1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Fitting an X10 into the equation

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by drewbot, Jan 14, 2012.

  1. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    Hi there,

    After coming back from vacation this holiday season, I've sat down and thought about my current setup.

    As far as my m43 kit goes, I have a GF1 + LVF1, 20/1.7, and the 45-200.

    I found that, as many people know already, the 20/1.7 is great for low kit situations and to stay portable.

    During outdoor adventures during the day, the 45-200 was attached for better reach.

    However, I found that too often I was switching back and forth between the 20 and 45-200 when the 45-200 was simply too long.

    That being said, I deducted my two options to: acquire the 14-140 and ditch the 45-200, or get another camera with good enough range - the X10. Both would be around the same ballpark.

    I know that the X10 would only bring me up to 112 mm equivalent, but it is the switching between the 20 and 45-200 that was killing me.

    Has anyone else found a spot for an X10 for use with their m43 setup?

    I'd be interested to see on their justification for having both, and how they compare the handling, features, performance, etc.

    One thing I would find handy on the X10 is the flash sync up to 1/4000, where the GF1 stops at 1/160. That would be handy for daylight fill.
  2. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    You're comparing apples to oranges. Remember that the lens on the X10 is a 112mm equivalent. That means it covers the same angle of view as a 112mm lens on a full frame camera. The 45-200 is equivalent to a 90 to 400mm full frame lens. That's a huge difference in focal length. Changing lenses might be inconvenient, but not nearly as inconvenient as missing the picture completely because you can't get enough magnification with the X10.

    If you look at the 14-140, you've got the equivalent of 280mm, which is a pretty good telephoto. 112mm is barely a telephoto.

    Only you know the kinds of pictures you take, and whether a 112mm FOV equivalent lens is going to be long enough, but don't begin to fool yourself into thinking it's a replacement for the 45-200. If you really find changing lenses to be so difficult, maybe you should be looking at a superzoom P&S camera. But honestly, I can change lenses on my GH2 in about 20 seconds, including putting the removed lens back in a bag. How hard can it be?
  3. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    If you can live without image stabilization - and photographers did without it for more than 100 years - the Olympus 14-150 can be had for about $512 right now. That's almost $90 less than an X10 and you'd get a 28-300mm (equivalent) without having to change lenses. Plus, it's smaller and lighter than the Panasonic 14-140. I'm weighing this option for my G3 and E-PM1 versus the X10 right now.

    Now, if you simply want the X10 because it's a neat, jacket-pocketable camera that has a fast lens and does pretty well at high ISOs despite its smaller sensor, then by all means go for it if you can afford it. I'm asking myself this question as well.
  4. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Get another m4/3 body so you have one lens on each body.
  5. capodave

    capodave Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 4, 2010
    Southern Cal
    Get another m4/3 body so you have one lens on each body

    That's what I prefer.
    My son just got an x 10.He wanted to replace his LX5 that never made it back from the Panasonic repair center.
    It's a very nice camera. It's a point and shoot.
    I scored a new E PM1 body only for half the price.
  6. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Nov 18, 2011
    United States
    +1. Another GF1 is only $250-300.
  7. Indeed, if you are considering buying and carrying another camera, why not make it another m4/3 camera. The X10 would only have an advantage if you want to carry that zoom range on it's own for size reasons and leave the m4/3 gear behind. On the other hand, there is the intangible value of having something new and different :p 

    P.S. A Pen would be something new and different, too!
  8. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    I think the intrigue of a new and exciting toy is what my heart is saying, but of course adding another body would be more economical.

    I can already imagine my girlfriend rolling her eyes at me strapped with two bodies on our next vacation :p 
  9. He he, been there, done that :smile:

    "Do you have to look like such a tourist?"

    etc, etc.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 7, 2010
    I replaced my GF1 + 20/1.7 with an X10, but the m4/3s kit was my secondary/backup to a DSLR. So, for me, the added convenience and portability was perfect and a reasonable tradeoff, all things considered.

    If I was sticking with m4/3s I think a second body makes sense. Probably a G2, G3 or GH1 to use with whatever zoom floats your boat. I never liked my GF1 with the 14-140 or the 45-200, but the DSLR style cameras make a big difference.

    Like others said, if you want a new toy to play with the X10 is super cool. But it likely doesn't make the most sense (and dollars).
  11. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    I just got the 14-140 today.. took a couple of shots.. testing.. but for what it is.. it's VERY sharp... a little big but not bad.. I can deal with it!
  12. davidw

    davidw New to Mu-43

    Jan 9, 2012
    holiday in Hong Kong
    I am on holiday right now. I am finding exactly the same thing. it is a pain to switch while traveling. switching between my 45mm oly and my panasonic 14mm. so I will get a second body instead. I can from having a canon G9.
  13. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    LOl and she might wonder how to operate this body which has two bodies hanging on it already. hahhaa
  14. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    If u want a long range just for outside then buy any Canon or panasonic pocketable super zoom but u wont get the same pic quality . ..
  15. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    Hey Doug, I can see you have both the X10 and 14 -140. Which one would you give up keep, if you only could have one?
  16. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    For 99.9999999% of people, a good compact camera is a better solution if:
    - you can live with the fixed zoom range
    - you can live with (or desire) infinite depth of field always

    If you want different lens effects (fisheye, true macro, ultra wide, supertele, etc) then you're going to appreciate an interchangeable lens system.

    If you want control over DOF, a small sensor is never going to provide it.
  17. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON

    It's ironic that I tried to squish my dSLR and LX5 into a m43 kit for a compromise between these mentioned above. But now I am exploring a compact again.
  18. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    I was precisely on the same boat as you. I only intended to stay with one body (an E-PL1) since I'm really not a pro. I'm perfectly fine with primes most of the time, but sometimes found the switching between lenses a real pain especially for those kinds of occasions/trips. So here's what happened:

    I got myself a G3, thinking one body for primes, one body for zooms. Or one body for wide, one body for a longer prime. But, I really can't bond with it, and I thought probably because I always had a safety net (the E-PL1). To make the story shot, I sold the E-PL1 hoping I can focus on bonding with the G3, but still eventually sold it. (Probably my mistake was switching from Oly to Panasonic.)

    I didn't want to go back to one :43: body for a big trip yet (again because of lens-switching), so I got myself an X10. Probably because I belong to the 99.9999%, it was more than enough. Note that the lens is no slouch - it is f/2 to f/2.8. However, I do miss the IQ and capabilities of the :43: system especially with non-landscape/non-touristy shots. (Don't get me wrong, the X10 can really produce some wonderful wonderful images.) And I still have my 14, 20 and 45mm primes. So I plan to get one of the newer E-Pxx bodies, but I'm not in a rush.

    I think my setup will be X10 for walk-around/touristy destinations, but for indoor/people shots, I'd go with the :43:, plus for those really gorgeous, can't-miss, for-my-wall type of shots. And for that bonding thing? I would say the X10 and I are probably on our fourth-date stage. :smile: Note though that there's still that little voice that keeps nagging me about this decision -- primarily because of the X10's price -- and my return window is closing. :eek:  But without the price consideration, I'd keep it no questions asked.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    A couple of ironic afterthoughts:

    1. I too had just got a G3 - thinking G3 for primes and my GF1 for zooms in good light. However, I just don't like the handling of it. Still on the fence. I can wait for the next m43 body with a built in EVF (I think).

    2. I too, have some drawbacks about the X10's price. But all indications lead me to believe that it is leaps and bounds better than the LX5 I had gotten rid of. However, the look of the X10 reminds me of the Yashica Electro GT - the first camera I learned about exposure, DOF, etc. and it holds a somewhat sentimental value to me.
  20. crsnydertx

    crsnydertx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 31, 2010
    Houston, TX
    In these price discussions, I just keep thinking about my first digital - a Canon G2 4MP, purchased in 2001 for $750. Inflation-adjusted, that's over $950. When I recall that, I get less worked up over prices in the $700-900 range for cameras that are so much better than my beloved G2.

    Just sayin'....:rolleyes: :wink:
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.