Re: [OM] Need new camera? G3 or ?

Subject: Re: [OM] Need new camera? G3 or ?
From: WayneS <olympus@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:31:22 -0500
Maybe late, but what you have to offer is informative. Thanks,
and some nice shots there. Firefox seems to have a conflict with
the right click

I did pulled the trigger on the NEX-5n system. Just wish they
had the viewfinder in stock. But it will come eventually.

Still a M43's may be in my future depending on how well this thing handles.

It seems to be a good time for new cameras coming out. Good to hear
real user experience with the gear though. I can ponder the specs forever,
but real use is the ultimate guide.

You didn't mention that some of the Kenya shots were sexually explicit :-).
Some great photos in there.


At 11/7/2011 03:00 PM, you wrote:
>>> A January ship date is not going to make it
>>> to Puerto Rico. Did I understand you correctly? no NEX-7 until January?
>> Yes, unfortunately that what the rep said. Perhaps she was being
>> conservative as not to disappoint, but no way to know. Seems better to
>> have it ship before the holidays. I bet it will sell like hotcakes.
>> Many nice choices.
>> Mike
>Wayne:  I'm a little late to this discussion, but here goes. I currently
>use a Panny G1 as my third camera, behind my Leica M8 and Olympus E-30.
>The G1 has many things I like:  Small and light, live view and live
>histogram, the best built-in electronic viewfinder short of the Sony NEXs,
>really good native lenses, and the ability to use my OM Zuikos. It's just
>really versatile.  I with it had in-body stabilization like the Oly m-4/3
>models, but the viewfinder trumped the IS for me.
>I call the G1 "Boris," because it's "good enough" (apologies to Willie
>Wonka).  The IQ isn't nearly as good as the M8 and not quite as good as
>the E-30, but it often serves just fine. So when I don't want to hassle
>with all the other stuff, the G1 often comes with me.
>In the last two years, I had two "frozen shoulders" im succession, which
>made it difficult to carry much (that's cleared up now).  So on a recent
>vacation trip to BC, Canada, I took the G1, its 14-45 f/3.5-5.6 zoom, the
>Panny 20/1.7, and a little Leica-mount Voigtlander 90/3.5 APO Lanthar and
>adapters. It served very well.  There was some smoke from forest fires in
>the air, so that's the atmosphere, not the camera. The EXIF will tell you
>what lens was used, and if you see no focal length, that's the 90. Right
>click on the pics and view "Original" size for best resolution.
>Here's another with the Voiglander 90:
>Here's a couple from a classical concert, shot with the OM 50/1.4 at f/2
>(s/n 1,050,xxx, one of the "special good" later samples):
>Focusing the 50 and 90 is relatively easy with the 10x focusing
>magnification you can switch on. The usual inconveniences of focusing wide
>open and stopping down manually apply.
>The kit zoom is very, very good, though slow (and the original 14-45 is
>distinctly better than the cheapened 14-42 that replaced it).  The 20/1.7
>is stellar, as good as your best Zuikos, and even--dare I say
>it?--approaching Leica quality.
>What I don't like:  Shutter lag. ISO 400 is OK with respect to noise, but
>ISO 800 is marginal, more of a compromise than on the M8. The 20/1.7
>focuses more slowly than you'd like, and metering doesn't work in low
>light unless you use spot metering. Dynamic range is a little less than
>the E-30, much less than the Leica.
>Because of the compromises, I've held off on purchasing anything more for
>micro 4/3 until I see where the market is going. Right now, the newer
>cameras like the G3 and GH2 offer incrementally better IQ, but not enought
>for me to spend the upgrade bucks. Since micro 4/3 marketing is more
>oriented towards P&S upgraders, they may or may not satisfy my desire for
>something truly better.  I might be interested in a NEX 5n or 7, or maybe
>I'll go to the Pentax K-5 successor or the Nikon D7000.  Or I may do
>Recently several LUG members went on a safari in Kenya. Two people on that
>trip used micro 4/3, mostly with the 100-300 Panny zoom.  They did very
>well.  The Nikons (D700 and D7000) did a bit better the ISO needed to be
>pushed up. But often, the m-4/3 was good enough. And much more portable. 
>Hope this helps!

Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>