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

Stuck on which camera...

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by DolbyDan, Nov 16, 2011.

  1. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan Mu-43 Regular

    30
    Nov 16, 2011
    Coming from a half decent compact (Nikon P300) and a pretty descent camcorder (Panasonic SD600) I want to step up the image quality for pictures and maintain image quality in video and have better control of DOF.

    I am going to do a full set of photography classes and will try to get into wedding photography. I also will be having a few wildlife holidays safaris etc.

    Initially I was set on the G3 and the new 14-42mm x lens, portability plus top image quality. After a visit to the camera shop I found I much preferred the handling, external controls and eye sensor of the G2 and was surprised that the size difference is actually not that much difference in the flesh.

    Hadn't really considered the GH2 before, as I gathered it was large near SLR size, but looking at pictures its actually a tad smaller than the G2, can anyone confirm this?

    If the GH2 is similarly sized to the G2, I would rather stump the extra dosh for the better sensor and extra video capabilities, as eventually I would like to possibility get a camera like the E-P3 for primes and have the GH2 for the larger zooms if I manage to eventually get into wedding photography.

    Any tips?
     
  2. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    I have a GH2 and I played with the G2 in a shop sometime ago. I really liked the handling of the G2, it's very similar to the GH2 both in size and ergonomics, but the GH2's sensor is definitely more advanced: better high-ISO performance and multi-aspect. OTOH, the G3 is just a little bit smaller but I didn't like it at all because of the small grip. In general I think that size differences between the G2, G3 and GH2 are not very significant if you're going to carry anything else than a few pancake primes.

    There are some serious wedding photogs on this site, I doubt they will wholeheartedly recommend the GH2 (or any other µ4/3 camera) for professional wedding photography.
     
  3. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan Mu-43 Regular

    30
    Nov 16, 2011
    I was thinking that I could get some serious shots with a duo of a GH2/E-P3 with the better primes i.e. 25mm/1.4 and 45mm/1.8 and then hope that the forthcoming new F2 or F2.8 X zooms are quality.

    I know for bad light indoor church stuff, I'll be forced to go FF SLR, but I really would rather learn with the lighter stuff as I know I will use it much more.

    Anyway that's my pipe-dream. :2thumbs:
     
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Either the GH2, G3, or new GX1 will be a hugely significant step up in image quality over the older cameras. At least 2 stops worth of ISO, and that will make a big difference. Also, 16 MP vs 12 will give you more PP and output options for your clients.

    That said, if you are just getting started, there may be some issues with client expectation if you show up with anything other than Canikon emblazoned across the front. There are a number of threads on here where getting into wedding photography is discussed.
     
  5. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan Mu-43 Regular

    30
    Nov 16, 2011
    With this advise and a bit of research, I'm going to buy and learn with a G2 with the 14-42mm X lens and if I get as good as I hope I will use it as my travel and back-up cam with something like a Nikon D7000 as my pro cam.

    What do people think go second hand, body-only £208 and its been hacked with all the movie modes unlocked. + £300 for x lens - £60 Panasonic redemption = £448

    or

    £350 with kit lens and x lens £300 - £100 Panasonic redemption and hopefully - £50 for the orginal kits lens = £500ish.

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    Do you know that the price of the GH2 has dropped by US$200 at B&H?
     
  7. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    The G2 is fine, but all things considered, the newer GH2 sensor is quite a bit nicer, as are the other refinements (wider EVF, better video options, etc.).

    Can't beat the G2 on price though.

    DH
     
  8. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    I don't think anyone answered one of your original questions: The GH2 is very slightly bigger than the G2, mainly because of the bigger EVF hump. I own both, and both are very nice cameras. I prefer the GH2 primarily because of it's more customizable controls. The sensor is better, but the one in the G2 isn't far behind. The GH2 is certainly the more flexible video tool but, again, I think the G2 is probably fine for most uses.
     
  9. Rudi

    Rudi Mu-43 Top Veteran

    574
    Aug 16, 2010
    Australia
    At this stage, I wouldn't recommend µ4/3 for wedding photography. That is not to say that it won't eventually get to a point where it might be more competent in that area, or that no wedding photography can be done with µ4/3 gear. It's just that, at this stage, I would not bring only µ4/3 to a wedding gig. I might bring a µ4/3 camera and a couple of lenses with me, but I would only use them in addition to my DLSR gear, not instead of.
     
  10. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan Mu-43 Regular

    30
    Nov 16, 2011
    So a Nikon D7000 with relevent lenses and a G2/GH2 with 25 and 45mm primes as a back up would be a good wedding kit?
     
  11. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Love my G2. I'm sure I'd love the GH2 as well. I find that form factor incredibly comfortable and everything is right where I need it.
     
  12. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Yes, a Nikon D7000 with 17-55mm and 70-200mm would make a very solid beginning to a decent wedding kit. However, it takes more than the gear to make the man. I could give you Lance Armstrong's bike or Roger Federer's tennis racket, but that would make you no more qualified to participate in the Tour de France or Wimbledon. Experience and capability are much much much more important than any gear that you'll bring to the event. Although, talking about gear, don't forget that you'll need lighting, backup equipment, multiple cards, etc. etc. A good wedding photographer will show up to an event with $40,000 or more in equipment to properly get the shots. You can't just walk in to Best Buy or Ritz camera, buy yourself the most expensive camera on the shelf, and call yourself a wedding shooter.

    I'd say to get yourself the G2 right now. Buy it, start small, because it will still be more camera than you will be able to handle for the first two years of your photography journey. By the time you're able to fully utilize it and take advantage of the better features of the GH2, the GH3 or GH4 will likely be out, so don't waste your money right now. Buy yourself a solid starter's kit:
    - G2 body
    - 14-42 mm lens, from the buy/sell section of this forum. It doesn't have to be the X version, just get the previous Panasonic version or the Olympus R version for $140-$160.
    - 40-150mm lens, for telephoto work
    - 20mm lens, so that you can see what professional-grade image quality and aperture can do, or even the 17mm if you can buy it for $130-$180
     
  13. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    By the same token, you wouldn't train for the Tour de France on a 1-speed Schwinn or learn tennis with a badminton racket.

    The right tools don't guarantee good results, but the wrong tools make life significantly more difficult.

    Wedding photography is primarily about quickly and effectively capturing certain moments. That means lighting and timing are key. In both cases, systems other than m4/3 make life significantly easier.

    DH
     
  14. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I agree with you 100% that there are better choices than m4/3 for weddings. If you look at my previous posts, you'll see that I'm absolutely certain of m4/3's MANY shortcomings, and no blind cheerleader for the system. However, the OP isn't going to be ready to do weddings in the next 3 or more years, given the nature of his question. So, might as well get a small camera to start with, and get his money's worth to start learning photography, because anything he buys today is going to be obsolete by the time he's ready to use it professionally. Even when he is ready for weddings, the G2 will be a nice little personal camera to own, which is what I do. So yeah, he could buy a D7000 today, whose sensor technology mops my D200's up and down the street all day long. But the D7200 will be out by then. He's going to lose so much money to depreciation if he buys professional gear now that he'll be behind financially, no matter what. That kit I mentioned above is just going to be for learning, not for working, and it's going to cost 2/3 of what a D7000 body alone would.

    Going back to that analogy, I wouldn't necessarily be using a $600 Trek road bike for when I'm ready to race. But that doesn't mean that my first bike needs to be an ultra-competitive $8,000 Cervelo. Take baby steps, walk before you run.
     
  15. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan Mu-43 Regular

    30
    Nov 16, 2011
    I completly agree and will be starting small like a G2 and I want a the X lens more for portabilty than the better glass, but I will be getting a 45mm for portrait shots for my partners new beauty business.

    Fortunaly I will be getting mentored by a wedding pro, who I met at my wedding as I hired him :biggrin: Got on with him and said get a decent cam, and he will show me the ropes whilst I also go through professional photography lessons.
     
  16. dfigueroa84

    dfigueroa84 Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Nov 10, 2011
    Oakland, CA
    Couldn't have said it better myself!! Straight grounded, humble knowledge here.
     
  17. Rudi

    Rudi Mu-43 Top Veteran

    574
    Aug 16, 2010
    Australia
    Yep, that would be great. You might even find yourself using the smaller μ43 cameras in a casual way at the reception once in a while (or hand them to an assistant for that role), but for the most part I think you will find the DSLR more capable all-round. And since you're the official wedding photographer, people expect you to have a camera, so you gain nothing by using a smaller, "less conspicuous" kit.
     
  18. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Oh, absolutely! I know what you're saying. I responded somewhat reflexively - there are a lot of 'gear-doesn't-matter' posts out there, and I mistook yours for one of them.

    No point in throwing a lot of money at something is at a minimum several years down the road.

    DH
     
  19. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I understand the easier timing of a DSLR, but how the heck does a DSLR make lighting easier than a m4/3 camera? :confused:

    (Besides which, lighting is much less important to a wedding photography than to most other types of professional photographers. No wedding photographer I know of comes close to the lighting requirements I need for my commercial and fashion shoots.)

    I'm sorry, but that entire comment just sounded like something you threw in without any real thought behind it.
     
  20. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Ah, the m4/3 defense team :) SLR systems like Canon and Nikon have much more advanced flash systems than ours. Nikon's CLS stomps our dinky flash system into oblivion. In addition, PocketWizard for example makes Nikon-specific units that retain i-TTL.