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

    261
    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?
     
  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.