image quality isn't what I can appreciate. Being a professional photographer calls for attention to my clients needs. High resolution is key. And having to lug around heavier cameras is well worth the physical endurance.</p>

<p>The m4/3 camera systems may suit those who favor the small and light. </p>

<p>For now, I'm looking at selling off the entire Olympus system, including the E-3 and E-30, all lenses, and accessories. Any buyers?</p>

[ben_pike]

<p>Thanks Ken, I don't disagree with you, my 7D and L lenses are not going anywhere soon, but without going into too much detail on my own reasons, I am not a pro and if I was, I would have bought a 5D II or III. However I found myself always carrying the 7D with 3 lenses wherever I went. This was why there was a gap that I think the m 4/3 will fill. I've not done any pixel peeping, but so far I'm pretty pleased with 16mp as opposed to 18mp. I expect that with better glass the difference will be hard to spot.</p>

<p>I see both kits as tools for a job. Currently any action, challenging conditions or better quality will be managed by the 7D and the G3 will be my take everywhere camera. If the future direction of m4/3 closes the gap to where the 7D is now then why wouldn't I chose to go smaller if it suits me.</p>

<p>You have 22 years on me too by the way, but a 7D, 8-16, 24-105L, 70-300L plus two year old is quite a lot to manage. She weighs more than a 40D.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>How I see it as user of big and small both. Each generation of micro four thirds cameras shows improvement in image quality so that it is becoming a moot point. It is almost like arguing over whether raw shooting is always better than JPEG. It becomes a matter of "shooting for what purpose?" I have to say this however, regarding micro four thirds. The lens quality of the ED Zuiko 4/3 has not yet been equalled in the mirrorless realm. Getting close though at least in the fixed FL realm... I await the user experiences with the new tough OM D lineup, as they may well be augmentation tools for professional and quasi professional users. IQ is tossed around rather loosely and gets down to the reality that almost all cameras nowadays are yielding good image quality so other variables apply with other tradeoffs. And why not totable weight of the kit? (My garage shed has a framing hammer,a sledge, and also a tack hammer,you know) </p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>That is part of my situation and in part why I am going m4/3 instead of something else with the move to digital. First off, I have a semi-irrational attachment to the look and nostalgia of the OM line of cameras (damn you Olympus! Or thank you, not sure which.) Next, I really need something as small as possible, but still have lots of controls, configurable, good quality, etc which the OM-D seems to manage and there are now enough and high enough quality lenses for what I typically shoot.<br>

I do a lot of backpacking, so every ounce counts. As it stands I typically take my OM-1, 24/2.8, 50/1.8 and 100/2.8 with me, shutter release, polarizer, lens hood and a few rolls of film all stuffed in my Lowe Pro Mini Nova AW hanging off my pack. At least looking at the current m4/3 system, I could get away with either just the pany 14/2.5 and Oly 45/1.8 or 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 or 14/2.5, sigma 30/2.8 and Oly 45/1.8 and the entire kit would weight something like 3/4-1.5 pound less, more than that if it was going to be a longish trip. The weight of a spare battery is less than that of the 6 or 7 rolls of film that would be semi-equivelent for shooting (and a lot less bulky).<br>

Also I have 3 kids, 4, 2 and 3 weeks. So the less I have to lug around, but space and weight wise the better. Again, that mini nova bag with body and 3 or 4 small lenses is about the largest I can resonably go a lot of times. I have a large bag that I carry sometimes, but it is harder and harder to do (and really only makes the cut for big important events/vacations so I can maxamize the glass I can take along).<br>

I certainly don't disagree that a 7d is going to produce higher quality pictures, but everything I am seeing of the OM-D reviews and tests from overseas from people who have them now certainly shows that the OM-D is at least pretty close. Maybe not quite as good...but close enough that as a non-pro I am not going to NEED the difference and also close enough that for the most part I am not going to care about the difference, especially when you factor in size, weight and extra cost of something like the 7d and associated EOS lenses compared to an OM-D and some m4/3 lenses.</p>