G3 shoots some action

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by musicmaster, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. musicmaster

    musicmaster Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Nov 19, 2012
    I just picked up the Panasonic G3 from the B&H sale to replace my E-PL1. The E-PL1 is a nice camera, but the slow AF, slow menus and poor ISO performance really turned me off.

    Anyways, I was at the USATF National Cross Country meet today (I ran as well) and was able to get a few shots of the Masters race. The camera far exceeded my expectations with the kit 14-42 lens -- I'd only assume I can do better with the 45-200 lens. I'm no amateur to sports photography. I normally shoot with a Canon 7D and 70-200 2.8 L or 300 F/4 IS. For the size though, this is great.

    Took awhile to figure out how to get the AF to work the best. I found that AF-S and single point (center) was the best way. The bad news is that I can't get a sequence like I can with my 7D, but, again, this is more of a walk around vacation camera.

    These were shot at ISO 1000 or 1600 in order to get above 1/500 on this cloudy day.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    These, of course pale in comparison to my 7D kit, but none the less, impressive for a $300 CDAF system with a slow lens

    [​IMG]
    Taken with my 7D and 70-200 2.8 @ 2.8
     
  2. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    Nice shots! I like the vignetting on the cross-country shots - added in post, or happy accident?

    I shot a half-marathon a couple months back with my 5DMkIII and the girlfriend came along and used my GH2 with the 45-200 mounted ... she was able to get some decent shots with that thing, definitely. That lens (the 45-200), since you mentioned it, is far from ideal for this kind of work but it can be useful when needed. I've heard better things about the 100-300 but haven't used it myself.
     
  3. musicmaster

    musicmaster Mu-43 Rookie

    20
    Nov 19, 2012
    Post - I haven't modified any of the JPEG settings yet, so I wanted to bring out the best in the photos.

    I'm sure anything will seem worse that a non-HSM / Ultrasonic lens, but for $150 or so and the size for an occasional shot, it will be worth it. Plus, it's the photographer, not the camera... right?