Lumix G5

[3Ddeath]

Why do you have such a strong need to justify buying the mirriorless camera, there are points to both sides in an argument, or do you just enjoy telling people they are wrong?

I don't have this need to say you are wrong, so I won't go and count every lens ever made that fits the canon mount SLR to attempt to prove myself.

I still stand by the point of if your going to a high end zoom lens you'll want to be looking through it, were as if your doing street photography, why not just have a screen? or range finder?

 

[usayit]

No need... just correcting.

I used to be a Canon shooter as well... with a very wide array of high end lenses.... If you were around long enough, you would know that I'm the first to say it isn't the system for everyone. I have steered many away from micro 4/3 and mirrorless. It is by no means perfect. I usually state that its a great system to compliment but not necessarily replace a DSLR.

What does erk me is....

There is a lot of false information regarding this new system.. .especially perpetuated by those that barely know anything about the system. Its ok to say, "its not for me" but don't pass on false information as fact. Just like those that say that lens selection is small.... or the "tiny" sensor of a P&S... or that fellow in this thread that claims that the system has no physical shutter... or those that claim that EVF is unusable most of the time. All people just chiming in with no real knowledge about the system.

I still stand by the point of if your going to a high end zoom lens you'll want to be looking through it, were as if your doing street photography, why not just have a screen? or range finder?

Wrong again!

<< My primary system is a rangefinder... and NO it has little to do with whether or not you shoot street photography. That's just the stereotype that dates back to the early days portrayed news media (think Robert Capa etc) Most "street" photographers (realy just journalists) use DSLRs or P&S .. really a variety of cameras. And you are incorrect, Micro 4/3 is through the lens viewing and you are not limited to composition via the screen.

 

[3Ddeath]

What does erk me is....

There is a lot of false information regarding this new system..

Do keep in mind that there is a difference between false information and discussions based around a topic, the ladder is usually suggestions on what to research for yourself when looking for a camera from someones knowledge on the general topic, were as false information would be someone talking about very specific information regarding the exact camera in question (which i was careful not to do so, or at least I thought I was).

The two can very easily be confused when reading from text and false information can easily be taken out of general discussions.

BTW, how can I be wrong on something that is my general view on it? what I like better when looking through a camera can't be wrong or right, perhaps I like one system better than another, are you going to tell me i'm wrong because I like something better? you are wrong in that regard my friend.

"or the "tiny" sensor of a P&S.." how is that incorrect? sure its not quite as small as a iphone sensor, but it is physical small compared to a full frame, how do you deny it? i'm so confused with your commitment to a one sided discussion.

The constructive way to respond to the small sensor comment would be "The sensor is 4/3rds which is much bigger than entry level compacts, its only slightly smaller than an APS-C sensor and due to the following reasons it performs nearly as well and perhaps better in these areas..."

 

[panblue]

I would disagree that adaptors remove the point of a mirrorless. The mirror-boxless design makes those cameras more versatile in that they can accept so many legacy, manual lenses. If you wanta small lens, you cannot get much smaller than the tiny Industar 3.5/50 pancake..or Kern C-mounts which were made for Bolex 8mm cine. As for longer lenses like a 200mm, people do that; they also use longer still. Re: (crazy) cost, well.. $15-30 or if you are flush, you can grab a Super Takumar or Hexanon AR, Yashicaa DSB or Rollei QBM for a bit more

You can argue that there are a lot of lens options or ways to get more lenses with adapters, you can even say there is an infinite amount of lenses you can get since you can make your own with a toilet paper roll.

I was more talking about in general on mirrorless cameras and adapters don't count as they remove the point of a mirrorless which usually allows you to use smaller lenses, nobody will buy a canon 70-200 2.8 and put it on a mirrorless with an adapter, its silly.
I'm sure It's even possible to make an adaptor on my canon to mount the hubble telescope.

I'm all for mirrorless cameras! i want one myself, I don't think there are THAT many lenses for mirriorless but I feel this isn't a bad thing, I feel its what it should be. If you want more crazy lenses that cost a stupid amount of money, wouldn't you want a viewfinder that looks through it?

At least those are my thoughts.

 

[3Ddeath]

I would disagree that adaptors remove the point of a mirrorless. The mirror-boxless design makes those cameras more versatile in that they can accept so many legacy, manual lenses. If you wanta small lens, you cannot get much smaller than the tiny Industar 3.5/50 pancake..or Kern C-mounts which were made for Bolex 8mm cine. As for longer lenses like a 200mm, people do that; they also use longer still. Re: (crazy) cost, well.. $15-30 or if you are flush, you can grab a Super Takumar or Hexanon AR, Yashicaa DSB or Rollei QBM for a bit more

Thank you! its actually the kind of discussion I wanted to get going, i'm interested in buying a mirrorless myself and its good to hear some discussions that help talk about some of the concerns I have with them

And sorry for helping hijack the thread from the original poster :O

 

[usayit]

Do keep in mind that there is a difference between false information and discussions based around a topic,
....
BTW, how can I be wrong on something that is my general view on it? what I like better when looking through a camera can't be wrong or right, perhaps I like one system better than another, are you going to tell me i'm wrong because I like something better? you are wrong in that regard my friend.

Total B.S. You didn't state an opinion on what you did or did not like. You passed on false information.. I presume because you didn't know any better. Just like you didn't know that composition on a micro 4/3 is through the lens. Simply state, "I didnt know" man up to it and move on. I don't "correct" opinions ... I respect them. Nothing you stated is an opinion... they are statements. Move on...

I still stand by the point of if your going to a high end zoom lens you'll want to be looking through it, were as if your doing street photography, why not just have a screen? or range finder?

 

[usayit]

I would disagree that adaptors remove the point of a mirrorless. The mirror-boxless design makes those cameras more versatile in that they can accept so many legacy, manual lenses. If you wanta small lens, you cannot get much smaller than the tiny Industar 3.5/50 pancake..or Kern C-mounts which were made for Bolex 8mm cine. As for longer lenses like a 200mm, people do that; they also use longer still. Re: (crazy) cost, well.. $15-30 or if you are flush, you can grab a Super Takumar or Hexanon AR, Yashicaa DSB or Rollei QBM for a bit more

Thank you! its actually the kind of discussion I wanted to get going, i'm interested in buying a mirrorless myself and its good to hear some discussions that help talk about some of the concerns I have with them

And sorry for helping hijack the thread from the original poster :O

Um... which is in agreement with my post :er:

 

[3Ddeath]

Um... which is in agreement with my post :er:

True, but said in a much better way to promote 2-sided discussion without the need of telling people they are wrong and stupid. Hope you see a difference and maybe learn from it.

 

[usayit]

and please point out where I said you or anyone is stupid?

 

[kundalini]

True, but said in a much better way to promote 2-sided discussion without the need of telling people they are wrong and stupid. Hope you see a difference and maybe learn from it.

I'm calling bull$hit. usayit was merely pointing out the difference between opinion and fact. Anyone can read a spec sheet, but without first hand experience, you're basically spouting an uninformed opinion. FWIW, you can read the second line of my signiture.

 

[panblue]

Is Lumix a good brand?

That's a tough question to answer succinctly ..
Panasonic have made a lot of cameras; a number of lines of cameras. Who really knows what the deal is with their 'Leica' optics. They are very good lenses generally for the money but one apparently identical lens I recall, also turned-up branded Canon, Carl Zeiss (the 7-21 f2). Panasonic's compacts range from mediocre to very good (TZ). Their mirrorless cameras are popular with stills photographers and videographers. The FZ bridge cameras are good value. Sensational cameras in terms of design like the LC1, L1, (and not sensational but good L10) were discontinued before too long IMO.

The thing with all digital cameras of lesser format than 36x24 full frame (and to a degree with 23x15 crop sensor) is this 'coffin corner' problem of wanting shallow DOF, and wanting sharpness and performance through stopping down a little bit, yet facing diffraction issues at middling apertures and losing light, compared to 135 film, 120 film and larger formats.
Once you into 4/3, 2/3 and smaller, you are shooting wide-open to achieve any kind of shallow DOF/seperation. Wide-open on most but the very best lenses is not at all optimal performance (e.g wide with CA). Stop down a little bit and you've lost light (not good for a small sensor with poor ISO performance that needs all the light available) and you have now huge DOF, with 35mm equivalence and possibly diffraction issues akin to f16 and beyond.

 

[panblue]

3D, BTW from reading these boards over time, usayit and Kundalini are very knowledgeable about 4/3rds and much more. Usayit also with rangefinders, Leicas etc. I'm sure you could learn a huge amount from them.

 

[kundalini]

3D, BTW from reading these boards over time, usayit and Kundalini are very knowledgeable about 4/3rds and much more. Usayit also with rangefinders, Leicas etc. I'm sure you could learn a huge amount from them.

Kind words to be sure, but I bow at usayit's knowledge on the subject. I read many of his posts and picked his brain before I launched into m4/3. With the improvements over the last two years that I have used m4/3, it is certainly a viable camera format and is being used as a first camera by some pros. The future looks bright......... where are my shades?

 

[ducatiman1967]

Very interesting thread, I currently shoot Canon and must say I was looking forward to Canon's entry into mirrorless but was very disappointed . IMO until pro sports photographers start exchanging their 1DX bodies for mirrorless bodies Canon and Nikon will not take this market seriously.
I plan on getting into the mirrorless system as soon as the EVFs get better or I have laser eye surgery !