Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by dano, Feb 14, 2012.
Does anyone travel with both.
No but will be going to India in Mar and planning on taking X100 + Pany GX1 plus 14-45/20/45-175mm as I feel this will offer me a great high quality street/landscape camera and a small versatile camera with interchangeable lenses to cover all eventualities.
March is a great time of year to travel to India.
But why wouldn't one use something more pocketable (Canon S100 etc.) than the Fuji X100? Especially, in places like India where it is always crowded and the X100 may be a little too big.
Probably because of the exceptional high ISO performance of the Fuji and the complete rubbish high ISO of the Canon? It's not like an x100 is a big camera.
I shoot both. The IS of the EP3 is very welcome when shooting from horseback, and the overall feel of the X100 is really nice for slower-paced shooting.
It's not like the x100 is a pocketable camera either. And while the exceptional high ISO performance would be nice, would not a more pocketable camera be an advantage when traveling?
When traveling I would take higher quality over pocketable.
What he said.....
For MY own needs and wants, I have had many "compact" cameras and always got home only to be disappointed in the image quality. That's why I looked at m4/3 in the first place. Plus the m4/3 cameras and X100 fit into most jacket pockets, although I just usually use a wrist strap.
For similar reasons, I think, I travel with a Ricoh GXR 28mm and an E-P3 with 20/1.7 and 45/1.8. I would love to get down to one system, but I really like the GXR for cityscapes, landscapes, street stuff etc., but appreciate the fast focus and speed of the m4/3 stuff when in low light.
I think the GXR is often overlooked because people don't like the module system concept (and I would agree that it doesn't really work long term), but the GXR with 28mm module is really just a GRD on steroids. The DR at low ISO is great and the overall size is about the same as the 14mm and E-P3.
I'm not saying that you don't have a primary camera to meet these needs - just that a secondary pocketable one is also good to have for those times when you may not be able carry the larger one.
P.S. I realize that I've taken this thread in a slightly different direction from where the OP wanted to go, so I'll apologize for the diversion and try to stay on topic from now!
If your traveling to india and he is planning to take both cameras and a bunch of lenses you could assume he'll have a camera bag. In that case would size really matter since that package could fit in such a small camera bag. Higher quality over size for sure. But I could only go as far as micro 4/3 or fuji cameras because I would not travel with a dslr....ever
Nah. I like diversions.
It's a valid question. Just how much potential image quality and flexibility are you prepared to give up to save weight. If we, here, didn't want smaller cameras we'd all be carrying large format. It's always a compromise and just where that point is, is different for each of us.
Separate names with a comma.