Advice wanted - considering mirrorless second camera

[inkista]

My initial post was prompted by one by Kathy in another thread, when she explained why her G3 had a place alongside her DSLR kit.

Mea maxima culpa.

... though people wedded to them do not like the idea of calling MFT, my model type, a DSLR which I find highly amusing.

But there's no R in mirrorless! SLR = single lens reflex, as in reflection; as in "has a mirror." dSLM never really took off, though. I'm seeing MILC more these days, which I suppose is better than EVIL and also encompasses the hybrid viewfinder Fujis.

Oh - and don't forget the EFS 55-250 ...

EF-S = crop-body dSLR lens.
EF-M = EOS M mirrorless lens.

The only three EF-M lenses (so far) are:

• EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS
• EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
• EF 11-22mm f/4-5.6 STM IS

The rumors say the next two in the works are a macro and a telephoto zoom, but so far there's no announcement, and after the 11-22 not being sold in the US market, whether or not Canon still feels this is a viable product line is also in question.

[AB26]

So, the question is, if you were starting out, which manufacturers (and models, if you can say) would be high on your list, and why.

Hi Dave,

Panasonic. The Leica lens is superior to any other lens.

I bought my wife a Panasonic TZ27 some years ago, it renders superbly sharp images.

[Manfred M]

Hi Dave,

Panasonic. The Leica lens is superior to any other lens.

I bought my wife a Panasonic TZ27 some years ago, it renders superbly sharp images.

Andre - Panasonic builds these Leica branded lenses, just like Sony does with the Zeiss branded ones that go on the Sony cameras, so while these have to meet certain standards and are tested and calibrated with Leica specified equipment, they are not designed and built by Leica. It's all about branding.

[AB26]

Panasonic builds these Leica branded lenses, just like Sony does with the Zeiss branded ones that go on the Sony cameras, so while these have to meet certain standards and are tested and calibrated with Leica specified equipment, they are not designed and built by Leica. It's all about branding.

I know that Manfred and it does not change anything, they are good, better, best. Even the Zeiss lenses, I think, are better than Nikon lenses.

[Colin Southern]

EF-S = crop-body dSLR lens.
EF-M = EOS M mirrorless lens.

EF-S + Adaptor = EOS M.

[inkista]

Read something today that makes me go back to this...

If you look at it from a purely technical standpoint, a higher end camera (DSLR or mirrorless) models have roughly the same number of parts and take roughly the same amount of labour to assemble; regardless of the specific model.

Manfred, when you wrote this, I thought "well, there's no mirrorbox or pentaprism/mirror" but didn't think that would be hugely significant in the overall parts count. But reading Ming Thein's "demise of the dSLR" blog post mostly changed my mind about that.

to quote (bolding for emphasis is mine):

... There’s another reason DSLRs are in their twilight, and one slightly more insidious than any of the photographic reasons we’ve discussed above: mirrorless is simply much simpler – and therefore cheaper – to produce, and this of course translates into much better profit margins for manufacturers. ...

... Put it another way: even the most complex of the mirrorless cameras – the OM-D with its 5-axis stabilisation system suspending the sensor – it’s still significantly simpler than the mirror and viewfinder assemblies required for even the cheapest DSLR. I was told by one of the manufacturers that a mirrorless camera has approximately 60-70% fewer parts than a DSLR, and can be produced in significantly less time. Having stripped several Sony NEX-5s for multispectral conversion, I can attest to that: I can strip, remove the UVIR filter pack and reassemble in about fifteen minutes. I tried to do the same to a Nikon D50 once: it took me three hours the second time, partially because of the number of parts, partially because of the testing required during reassembly.

[Manfred M]

Interesting Kathy - let me reserve judgement on that; I would love to see a BoM (Bill of Materials) on a DSLR and a mirrorless design to pass judgement on that. If they are comparing a low end mirrorless to a top of the line DSLR, I could see a significant reduction in part count; but much less so if we are doing more of a low end to low end camera comparison.

There are really two areas where there are less parts in a mirrorless camera. You've mentioned one; which is the whole mirror, focusing screen, penta mirror / prism, and mirror mechanism. The other place is that a DSLR will have two focusing mechanisms - phase detect and contrast detect, and the mirrorless will only have contrast detect. Not sure about the shutters; an electronic shutter would have a lot fewer parts than a mechanical focal plane shutter, but I haven't looked inside the camera to see what is done. My mFT video camera is all electronic that way.

Frankly, I do think that the classic DSLR will disappear over time as the mirrorless technology continues to improve. There are certainly some scaling issues that have to be overcome first. though.

[davidedric]

Thanks for all your thoughts on this. I think that my next step if I go down this route is to buy a second hand G3 with just the standard zoom, and see how I get on. If I use it I can start to work out what I need and take it from there, if not (or if I decide to go seriously down that route) I can resell and not pay much for the knowledge gained.

Cheers,

Dave

[woof woof]

Thanks for all your thoughts on this. I think that my next step if I go down this route is to buy a second hand G3 with just the standard zoom, and see how I get on. If I use it I can start to work out what I need and take it from there, if not (or if I decide to go seriously down that route) I can resell and not pay much for the knowledge gained.

Cheers,

Dave

I wonder if I could tempt you into trying some legacy lenses?

I have a number of old manual Minolta Rokkor and Olympus Zuiko lenses and I use them with a cheap adapter I bought on ebay. You can get a 50mm f1.7 for under £20 or a 28mm f2.8 for just a little more and manual focus is easy with the magnified view.

If you don't fancy a legacy lens for general use maybe you could try a legacy macro lens? (as most macro is manual focus.) I have a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro in Minolta SA fit and it produces very good results.

[thequacksoflife]

The Panasonic GX1 was a great camera. But Panasonic also came out with the G3, which, while it had a lower overall feature set, used the same sensor and processor AND came with a built-in EVF and flip-out screen--for $200 less. GX1s tanked from $800 to $250 in a little over a year. Olympus, otoh, has no rival for the OM-D, so it's only dropped from $1000 to $700 (used) in over 18 months. So the deals can get model-specific. A Pansonic GX1 or G5 or EP-3 might be a sweet spot for you, if you're looking for a lower-end camera.

Kathy there was a lot of good stuff in your post but a slight correction..... the g3 was announced 12th May 2011 and the GX1 7th November 2011. So that wasn't the reason the GX1 price tanked. I think a lot of people expected a GX2 (we got the 7) and so the price fell naturally with a dip at the end. Actually the G3 was unusual in that it was launched at a decent price (something Nikon could learn from for the Nikon 1 series of cameras).

I suspect we'll see something similar happen with the g6 / gx7 combo. The g6 is better value (although if the new gx7 sensor performs....)

I'd get less hung up on the body and concentrate more on lenses. Determine what you want check out the prices and compare to your budget. Mirrorless cameras aren't for everyone. You are doing it because you value size etc.

For me a viewfinder or the ability to add a viewfinder is if not essential highly desirable.

In fairness I'd defend Oly and Panny from releasing to many bodies that are the same. The worst offender is canon for goodness sake the latest 700d is virtually identical to the 650d (do check out the camerastoretv review!!!).

As to number of parts in a mirrorless camera. Hogan compared the V1 to the d3100 (or was it d3200) and concluded Nikon were making a massive mark up on the V1 (I can't find the article).

[inkista]

Kathy there was a lot of good stuff in your post but a slight correction..... the g3 was announced 12th May 2011 and the GX1 7th November 2011. So that wasn't the reason the GX1 price tanked. I think a lot of people expected a GX2 (we got the 7) and so the price fell naturally with a dip at the end. Actually the G3 was unusual in that it was launched at a decent price (something Nikon could learn from for the Nikon 1 series of cameras).

That's what I meant, though--the G3 undercut the GX1 by being not that much lower-speced while being much lower in price in comparison to the GX1+EVF; and of course, the OM-D was dominating on usability features in roughly the same price range as the GX1; and Fuji X was just hitting the scene. In the same timeframe that a GX1 body went from being $800 to $250 [new], an OM-D body went from being $1000 to $700 (used) [new, it's still $1000]. The GX1's price drop was not the "natural" fall, imo (but I'm used to dSLR depreciation which also has the longer release cycles to gentle the fall).

I suspect we'll see something similar happen with the g6 / gx7 combo. The g6 is better value (although if the new gx7 sensor performs....)

Actually, I don't. The price gap is smaller than with the G3 and GX1.

The G5/G6 went back up to where the Gs sat before the G3. A new G6 body is $750, and a used one still hovers in the $700 range. The G3 kit MSRPed at $650 but a used one tanked down to $450 for me within 6 months of its release while the GX1 was still going for $800+200 for an EVF. $450 vs. $1000 w/add-on EVF isn't the same picture as $700 vs. $1000 for a dSLR-body-styled mft camera vs. one with a sleeker form factor, corner EVF, and IBIS. Here, you are getting a lot more for your money than you were with a GX1+EVF's $1000 pricetag.

To me, the price on the GX7 is liable to stay much higher for much longer than the GX1's. I'd be surprised to see it going for less than $700 a year from release, unless Panasonic or Olympus offers a similar corner-EVF/IBIS-equipped body at a much lower pricepoint. Throw in PDAF on that hypothetical model, and THEN the GX7 price will drop like a stone. A lot of how the GX7 is going to do is going to depend on what the OM-D's replacement is going to be like.

[thequacksoflife]

That's what I meant, though--the G3 undercut the GX1 by being not that much lower-speced while being much lower in price in comparison to the GX1+EVF; and of course, the OM-D was dominating on usability features in roughly the same price range as the GX1; and Fuji X was just hitting the scene. In the same timeframe that a GX1 body went from being $800 to $250 [new], an OM-D body went from being $1000 to $700 (used) [new, it's still $1000]. The GX1's price drop was not the "natural" fall, imo (but I'm used to dSLR depreciation which also has the longer release cycles to gentle the fall).

sorry if I'm being argumentative..... bad day!

the gx1's big price fall, at least over here, has been fairly recent certainly this year it has tanked. If the LVF2 would fall then it would make a cracking buy at present!

Curiously the G3 and GX1 had the same price at launch (well according to DPREVIEW!). of course you have to factor in an EVF. I was quite lucky and picked one up "relatively cheaply". For me I preferred the detachable EVF as it made the combo more pocketable and it was better built. But I would say that the G3 was an excellent value product. I never owned one but did use a friends and as I say the GX1 felt a much nicer camera in the hand. As you say the g5/g6 are more a return to the original g1.

I think m4/3 suffers from the constant incremental releases EP1, EP2, EP3 from the Oly side for instance and G3, G5 and G6 from panny there are others. Makes it hard to retain value and the smallish nature of the changes means that buying an older version hurts you a lot less. I think they did it to shout that they were here.

Actually, I don't. The price gap is smaller than with the G3 and GX1.


The G5/G6 went back up to where the Gs sat before the G3. A new G6 body is $750, and a used one still hovers in the $700 range. The G3 kit MSRPed at $650 but a used one tanked down to $450 for me within 6 months of its release while the GX1 was still going for $800+200 for an EVF. $450 vs. $1000 w/add-on EVF isn't the same picture as $700 vs. $1000 for a dSLR-body-styled mft camera vs. one with a sleeker form factor, corner EVF, and IBIS. Here, you are getting a lot more for your money than you were with a GX1+EVF's $1000 pricetag.

Not sure that the G3 fell to that degree here. And I don't think the differential was so great over here but. Virtually all cameras see some sort of fall fairly quickly on the MSRP (punishing early adopters!) the only that really held its price was the E-M5. The GH3 has fallen quicker relatively....

The G6 has been out about 4 months and interestingly the G5 is still in production. Only ever held a g6 in a shop but the G5 is a nice camera. Certainly a much nicer camera than the G3. I mean in terms of how it feels the fact that the VF has an eye sensor small things that mount up.

To me, the price on the GX7 is liable to stay much higher for much longer than the GX1's. I'd be surprised to see it going for less than $700 a year from release, unless Panasonic or Olympus offers a similar corner-EVF/IBIS-equipped body at a much lower pricepoint. Throw in PDAF on that hypothetical model, and THEN the GX7 price will drop like a stone. A lot of how the GX7 is going to do is going to depend on what the OM-D's replacement is going to be like.

You may be right on the GX7. Panasonic certainly seemed to have listened to what people have said the IBIS really surprised me. Olympus have just released the E-P5 and the price just has to fall! Although that said I get the impression there is some snob value at play here. Olympus is a proper camera company and Panasonic makes TVs so maybe it will sell well (looks nice!). If the E-M1 is the replacement then it is a different beasty to the GX7. The E-M5? not for me. It's a marmite camera.

PDAF is the elephant in the room...... If you ever used a Nikon V1 you will know that as far as autofocus is concerned it can be treated as a dSLR. It irritates me when reviews refer to lightspeed AF of m4/3 cameras when what they mean is single point acquisition.

Perhaps we should check the price of the gx7 this time next year

[inkista]

sorry if I'm being argumentative..... bad day!

No worries. Glad I can help distract you.

the gx1's big price fall, at least over here, has been fairly recent certainly this year it has tanked. If the LVF2 would fall then it would make a cracking buy at present!

Yup. It's the add-on viewfinder that's always the sticking point.

... But I would say that the G3 was an excellent value product. I never owned one but did use a friends and as I say the GX1 felt a much nicer camera in the hand. As you say the g5/g6 are more a return to the original g1.

Yes. The G3 was a strange anomaly in the Panasonic line-up. Weirdly, it was the shallow grip modification alone that made me consider it, otherwise, I'd have gone for the GX1 like everyone else. And the return to the deep grip on the G5/G6 has kept me from considering another one. I find it mildly disconcerting that the deep grips are showing up on other mirrorless brands, now, like the Sony A3000 and the Olympus EM-1; and that shallow grips are being added to the simple-box-shape cameras, like the GX-7 and EP-5. I shot with an Oly OM-10 for decades and didn't feel the need for any grip.

The justification on the A3000 is apparently that consumers would prefer to purchase dSLR-like cameras that look "pro" vs. the little rangefinder box style cameras. Or maybe it's just that a lot of folks are used to dSLRs and prefer that grip style. The Panasonic G-series has certainly had its adherents who prefer it. Maybe it's a strength that mirrorless can do both styles by choice.

I think m4/3 suffers from the constant incremental releases...

Every camera model-line has incremental releases. I think it's the fast release schedule on the mid-range models doubled by manufacturer count that's the killer. These things seem to come out once a year, which Canon and Nikon only do with their entry levels. And the fact that there are two companies sort of means a new model every eight or nine months. One can only wonder what it would be like if a third company joined the mft consortium!

The G6 has been out about 4 months and interestingly the G5 is still in production...

OTOH, here in the states, the G5 is being sold at blow-out prices ($400 or so), while the G6 is at the $750 mark. Have a feeling the G5 may have just left or be on the verge of leaving production.

You may be right on the GX7. Panasonic certainly seemed to have listened to what people have said the IBIS really surprised me. Olympus have just released the E-P5 and the price just has to fall!

The IBIS surprised everyone. The E-P5... again, I'm not sure if that one's going to fall immediately, either. The fact that it's essentially an OM-D, but in the rangefinder form-factor (with the VF-4 option) is likely to keep it high for a while, or at least until the OM-D gets its refresh.

If the E-M1 is the replacement then it is a different beasty to the GX7.

Somehow, I'm thinking the E-M1 isn't the OM-D's refresh. It's an attempt to finally fill in the last missing 'tier' on mirrorless, which is a professional camera (freeze proof?!). Whether this means the OM-D slides downtier, though, is what's interesting. There's also talk about an "entry-level" OM-D coming. Whether that means Olympus is going to maintain two or three OM-D-like cameras is the question.

PDAF is the elephant in the room...... If you ever used a Nikon V1 you will know that as far as autofocus is concerned it can be treated as a dSLR. It irritates me when reviews refer to lightspeed AF of m4/3 cameras when what they mean is single point acquisition.

And it's actually not that fast in low light; at least not on my G3. That's why the PDAF specs are so interesting. We'll have to see if AF improvement in low light is real or not. It does crack me up that the removal of AA filters is now yesterday's news. Both the GX7 and EM-1 are rumored to have had their AA filters removed. Moire testing!

Perhaps we should check the price of the gx7 this time next year

Yeah. Maybe we should!

[thequacksoflife]

One of the good things about this forum is that the debates are so civil

Yes. The G3 was a strange anomaly in the Panasonic line-up. Weirdly, it was the shallow grip modification alone that made me consider it, otherwise, I'd have gone for the GX1 like everyone else. And the return to the deep grip on the G5/G6 has kept me from considering another one. I find it mildly disconcerting that the deep grips are showing up on other mirrorless brands, now, like the Sony A3000 and the Olympus EM-1; and that shallow grips are being added to the simple-box-shape cameras, like the GX-7 and EP-5. I shot with an Oly OM-10 for decades and didn't feel the need for any grip.

I've said before I fully expected to buy an E-M5 until i picked it up. I notice a number of reviews recommend the half grip which for me defeats the object. Whereas when I borrowed a friends G5 it felt comfortable in the hand. that grip is nice for a lens like a 100-300. My Olympus Trip has no grip and I like that.

The justification on the A3000 is apparently that consumers would prefer to purchase dSLR-like cameras that look "pro" vs. the little rangefinder box style cameras. Or maybe it's just that a lot of folks are used to dSLRs and prefer that grip style. The Panasonic G-series has certainly had its adherents who prefer it. Maybe it's a strength that mirrrorless can do both styles by choice.

The G series represent a decent value which is why they do well I guess and also people think a dSLR is professional. i wonder if the a3000 is a trend and Sony are preparing the way for a merger of the Alpha E series......

Every camera model-line has incremental releases. I think it's the fast release schedule on the mid-range models doubled by manufacturer count that's the killer. These things seem to come out once a year, which Canon and Nikon only do with their entry levels. And the fact that there are two companies sort of means a new model every eight or nine months. One can only wonder what it would be like if a third company joined the mft consortium!

Sorry should have said fast incremental. I don't have a problem with iteration but they are too quick.

OTOH, here in the states, the G5 is being sold at blow-out prices ($400 or so), while the G6 is at the $750 mark. Have a feeling the G5 may have just left or be on the verge of leaving production.

Over here the G5 is around £400 the G6 around £550 san lens. Curiously the best deal I've seen was in an electronic shop at gatwick. G6 with the new 14-140 for £750 (given the lens on its own is £599!!). The new travel zoom is very light and actually not bad as travel zooms go (I don't own it! A friend has it)

The IBIS surprised everyone. The E-P5... again, I'm not sure if that one's going to fall immediately, either. The fact that it's essentially an OM-D, but in the rangefinder form-factor (with the VF-4 option) is likely to keep it high for a while, or at least until the OM-D gets its refresh.

At present it looks too expensive. E-P5 body only £899 GX7 body only £819. then add on the VF4 to the E-P5......

Somehow, I'm thinking the E-M1 isn't the OM-D's refresh. It's an attempt to finally fill in the last missing 'tier' on mirrorless, which is a professional camera (freeze proof?!). Whether this means the OM-D slides downtier, though, is what's interesting. There's also talk about an "entry-level" OM-D coming. Whether that means Olympus is going to maintain two or three OM-D-like cameras is the question.

I wonder what sensor is in the E-M1 rumour has it the sensor maybe improved. I'm assuming the E-M5 will be early 2014. There is no real reason to hurry is there? the E-M5 is a good camera. And no agree the E-M1 won't be the refresh.

And it's actually not that fast in low light; at least not on my G3. That's why the PDAF specs are so interesting. We'll have to see if AF improvement in low light is real or not. It does crack me up that the removal of AA filters is now yesterday's news. Both the GX7 and EM-1 are rumored to have had their AA filters removed. Moire testing!

Well the GX1 is much faster with the power zoom in low light than the Fuji X. Ok the IQ is much better on the fuji... I'll be interested how the GX7 does.

I saw a story that Nikon (I think) were looking at having the filter something you could turn on and off in camera! Ah how the world change.

Yeah. Maybe we should!

I'm hoping it doesn't fall. I have a gx7 on pre-order!!

[inkista]

One of the good things about this forum is that the debates are so civil

... [re: E-P5] At present it looks too expensive. E-P5 body only £899 GX7 body only £819. then add on the VF4 to the E-P5......

Interesting. Yup. And given that the E-M1's body-only price is going to be very similar to the E-P5's, we may see the E-P5 price fall once it's out. Hadn't thought about it that way.

... I'm hoping it doesn't fall. I have a gx7 on pre-order!!

I'm still on the fence about getting one. I mean, I WANT one, that's a given. But right now, my G3 is still serving me relatively well, and the only place I find it truly failing me is on fast-action/tracking AF. And the GX-7 doesn't actually fix that issue for me. All the other (very VERY) nice things about the GX7 are things I want, but don't necessarily need. I should be looking at the prices for used OM-Ds after the new models come out, but there's something about the design of the viewfinder hump that just rubs me the wrong way: proportions just don't match my OM-10's closely enough or something. I keep thinking it looks pinheaded.

Mainly, though, the problem is that I haven't finished with lens purchases. And right now there are two lenses I'm considering getting (Oly 60 macro and/or 9-18 ultrawide)--which together (used/refurbed) would probably still cost less than a GX-7 body. So that's undoubtedly swaying me. As is the past history of mft body depreciation. But, much as I would wish for a GX-7 body to be available for $250 18 months from now, I really doubt that's gonna happen. I have a feeling the GX-7 is going to be a lot like the GF1 when it first hit the scene: scarce to find for a good long time. Pre-ordering is probably a smart move.

[thequacksoflife]

I'm still on the fence about getting one. I mean, I WANT one, that's a given. But right now, my G3 is still serving me relatively well, and the only place I find it truly failing me is on fast-action/tracking AF. And the GX-7 doesn't actually fix that issue for me. All the other (very VERY) nice things about the GX7 are things I want, but don't necessarily need. I should be looking at the prices for used OM-Ds after the new models come out, but there's something about the design of the viewfinder hump that just rubs me the wrong way: proportions just don't match my OM-10's closely enough or something. I keep thinking it looks pinheaded.

the OM-D series lacks the style of the original OM's. Like you I don't NEED a GX7 but what the heck occasionally you have to treat yourself.

Mainly, though, the problem is that I haven't finished with lens purchases. And right now there are two lenses I'm considering getting (Oly 60 macro and/or 9-18 ultrawide)--which together (used/refurbed) would probably still cost less than a GX-7 body. So that's undoubtedly swaying me. As is the past history of mft body depreciation. But, much as I would wish for a GX-7 body to be available for $250 18 months from now, I really doubt that's gonna happen. I have a feeling the GX-7 is going to be a lot like the GF1 when it first hit the scene: scarce to find for a good long time. Pre-ordering is probably a smart move.

The 9-18 I can understand it's a lens I've looked at it a few times. the 60 looks good value. I've used the Panny 45 a few times and the IQ was very good but it was a focal length I didn't use enough. I keep being told the Oly 45 is a must have lens for m4/3 but will I use it? I think lens wise I have enough, I'd like the Pan 25 f1.4 but can't justify it. a wide angle maybe.....

The GF1 sold well because at the time there were few other choices AND it was bundled with a very good pan cake prime. The gx7 is being bundled with the 20mm MKII but I guess many of us own that lens and so the GX7 will stand and fall on its own merits.

[inkista]

...Like you I don't NEED a GX7 but what the heck occasionally you have to treat yourself.

Very true. Also I'm a woman. I get to shop on a whim if I want.

The 9-18 I can understand it's a lens I've looked at it a few times.

The main problem being that you wrestle with whether you really really really want the Panasonic 7-14/4 instead. I'm a fisheye junkie. I know I like super-wide. And 14 vs. 18 equivalency is different enough to make you pause and ponder along with the cost/filter differences. The 7-14 is the wildly impractical but you know you're gonna love it choice, while the 9-18 is much higher value-for-the-money and practical. Also, I could get a 17-40L for the 5DMkII or a Tokina 11-16/2.8 for the 50D. So I continue to waver. Too much choice.

the 60 looks good value. I've used the Panny 45 a few times and the IQ was very good but it was a focal length I didn't use enough. I keep being told the Oly 45 is a must have lens for m4/3 but will I use it?

Ming Thein loves the 60 Macro and does pro watch and food photography with it. His comparison with it to the Panasonic Leica 45/2.8 macro showed both are outstanding lenses. But, I learned that I do prefer a larger working distance than my EF-S 60/2.8 Macro gives me on my 50D, so the Oly 60 Macro is probably a better fit for me. I haunt the Oly refurb store.

I have the m.Zuiko 45/1.8, and it's my favorite lens in the format. But I also shoot with the EF 85/1.8 USM on my 5DMkII, and have an adapted 'cron-R 90, and the C/Y Zeiss Planar 100/2, so it's clear I looooove that focal length and use it very naturally even as a walkaround length. YMMV. Most do.

I think lens wise I have enough, I'd like the Pan 25 f1.4 but can't justify it. a wide angle maybe.....

If I were to move only to m4/3 and do the "I need top-of-the-line" think that drove me into getting most of my L glass, I'd probably dump my 20/1.7 and 14-42 and go with the 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 or 7-14/4, 12-35/2.8 & 35-100f/2.8 setups that seemsto be beloved of so many m4/3 shooters. But the main reason I chose m4/3 as a go-light system was its low pricetags, so I've been sticking with $300 consumer-grade glass and surprising myself by not really lusting after the high-end lenses. I seem to be able to stick more easily to what I need, rather than what I want with m4/3. Maybe I've actually learned the GAS lessons my Canon gear has taught me. But I kinda doubt it.

OTOH, I kind of rue getting a used FL50, and now wish I'd just saved up and sprung for an FL600R/FL360L instead. I hadn't realized that Panasonic was finally getting around to putting RC into its cameras and flashes. The GH3, G6, GF6 (!), and GX7 all have masters in the pop-up flash, and the FL360L (or the Oly R flashes) can all be used as TTL slaves with it. AND the FL600R/FL360L has the option I most wish my FL50 had of displaying the power output setting as a ratio (1/2, 1/8, etc.) rather than a guide number. (I say again: demented UI), as well as a "dumb" optical slave mode (i.e., like Nikon's SU-4 mode).

The GF1 sold well because at the time there were few other choices AND it was bundled with a very good pan cake prime. The gx7 is being bundled with the 20mm MKII

Not in the US. We don't get the choice of black, either.

...but I guess many of us own that lens and so the GX7 will stand and fall on its own merits.

Yes. I think a fair number of folks moving to a GX7 won't be first-time mft buyers.

[thequacksoflife]

Very true. Also I'm a woman. I get to shop on a whim if I want.

lol

The main problem being that you wrestle with whether you really really really want the Panasonic 7-14/4 instead. I'm a fisheye junkie. I know I like super-wide. And 14 vs. 18 equivalency is different enough to make you pause and ponder along with the cost/filter differences. The 7-14 is the wildly impractical but you know you're gonna love it choice, while the 9-18 is much higher value-for-the-money and practical. Also, I could get a 17-40L for the 5DMkII or a Tokina 11-16/2.8 for the 50D. So I continue to waver. Too much choice.

so true, i look at the 9-18 and think no it should be the 7-14 BUT if i'm honest the 9-18 is the sensible choice....

you've not considered the panny fisheye?

I have the m.Zuiko 45/1.8, and it's my favorite lens in the format. But I also shoot with the EF 85/1.8 USM on my 5DMkII, and have an adapted 'cron-R 90, and the C/Y Zeiss Planar 100/2, so it's clear I looooove that focal length and use it very naturally even as a walkaround length. YMMV. Most do.

indeedy. the 40mm focal length is one i feel comfortable at so I often shoot with just the 20mm

If I were to move only to m4/3 and do the "I need top-of-the-line" think that drove me into getting most of my L glass, I'd probably dump my 20/1.7 and 14-42 and go with the 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 or 7-14/4, 12-35/2.8 & 35-100f/2.8 setups that seemsto be beloved of so many m4/3 shooters. But the main reason I chose m4/3 as a go-light system was its low pricetags, so I've been sticking with $300 consumer-grade glass and surprising myself by not really lusting after the high-end lenses. I seem to be able to stick more easily to what I need, rather than what I want with m4/3. Maybe I've actually learned the GAS lessons my Canon gear has taught me. But I kinda doubt it.

the 12-35 is probably the lens i should buy. gives me a wider angle and a nice f2.8 for indoor shooting. it will be interesting to see what the oly 12-40 f2.8 does to prices....did you have to mention it.....

the 25 f1.4 is a lovely lens. i keep looking and keep saying no! as i say i prefer the 40mm length and find 50 too tight. in fairness all of the primes i've used have been good that 14mm prime is very good for its size. i was also surprised by the 14-42pz i avoided it after some reviews but it is a decent lens. a friend who had the 14-42 kit says the pz is much better, nice for walking around a city with the 14-42 and 20. very light and can have one in a pocket.

OTOH, I kind of rue getting a used FL50, and now wish I'd just saved up and sprung for an FL600R/FL360L instead. I hadn't realized that Panasonic was finally getting around to putting RC into its cameras and flashes. The GH3, G6, GF6 (!), and GX7 all have masters in the pop-up flash, and the FL360L (or the Oly R flashes) can all be used as TTL slaves with it. AND the FL600R/FL360L has the option I most wish my FL50 had of displaying the power output setting as a ratio (1/2, 1/8, etc.) rather than a guide number. (I say again: demented UI), as well as a "dumb" optical slave mode (i.e., like Nikon's SU-4 mode).

never used the flashes. the places i really need them ban flash photography. typical. again it is something i ought to look at. but it is down the shopping list.

Not in the US. We don't get the choice of black, either.

that's plain daft.

[inkista]

you've not considered the panny fisheye?

I have the RokiBowYang (as Roger Cicala terms it) 7.5. If there's one lens where you don't mind not having autofocus, it's a fisheye. Mine's the Rokinon silver version (my G3 is white--I like that it's white. I wish the GX-7 came in different colors. I'm a woman. I'm sooo tired of basic black). Also, I'm a genuine eccentric. Being a 360x180 pano shooter, the fisheye is nearly the first lens I get in any system. Come to think of it, it might have been the announcements/reviews of this specific lens that goosed me into finally getting into mft.


Equirectangular pano in a bookstore, shot with Rokinon 7.5mm f/3.5 UMC fisheye. G3 in portrait mode on tripod with Nodal Ninja panohead. 6 bracketed sets rotated in yaw at 60-degree intervals, 1 zenith (straight up) set, 3 nadir sets (on tripod, offset by 180 degree to remove me and most of the tripod/panohead, and a handheld set for final nadir patching). Stitched and exposure fused in PTGui.

Interactive version. (Requires flash and probably broadband).

As I said, I'm a fisheye junkie, and I have fun making shots "taken" with virtual lenses that have a 360-degree FoV (and you thought you liked it wide):


stereographic "little planet" remapping done via the Flexify PS plugin.

But, sometimes that funk is a bit too much, and I'd like to mess with a more normal-looking rectilinear ultrawide, hence looking at the 7-14 and 9-18.

the 12-35 is probably the lens i should buy. gives me a wider angle and a nice f2.8 for indoor shooting. it will be interesting to see what the oly 12-40 f2.8 does to prices....did you have to mention it.....

Well, there's always the (much) cheaper Oly 12-50/3.5-6.3.

the 25 f1.4 is a lovely lens. i keep looking and keep saying no! as i say i prefer the 40mm length and find 50 too tight.

Yup. It's pretty. And I like a 50. But the price and size kept sending me to the Panasonic 20/1.7.

[RE: GX-7 only coming in black with the 14-42 in the US]

that's plain daft.

Yeah, it's a head-scratcher all right. Everybody else but the US gets black and 20/1.7 options. Maybe they're frightened they won't be able to manufacture enough to keep 'em in stock, or they like the idea of charging USAnians a premium for the black one later on (e.g., Fuji's black X100). Given how our prices are lower than most everyone else's maybe they think it's worth a shot.

[thequacksoflife]

I have the RokiBowYang (as Roger Cicala terms it) 7.5. If there's one lens where you don't mind not having autofocus, it's a fisheye. Mine's the Rokinon silver version (my G3 is white--I like that it's white. I wish the GX-7 came in different colors. I'm a woman. I'm sooo tired of basic black). Also, I'm a genuine eccentric. Being a 360x180 pano shooter, the fisheye is nearly the first lens I get in any system. Come to think of it, it might have been the announcements/reviews of this specific lens that goosed me into finally getting into mft.

there is also a walimar version so RokiBowYangWali, manual focus makes sense but as i understand it there is no electrinics so i assume it doesn't meter?

a friend and i recently hired a 14 f2.8 for the fuji x. lovely lens but it was a length i didn't use enough. i'd like to try a fish eye as i do like the effect but ........ when i shot nikon i kept looking at the 10.5

black or black/silver all other should be banned when you've seen a pink j1 .... shudder

[QUOTE=inkista;335684]
Well, there's always the (much) cheaper Oly 12-50/3.5-6.3.

if i'm buying another zoom its an f2.8. that oly should have been an mft version of the 12-60 f2.8-4. that said now that the gx7 has ibis the 14 and 20 are much improved!

Yeah, it's a head-scratcher all right. Everybody else but the US gets black and 20/1.7 options. Maybe they're frightened they won't be able to manufacture enough to keep 'em in stock, or they like the idea of charging USAnians a premium for the black one later on (e.g., Fuji's black X100). Given how our prices are lower than most everyone else's maybe they think it's worth a shot.

i don't get how olympus can introduce a black version of the 12 and whack the price up.

still given that prices are £1 = $1 i get a perverse pleasure when americans complain that they panasonic gear is hard to get. i've read about products being hard to find over there and then seen them in my local camera store in a small town