TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

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

Subject: Re: [OM] Need new camera? G3 or ?
From: WayneS <olympus@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:30:59 -0500
My main requirements were a small system, good viewfinder and good low light 
performance.

I still love my Canon 5D and lenses, but if I put it in the bag, with24-105 and 
another long lens (80-200/2.8) or even the 100mm macro, it is a lot of weight 
and bulk to be traveling with. When I use it, it is a very deliberate choice 
and usually with a photo mission in mind.

But for traveling, getting on planes, going to a concert, walking around the 
streets, out to the restaurant, to just have a decent camera on hand that 
doesn't get in the way, is my goal, yet I would like it to perform well if the 
great sunset or perfect moment happens. I'm not likely to pack the 5D + 24-105 
in a bag and head into Boston for the night out.

I have not been enthused with Sony cameras to date, and have no experience on 
their lens quality.

The objection to no IS in the camera is not one that I consider a limitation, 
since I'm used to IS in lenses for my 5D. And in fact wonder if the Sony in 
lens OSS performance (claimed 4 stops) might be easier to achieve in the lens 
versus in the camera? I have no experience with in camera IS.

I'm also not likely to try and attach any Canon lenses on this either, after 
looking into it and what you loose to do so. And if I had leica glass, seems 
they work well on this camera.

So, for low light it looked like the M43rds was the smallest system, but then 
the NEX-5n with APS-C sensor and really small camera with excellent OLED 
viewfinder (option) seemed like the best choice. Two lenses can get 28-300 
range and fit in my old photorunner bag I used for the OM system.

I'll see how my choice measures up.

At one point on the list, a TOPE topic was using one lens. Sometimes using a 
prime lens exercises ones creativity and vision. For that, someday I may spring 
for the new Carl Zeiss 24/1.8 glass (35mm on APS-C), but $999 makes me think of 
Herman Cain, so I can't go there yet, maybe someday.

WayneS



At 11/8/2011 12:19 AM, Moose wrote:
>On 11/7/2011 7:19 PM, Willie Wonka wrote:
>> I only read about the A77, I have handled the A55 and it is tiny, it is just 
>> as small as my Minolta A200, which is a subcompact.
>
>The A77 is the same size/weight as the 60D. I didn't realize the A55 is 
>smaller.
>
>>   I honestly don't understand how a smaller camera would be comfortable
>
>I have happily used compact, fixed lens cameras for many years, currently 
>Canon G11 and Samsung WB650(HZ35W). Of course, they are a different sort of 
>camera than an SLR.
>
>>   and my hands are really small.
>
>Are you sure you want to admit that?
>
>> I dissed the G3 for several reasons, exposed sensor (actually I dont know 
>> this for sure, at least the 1 and 2 were).  IS in the lens...and a lot more.
>
>That's someone else's thing, I'd have to look it up.
>
>> I also know of the 60D.  It has attractive design, but the "exposure 
>> simulation" as Canyon calls it is so primitive, even my A200 which is now 
>> seven years old does it much better (actually except for other Sony cameras 
>> there is still no camera that could come even remotely close to the A200 in 
>> that department) Yes, it also works in all settings, not only manual.
>
>Doesn't matter to me, as I haven't used that feature. I was just pointing out 
>that others do the same sort of thing.
>
>> As far as adapters available, I dont know.  I dont intend to use any of my 
>> old lenses, as far as I know, there are limitations for using those.
>
>Were funds unlimited, I'd take the same position, and might or might not have 
>gone Sony. As it is, I stayed with Canon for the various EF lenses and the 
>adapters for various other specialized lenses, bellows, etc. that I have. And 
>I have to say, I'm happy with it.
>
>> I view cameras as tools, that would help me achieve the result I want.
>
>My feelings exactly. The equipment is tools; use the ones that let you do what 
>you want.
>
>> I dont remember who was, but long time ago someone on this list shared that 
>> he was challenging himself to shoot with only one lens, of fixed focal 
>> length, I think it was 50mm.  I always wandered how many opportunities he 
>> missed, while trying to adapt himself to the tool instead the other way 
>> around.
>
>Not an uncommon idea. It has always seemed to me to be rooted in some sort of 
>asceticism or left over puritanism. If 
>they are happy, that's fine, but it makes no sense to me.
>
>> Wayne has to put down a firm set of requirements, but I think too small is 
>> equally as bad as the too large.
>
>I tend to agree. I've gone smaller for DSLR. Although I did so mostly mostly 
>for an articulated live view LCD, the smaller size and lower weight are 
>welcome. I am as yet unconvinced by all the ILCs. Sure, they are small, but by 
>the time you put lenses on them, they still aren't pocket/beltable. For me, 
>it's DSLR and high end compact. In between doesn't work. Lots of interesting 
>ones out there, but the best match for my needs is still the Canon G series.
>
>Moose
>
>-- 
>What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>-- 
>_________________________________________________________________
>Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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>