Been offered a nice Lumix G2 which I might give a go in the never ending search for the right camera.
I think there are at least a couple of folks with them here and I wondered which lenses you use?
I have a choice of three at differing prices. Cheapest with a 14-45, small fixed (16 or 20?) plus 45-200 or an expensive upgrade to a 14-140.
Any thoughts?
|
|
Flogged mine after a year of ownership Fl, good camera but I wanted a loooooong lens which would have costa me mucho spondulics.
|
Used?
If it's the 20mm f1.7 pancake lens I'd go for that, and pick up a mint 14-45 used (not the later 14-42)
There are two versions of the 14-140 - new one out this year. The original 14-140 was a high quality expensive item.
What do you want to do with it?
|
The 14-140 lens (the original at least) was a very good but expensive lens. Still expensive.
As Manatee says it depends what you want it for. I am happy with just the 14-42 on mine.
|
>>>What do you want to do with it?
Well...
Two years ago I started a long thread here about buying a bridge camera. Bought a Lumix FZ48 (or was it a 45?) new and sent it back due to poor image noise in low light. Replaced it with a Sony HX5V compact which is in my opinion one of the best holiday/travel digicam ranges that will fit in a shirt pocket.... with particular regard to its impressive HD video, GPS tagging and panorama ability.
Now have a second HX5V plus an HX9V (longer zoom, sadly more pixels, easier to hold) in the family.
So getting some super outdoor images and perfect movies but what I'm still lacking is something that will give good results under low light... and flash indoors particularly.
Two years ago I made reference to disapointing indoor daughter's prom pictures from the Lumix FZ48 and over the last few days both daughters have had proms again. I happen to have a Lumix FZ28 bridge about at the moment and again images of the girls (skin tone and excess noise) were less than perfect with the Lumix and my Sony compact.
Earlier this year I had a Canon 450D with several lenses on trial which confirmed that I didn't want to go the DSLR route. Then by chance I borrowed a G2 with 14-42 lens and the images/handling were just what I want for my more "serious" images. I will keep the Sony compacts for the shirt pocket days out with the family and use the G2 when I have time to go and photograph stuff for my own interests.
So I was thinking was it worth getting that 14-140 so I only needed to keep the one lens on the camera?
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 6 Jul 13 at 11:26
|
>> and flash indoors particularly.
Flash inbuilt on most cameras including DSLR's is not great. But at least with a compact type camera or DSLR you can fit a flash on the hot-shoe.
When I got my Lumix G2 in 2010, most (all?) DSLR's were a lot bigger, my Sony A100 included. But a lot of DSLR's are pretty small and light for entry level cameras. And more choice of lenses on a Canon or Nikon. You might find you save money overall because of the lenses. But I'm talking the compact DSLR's because they can be heavy and bulky.
The Micro 4/3 standard means the lenses are smaller and lighter. But prices are higher. Supply and demand. Sigma, or is it Tamron, are meant to be bringing out a M4/3 lens. I'd be interested.
On auto type settings, in dark environments, I found images from my HTC One were as good if not better. Lower resolution but for a time when you only have your phone etc.
If the 14-140 lens is a good price then go for it. But when I got my Lumix G2, the 14-140 was a lot. I'd say £600 but I think it was more than that. So if I'd wanted one it was better to go for the GH2.
|
>>So I was thinking was it worth getting that 14-140 so I only needed to keep the one lens on the camera?
Money decision.
The 14-45 BTW is a better lens than the later 14-42. The focal length difference is neither here nor there.
There's a lot to be said for not having to swap lenses frequently if that's what your type of use demands. I was certainly of that school of thought once, but now I usually carry my LX3 which is 24-60mm in old money and it is usually all I need (good thing as I can't swap the lens on that one). The 14-45 on the G2 would give you 28-90 equivalent, wide angle to portrait, with minimal cropping.
I'd personally favour the "standard" prime lens, rather than (or as well as) the compromise zoom - if I use my Pentax digital SLR I'll often only use the old "full size" fixed 28mm lens which gives about 42mm equivalent; I'd be very tempted by the f1.7 20mm for the speed and the quality - you are after all buying the camera because you are not happy with the quality of the alternatives you have used.
The 14-42 in particular is said to be soft when wide open (at f3.5, or more when zoomed). At F4 the 20mm should be pin sharp.
Kit zooms became the standard offering even before digital; but they don't match the quality of a good prime lens. The old f1.4/f1.7/f2 40mm/50mm lenses that SLRs were supplied with were generally a lot better than the 28-80 zooms that took over.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 6 Jul 13 at 12:31
|
Much appreciated guys.
It seems likely the camera that comes my way will actually be fitted with the 14-42. I had heard elsewhere the older 14-45 was better... that is an easy minimal cost upgrade if needed and could be stage 2 if the camera suits me after a few weeks trial.
From my brief experience of a G2 not long ago it seemed the larger sensor compared with the compact/bridge cameras was a major factor in improved image character/quality. If it's even better with a prime/alternative lens than that just adds to the attraction.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 6 Jul 13 at 20:21
|
Using a compact camera dating from 2005 up to and including early 2006 led me to get a DSLR for my needs - a decent sized sensor and stabilised too. I could then capture photos that were not possible.
Fast forward to 2009 and I'm happy with the DSLR apart from:
- Weight/bulk
- No video
So in 2010 I got a Lumix G2. Images not quite as good but a smaller sensor, cheaper lens, etc. But a good compromise as it was a lot lighter and I didn't need to carry a video recorder. The latter was a bigger advantage as I had a camera that could do both.
These days most cameras do both still and video well. And there was a brief time when DSLR's being SLRs were poor at video and certainly when used with live view.... better now.
I deliberately used my phone in May more than I might because in August we travel with hand luggage only. The G2 will remain at home. The HTC One was better than I had envisaged.
So at some point I will revisit cameras... might take the DSLR out more again as I always have the phone.
|
I love my G2 and have taken many many pictures with it. It is a bit of a faff though and I have myself using my Sony camera phone a lot (it is actually very very good for a phone camera, but no optical zoom, apart from that its low level light rivals a cheap compact camera).
I have the standard lens and the 45-200mm lens but you can buy other brands too, I am thinking of buying a used telescopic sometime for mine.
One of my hobbies is taking pictures of aircraft, and the G2 with the 200mm lens does this perfectly. The great thing about the G2 is the autofocus focus is extremely fast which is essential when taking pictures of aircraft landing or taking off. My old FZ7 bridge camera was useless at this.
When I was in Spain I did use my G2 a lot, but also found myself leaving it in the hotel a lot as I could bot bothered carrying it round all the time, so I used my camera phone a lot. Sadly one day there was a stunning sunset and it required my G2, it being half an hours walk away in the hotel room I missed it.
The sort of photography I do requires zoom lens, and a bridge just can't cope with the demands I put under a camera (e.g moving aircraft) but the micro four thirds system is still a big compromise over a fully fledged SLR.
My best camera is ultimately my Xperia T has that is the one I have on me all the time.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Mon 8 Jul 13 at 12:25
|
Good addon to the thread Rattle.... thanks.
I'm acutely aware of the competing needs between pocketability, quality and the long zooms we all expect now after a couple of years of trying different options. You just have to go with what seems to suit you best. The thing I tried to achieve for so long was a camera that would do it all in a small size but came to realize that I'd got close but it didn't 100% exist.
I don't really bother with mobile phones much and it suits me far better if I'm travelling light to use the Sony compact which will fit any of my pockets and can be carried tucked in the palm at events similar to a phone.
The key to all this is that I'm keeping the Sony compact to do all my snapping and particularly video which it is utterly brilliant at. The G2 will be for more planned events and I'll only use its 720 video in an emergency.
In the 35mm days I spent much of my spare time round the air shows with a Pentax Program A and 70-210 f4 lens plus a 400mm cheapy. I have albums of great pictures from that era.
|
>>When I was in Spain I did use my G2 a lot, but also found myself leaving it in the hotel a lot as I could bot bothered carrying it round all the time,
And therein lies the rub.
|
The best camera is the one you have with you (groan).
Surprising (or maybe not) how often that is the eye phone now.
|
>> Sadly one day
>> there was a stunning sunset and it required my G2, it being half an hours
>> walk away in the hotel room I missed it.
It doesn't require your G2, A phone can get some very good sunsets. Search the web, plenty of cracking shots like that taken with phones.
>> My best camera is ultimately my Xperia T has that is the one I have
>> on me all the time.
Use it then. Take that snap of the sunset with it and be surprised.
|
Zero I did use my phone to take those shots, I will post them up later, but got a job to get to now. However if I had my G2 I would have been able to get a cracking shut of the sunset behind the Montserrat mountains sadly I used the digital zoom on my phone which is obviously useless.
Even if I took my Nikon compact with me I doubt I would have had it with me during the sunset. The good thing about a phone camera is it is always on you.
|
|
Which is why I'd be loathe to give up me Nokia N8 (12mp) for some more expensive, and inferior, fruit-related crap.
|
Rattle when you have a moment any thoughts on the 45-200 lens. You will probably know the newer version is a 45-150, smaller and about half the weight.
Opinions on the net seem to favour the older lens with its greater range but it seems heavy for the camera body.
|
>> My best camera is ultimately my Xperia T has that is the one I have
>> on me all the time.
I have an Xperia Neo, and chose it partly for the camera, being that it is with you most of the time and ready to take that unexpected shot. It's extremely good and on many occasions I find the images to be better than my Canon Powershot. Not as versatile, but used for much more of the time.
|
The camera on my Xperia T is simply brilliant in day time, it is as good as a compact camera, only the lack of optical zoom lets it down.
Fenlander the problem with the 45-200mm lens is I find even 45mm is too much zoom for most pictures, something like a 20mm to 150mm would have been more practical. I do find myself frequently swapping lenses. The weight of my 200mm lenses is a none issue really, I find even those lense, the bag and filters etc it is not very heavy to carry, it is just bulky.
I will upload some pictures in a bit of images taken with my 200mm lense.
|
>>>I will upload some pictures in a bit of images taken with my 200mm lens
That would be good thanks. Agree 45mm (i.e. 90mm in old 35mm speak) is far too much telephoto to be walking about with that lens on in many circumstances. I'd only be reaching for a 45-150/45-200 zoom in about 10%-20% of shooting situations.
>>>something like a 20mm to 150mm
Of course I mentioned the 14-140 above but it adds very strong money to a G2..... around £250-£350 just for the lens if you buy one after. Having said that if you had a 14-42/45 and 45-150/200 already they would sell for just enough to buy a 14-140.
Only thing is lens tests show the 14-140 to have lack of sharpness to a greater degree than the other zooms in some circumstances. However it could be in real life photography, and also compared with the mega zooms on compact/bridge cameras, this would not be an issue.
All food for thought.
It's a lovely day so I'm off out on the bike with a compact, bridge and the G2 for some comparison images.
|
Look out for some low light shots, since that is what was bugging you.
Also take some aperture priority/manual shots with the lens wide open which will show up any significant softness in the images in the focus plane.
I still have an old FZ20 - incredible camera in its day, but rarely did I get a completely sharp image in dull light, unless shooting static subjects with a tripod, as the lens was nearly always wide open.
Accepting its limitations, what I like most about the LX3 is the fast lens.
What I like least is the lack of DoF control which is another small sensor limitation - if that matters to you, you could do some comparison shots for that.
|
Some might-fine photographs I stumbled upon on the internet, taken with a Canon 60D
www.flickr.com/photos/mickbourke/6432109447/in/photostream/lightbox/
|
Thanks to all for the comments. In the end lost the chance of 20mm and 45-200 lenses but was able to try 14-42 & 14-45 before I settled on a G2 with 14-45 lens.
To be honest viewed on a 23" monitor there was little difference between the 14-42 & 14-45 images under normal conditions. The main clincher for me was the small increase in build quality of the older Japanese 14-45, most noticeable in the very smooth zoom.
Anyway the G2 camera is a great success reproducing grass and plant detail outdoors in a way I've not seen on a compact or bridge... indoors the low light ability is very good too as it's able to use higher ISO without the dreadful noise of some smaller sensor cameras.
Dog says he gave his up to get a longer zoom and after using a few superzoom bridge cameras I can understand why.... the G2 zoom lenses are mostly only 3x to 4x with the exception of the 14-140 which fetch twice as much again as the camera with a standard zoom.
It's my intention to use the G2 in parallel with my Sony 16x travel zoom as I mentioned above... giving me perfect HD video too.
Still waiting for your 45-200 zoom images Rattle!
|
I'm still waiting to find out how much the Tamron 14-150 lens will be. There were rumours more lenses would come years ago... still waiting :-) I'm happy with the kit lens for most of my snaps on holiday.
www.tamron.com/en/news/2013/0129.html
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 16 Jul 13 at 19:19
|
Some 45-200mm pictures here. Some image quality is lost as these are compressed but you should get the idea.
i167.photobucket.com/albums/u141/amazingtrade/MOON2_zpsa99b4395.jpg - Could have done with a remote shutter here, also the moon was not that big at the time but it was just a rare clear night when I could be bothered to go out with a tripod.
i167.photobucket.com/albums/u141/amazingtrade/P1010388.jpg - Not a brilliant picture but I just happened to have the 45-200s on my camera at the time.
i167.photobucket.com/albums/u141/amazingtrade/P1020709_zps5a1f1a57.jpg - Perhaps a little pointless this photo, but was of some waves in the sea, I managed to zoom right into it, and you can see how sharp it still is, on a superzoom it would not have been this sharp.
i167.photobucket.com/albums/u141/amazingtrade/P1020536_zps38c02440.jpg - It was poor visibility but this photo is of the Manchester and Stockport area, a some of you here may know exactly where this was taken from :). A clue is it is 15 miles south of Manchester city centre. I can make out buildings in the city centre very easily, and it was a not a clear day either.
What I really use the 45-200s for are shots of planes such as this. i167.photobucket.com/albums/u141/amazingtrade/easyjet_zps3f6cafa0.jpg
For planes the lens really and body really do come to their own, I have managed to capture lots of really good pictures of planes despite having very little skill.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Tue 16 Jul 13 at 19:44
|
That Tamron will be interesting when it finally appears. Needs to be under £300 to attract my interest.
Thanks for uploading the images Rattle... I'll keep a casual eye out for a 45-200 or 45-150 and hopefully drop on one.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 16 Jul 13 at 20:35
|
I swopped my G2 in for one of these about 12 months ago Fl:
www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-Lumix-FZ200-Bridge-Camera/dp/B008N8NXT6
I'm very pleased with it, so much so in fact I've stopped looking at other women cameras.
This is a photo taken from inside the owse through a double glazed window which hadn't been cleaned for some time:
imageshack.us/a/img12/656/p1000129gx.jpg
|
>>>Needs to be under £300 to attract my interest.
Ahhh... if this is it I seem to be way under... list of almost £600 which is close to double what a decent used Lumix 14-140 makes.
www.ukdigital.co.uk/tamron-14-150mm-di-iii-vc-mft-lens.html
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 16 Jul 13 at 20:46
|
|
Interesting that you bought an FZ200 Dog. The FZ150 & FZ200 are probably the only two bridge cameras that would interest me now. In fact I've been watching a few on Ebay this last couple of weeks. They make very good money used but the test shots and reviews look excellent. That fast constant f2.8 lens on yours is a big plus.
|
>>That fast constant f2.8 lens on yours is a big plus
And some! - ideally I'd like a Canon 60D with a decent tele lens, but that would take me back full circle to my Pentax KM days of 40 years ago which, although it was a very enjoyable hobby at the time, I don't want to go down that road again, just yet :)
|
Super Telephoto 60x Optical Zoom ( 1200mm 35mm camera equiv) 20mm Ultra Wide Angle Lens.
I thought the 24x tele on my FZ200 was 'super' enough but, 60x FFS!
www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/LUMIX+Digital+Cameras/Bridge+Cameras/DMC-FZ72/Overview/12849975/index.html
|
|
Lumix G2 lenses all sorted for pocket money prices. Using the 14-45 Lumix lens for everyday then bought lens adaptors for £16/pr so I can use any M42 screw or PK mount lens on the G2 when I want serious telephoto. Some fantastic results from lenses that cost £5-£25 and some even free!
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 19 Aug 13 at 19:40
|
Camera corner - Lumix DMC-G2 Lenses - Dog
