Great IQ from my Nikons, what M43 lenses to buy?

[eyal_hirsh]

<p>Though it's possible that because of the Sony sensor and processing engine the NEX may produce a better output</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Eyal, you sound like you will have fun whatever you use. Have a great trip.

[eyal_hirsh]

<p>Thanks Randy.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>The 14mm not so, but it would serve nicely as a daily walkabout (hence the move to M43) while the Sig would see more specific use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the 14mm is not stellar, but is growing on me. The small size makes it now be a permanent attachment to my E-PL2 and the combo fits in a P&S bag that I can always take with me to have a WA alternative to the longer lens type that I usually carry around. I got mine for $170 on ebay - try to see if such deal is still available - I think it got bundled with a body and for a time some sellers were selling them separately.<br>

<br /> The 14-42 lens is decent too for a kit lens.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>You have to be careful with the micro 4/3 lenses, as some of them are going to be quite disappointing optically. If you're looking for Nikon 35mm quality, your options are the 12mm (although I believe this to be highly overpriced for what it offers), the Panasonic 20mm (but it is slow focusing and a little softer in the edges than the center), the Olympus 45mm, the Olympus 60mm macro, and the Olympus 75mm.</p>

<p>Skip the Panasonic 14mm, and forget either of the Olympus 17mm lenses (both the older f/2.8 version and the newer f/1.8 version are not great). They give you a larger aperture than the kit lens, but they have the same or worse image quality than the kit lens does. Which, by the way, the kit lens delivers rather decent image quality. I use a Nikon system (currently the D200 and D3100), and I back my DSLR up with a Panasonic G2, and convinced my father to do the same recently, so I have some hands-on time with his G5. I completely understand where you are coming from. You can get good image quality out of the micro 4/3 system, but you are going to have to spend more money than you would with a Nikon system to do so. The mirrorless cameras, despite their smaller sensors, cost a lot more to get similar image quality.</p>

[zhang_wei2]

<p>No matter what people say, sensor size does make a difference in image quality. Not in al circumstances though and the new generation micro four thirds sensors are quite good. At higher ISO settings, a larger sensor will probably give you a cleaner output. I wonder if you are disappointed by the image quality when you look at a final print or when you pixel peep at 100% on your computer screen. And how large do you actually need to print your photos? Often people lose grip on reality staring at the computer screen at individual pixels. That's not what photography is about. However, I will share my thoughts with you about this.</p>

<p>You compare a kit zoom lens on an older generation micro four thirds sensor in a cheap camera to a prime on a larger APSC sensor in an semi-pro camera model. No wonder that you see some differences. A couple of things are very important I think. The sensor type an size, the surrounding electronics that process the RAW data, the lens, the light conditions and the photographers skill and technique. I've made photos with the G3 that were very good (technically at least) and I've seen some very bad photos made with the full frame D800. You have to get to know your gear and learn about its limits. Just like you do when you buy a new car, moped or a bike.</p>

<p>Assuming that you are a skilled photographer, it should be possible to get great results from your G3. I advise you to try harder, try a different lens or try a newer sensor like the one in the Olympus E-M5 or E-P5. I find the following lenses great tools. Any one of these lenses is perfectly capable of producing a technically excellent photo. I know, I've used many, many cameras and lenses. Don't worry about the resell value of your stuff. If you do, you don't care about photography, you care about gear. Electronics are worthless these days. You only buy an experience, a tool to use for a while to produce pictures. In 24 months your brand new gear will be worthless (I'm being optimistic here). It's not relevant if you care about making good photos. If you think mirroless stuff is too expensive, buy something else. Something that you can afford, a good compromise. Grab your grandpa's film camera and buy some rolls of film. Go out and make photographs.</p>

<p>Olympus 12mm f/2<br /> Olympus 17mm f/1.8<br /> Olympus 45mm f/1.8<br /> Olympus 75mm f/1.8<br /> Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8</p>

<p>None of these lenses is perfect (although the 75mm f/1.8 comes close in my opinion). Neither is your Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or whatever lens you like to use. There's often: CA, corner softness, general softness, slow focussing, low contrast, high contrast, ugly bokeh and flare. And all of these things can change when you: change the aperture, use different light, change the focal length, put the lens on a different camera or compare it to the latest model. There's no end to it.</p>

<p>I used a lot of cameras: Nikon D100, D200, D70, D70s, D80, D90, D5200, D700, D800, Panasonic GF1, G3, GH2, Olympus E-PM1, E-PM2, E-P5, E-M5, Fuji X100, X-E1. All of them very nice cameras, but right now I use the E-M5 and I like it. I use the micro four thirds system because it's small, lightweight and unobtrusive. The image quality is fine (for me). If you need better image quality, why not stick with your D300?</p>

[rrroger]

<p>Before you unload your Nikkors, take them to a camera shop and try the new D5300. Put that 38/1.8 on.<br>

The image quality is better in every way (at least to my eyes) especially at ISO above 800.<br>

This includes the Videos. <br>

However, you will actually have a hard time telling the difference between any new camera at ISO 200 and f/8 in good light.</p>

<p>The two reasons I am keeping my GH3 are for unattended bowling Videos.<br>

1. They both do 1080P 60 but the Nikon will record for only 4GBs (10 minutes) before shutting down.<br>

2. The GH3 AFF (FullTime AutoFocus) works much better and I cannot be behind the camera and bowling at the same time. The extra DOF also helps here.</p>