[Guest]

Have you spent much time with the GH2? Any complaints or nothing but praise ? On paper it seems like nice camera; though a bit pricey.



[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1307885191' post='9147']

Yes, the L14-150 works via adapter. The AF speed is good although tracking is surely not an option. It focuses far faster than -say- the Oly 12-60 (which is also sort of usable on the GH2). The AF has been much improved on the GH2 compared to previous Lumix Gs. It will work on all MFT cameras as far as I know but speed-wise it's probably a good idea to stick to the GH2, G3 or the upcoming GF3.

Portrait lenses are scares in (M)FT land. Frankly it's not the place to be for this. A viable option could be the Leica 45/2.8 which would add macro capabilities - certainly also an aspect for the great outdoors. It's just a 90mm f/5.6 in terms of DOF though. The Oly 50/2 (FT), thus a quite attractive 100/4, can also be mounted but the AF is supposed to be very, very slow. Other than that it would also be possible to use a manual focus Voigtlander (e.g. 77/1.8, 50/1.5 or 50/1.1). MF is fairly easy on MFT thanks to the magnified view.



Alternatively you could just use a used L10 (which I still consider over the GH2 actually). A very underestimated DSLR except for high ISO. Very sharp.

[/quote]

[Klaus]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1307966918' post='9173']

Have you spent much time with the GH2? Any complaints or nothing but praise ? On paper it seems like nice camera; though a bit pricey.





[/quote]



Well, the touch screen is hardly on iPhone level if you want to read a complaint (I don't use it anyway though).

I would prefer to have a front dial (or both) rather than a back dial only.

Maybe a little too much plastic.



But yes, I like it.

[Steinar1]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1307979814' post='9174']

Well, the touch screen is hardly on iPhone level if you want to read a complaint (I don't use it anyway though).

I would prefer to have a front dial (or both) rather than a back dial only.

Maybe a little too much plastic.



But yes, I like it.

[/quote]



What about the GF1 compared to the GF2 Klaus. I have not tried it myself, but I like the lay-out better on the GF1 and szriously consider it while I wait for the Nikon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

[joachim]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1307949915' post='9166']

We don't reach statistically relevant levels here. However, both the 9-18 and 14-42 had slight issues here.

[/quote]



Hi Klaus,



Thanks for the reply. Just that I understand it, the sample you tested suffered from a bit of decentering when you tested it. Do you have any evidence for it getting worse quickly with use? You original statement sort of implied that, but your present doesn't.





Thanks again

Joachim

[Klaus]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1307983089' post='9176']

What about the GF1 compared to the GF2 Klaus. I have not tried it myself, but I like the lay-out better on the GF1 and szriously consider it while I wait for the Nikon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

[/quote]



I have the GH2, not the GF2. Frankly I think that a viewfinder is a must-have.

[Klaus]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1307989912' post='9182']

Hi Klaus,



Thanks for the reply. Just that I understand it, the sample you tested suffered from a bit of decentering when you tested it. Do you have any evidence for it getting worse quickly with use? You original statement sort of implied that, but your present doesn't.





Thanks again

Joachim

[/quote]



The 14-42 is quite trashy (wobbly) IMHO. The 9-18 is better but I think the retractable design is simply not needed. The MFT wide and standard zoom lenses are small enough for sure in their conventional design.

[joachim]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1307996403' post='9187']

The 14-42 is quite trashy (wobbly) IMHO. The 9-18 is better but I think the retractable design is simply not needed. The MFT wide and standard zoom lenses are small enough for sure in their conventional design.

[/quote]



Hi Klaus,



Thanks for replying. I agree that the 14-42 is very wobbly, though the result at short and medium focal length are surprisingly good considering these feature. From a user perspective, I actually value the collapsible design quite a lot. Allows for a much smaller bag than any of the Lumix competition would. It matters if you have a camera with a single lens. Once you start adding more lenses (with their caps) you need a proper kit back and the size differences between the lenses are less important.



Thanks again for your reply. J.

[Guest]

I started to reduce my load during trips some time ago, because I learned that it is much more fun if you don't have to carry 20-25kg around on your back...

(those guys take it to the extreme: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/...index.html)



For photography I take my Ricoh GX-100 with me. That's quite an outdated camera, but it produces nice pictures at ISO 80 and offers a sharp lens. The big advantage is, that this camera will fit into most pockets and will be available if you need it. It's also much less obstrusive compared to a DSLR + large lens.



So maybe some of the new small cameras with 10MP 1/1,8" Sensor are good enough for your travel needs? Olympus XZ-1, Canon S90, Samsung EX-1, Panasonic LX-5 come to my mind...



I would only take a system camera if you really need lenses that can not be covered by the good compact cameras.



Yes, you have to give up some dynamic range with the small cameras and ISO 1600 pictures wouldn't look as nice compared to a DSLR, on the other hand I was fine with ISO 100 slide film 10 years ago which offered much more "noise" and much less dynamic range.



Martin

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Martin R.' timestamp='1308394560' post='9325']

I started to reduce my load during trips some time ago, because I learned that it is much more fun if you don't have to carry 20-25kg around on your back...

(those guys take it to the extreme: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/...index.html)



For photography I take my Ricoh GX-100 with me. That's quite an outdated camera, but it produces nice pictures at ISO 80 and offers a sharp lens. The big advantage is, that this camera will fit into most pockets and will be available if you need it. It's also much less obstrusive compared to a DSLR + large lens.



So maybe some of the new small cameras with 10MP 1/1,8" Sensor are good enough for your travel needs? Olympus XZ-1, Canon S90, Samsung EX-1, Panasonic LX-5 come to my mind...



I would only take a system camera if you really need lenses that can not be covered by the good compact cameras.



Yes, you have to give up some dynamic range with the small cameras and ISO 1600 pictures wouldn't look as nice compared to a DSLR, on the other hand I was fine with ISO 100 slide film 10 years ago which offered much more "noise" and much less dynamic range.



Martin

[/quote]

If you like the snapshot look from big DOF compact cameras, a compact will be fine. But no substitute for more creative work with a DSLR.



Slide film has a more dynamic feel, because of the special tonal curve. Also, you never viewed slide film photos in the same manner...



And "noise" with film is of a totally different character than the ugly noise from sensors... You are not being fair to slide film!

[Guest]

> (those guys take it to the extreme: http://www.backpacki...ight/index.html)



Superb site. But even if you don't take it to the extreme, it is quite fun if you halve the 20-25kg including water & camera.



Anyway, regarding the original post, I just saw the Panasonic GF-3 + 14mm in real life; it is tiny and seems to give the best pancake lens compromise to me. Really not that much to fight about in terms of size when comparing to the GX-100, which I own remains of. If you can afford £400 or equivalent, that might be an option.



On the other hand, I would be a lot more sorry if I had dipped one of those instead of my GX-100 when trying and failing to wade a large swollen mountain stream in North Sweden! But if you are confident you can keep it dry, I'd consider micro 4/3rds (and I expect to go for it myself (G-3) fairly soon if the 100-300mm review goes all right).