1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

G3 worth getting?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by timothysoong, Nov 28, 2011.

  1. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    I currently only owned a GF2. I am considering on getting a g3 as it will produce better quality videos and pictures. But the thing is, is it worth getting another m43 since I already have a GF2. And maybe about a year or so, I'll most definitely get a Canon/Nikon DSLR camera. Or should I sell off my GF2 and get the G3 instead? And my GF2 is only 3months old. What do you guys think/suggest?

    Tim
     
  2. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
  3. Canonista

    Canonista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    563
    Sep 3, 2011
    L.A.
    If it were me, I'd invest heavily in lenses for my GF2 first. Then, I would get a second m43 body. If the m43 system is somehow inadequate after that, then and only then would I consider a DSLR. That's coming from someone with an extensive DSLR system.
     
  4. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    Hey Tim,

    Why do you want a Canon or Nikon?
     
  5. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    If this is your plan then I'm not quite sure why you're in Micro Four Thirds anyway - you can get an entry level CaNikon for not much more than an MFT kit :confused:
     
  6. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    I dont know. Cause for a DSLR the most recommended brand would be Canon or Nikon? Okay, then I'd invest more on lens for now then. :) Cause so far Ive only got 3 lenses.
     
  7. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    And a DSLR would produce more professional result than m43. I went into m43 for the size because Im always a compact digital camera user, I couldnt accept the bulkiness of a real DSLR. Now that Ive taken lotsa pictures with my gf2 I realized Im actually into photography. If Im about to get a real DSLR later on, should I still go for Panasonic DSLR??
     
  8. m43er

    m43er Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Oct 6, 2011
    Why would you even consider another m43 camera when you're already set on getting a dslr? Strange.
     
  9. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    If I have to pick up an entry level DSLR today , I won't go for Nikon or Canon ..I would pick Pentax Kr without even thinking twice. It offers u much more than entry level Ns and Cs and specially if u r not so much into videos.
    Cheers
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Even though I get a DSLR, I'd still keep my M43 for everyday use. And only use my DSLR on special occasions. And fyi, I love M43 cameras, and I was just wondering if I should replace my GF2 with a better M43 for better quality pictures.
     
  11. djonesii

    djonesii Mu-43 Regular

    42
    Aug 18, 2011
    real dslr ......

    If you are seriously thinking about a real DSLR, skip the entry level models and lenses ...

    I have worked my way up to a Nikon D300, with a Tokina 12-24, nikon 24-70, 2.8, nikon 80-200 2.8, sigma 120-300 2.8, and the following nikon primes 35 1.8, 50 1.8, 55 1.2 85 .14.... etc ...

    found it lacking for my studio work and went with a Mamiya AFD-II and Phase on p30+.

    The Nikon has been squeezed out of the middle. For all practical purposes in most shooting situations, the G3 does everything the D300 does.

    When you get to the edges of photography, the D300 starts to win out over the G3. Really fast moving sports in low light, ..... Birds in flight, real DOF control for a very certain type of portrait shot ...

    Before I would even think of getting a DSLR now, I'd take a very close look at what your shooting style is, and what print sizes you need. For me, if I was getting into it now, I would have never bought the Nikon.

    If you are into studio work, to get the same quality from a small system is near on impossible, sensor size does matter .... That said, those improvements come at an ever increasing rate of cost!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    The G3 will be a signiicant step up in image quality at high-ISO, and give you a swivel screen and built in viewfinder. If those things are important to you, then go for it, otherwise, you're probably wasting money.

    How do you "export" your images - screen, print (what size?)?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    No. Get the Olympus 45/1.8. It will depreciate much slower than a new camera, so if you do decide to get a Canon or Nikon next year, you'll have more money.

    While you are at it, get the clip on EVF, and a small flash. A GF2 with the 14/2.5, 25/1.4, and 45/1.8 is capable of "pro" photos. If you need to, take classes to improve your skills before upgrading your camera.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Is the Oly 45/1.8 more worth getting than the Panny 45/2.8?

    As for the EVF, I wanted to get it, but the low resolution of the EVF1 is what turns me off of not getting it.
     
  15. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    Unless you like macro, get the Olympus. If you are on a budget, get an old vintage 50/1.7 or 50/1.4 from any number of companies - Pentax, Minolta, etc...

    EVF1, despite the low resolution, will help in bright light, and will help keep the camera steady in low light because your head becomes a support point
     
  16. Basset

    Basset Mu-43 Regular

    69
    Nov 9, 2011
    I second that. The k-r is also smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon counterparts.
     
  17. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    I like macro, but I'm more into portrait. So you'd recommend me getting an adapted lens instead of a native lens?

    I have a screen hood for bright light, which does help. But I seriously want to get the hang of using the viewfinder but the thing is the resolution. But in your opinion its still worth getting even if I have the screen hood for bright light? I need your suggestions =)
     
  18. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    Very, very good advice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    If you subject doesn't move, you can save money with an adapted lens and spend it on another accessory like a flash or good ND filters. If your subject moves, get a native lens and use AF.

    I don't have the EVF so I can't say how low the resolution is. But I'm not picky about that stuff - as long as I can compose and get a sense for exposure I am happy. I have a friend that can't use EVFs. Each person is different, but an EFV will keep the camera steady in low light. Try buying from a place that has a good return policy just in case.
     
  20. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Well, I think I'mm go with the native lens, since I don't always have the opportunity to have time to get a MF shot. As MF might take a while. So for now, my next lens would be Oly 45mm f/1.8 =)

    Thanks


    I'd consider on trying the good return policy after I get my next lens. tbh, I wonder why Panny doesn't make the LVF-2 work on the GF series. :\