Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: slowframe on March 14, 2012, 09:33:06 pm
-
Any advice would be much appreciated, I'm not much of a gear head. I'm interested in putting together a very simple, comparatively lightweight, kit for landscapes. I shoot primarily at an EFOV on a 35mm camera of around 20mm, 45mm, and 90mm, but I'm flexible within some limits. I am happy to cover all lengths in a zoom or to carry three primes, or a zoom and a prime. I need to be able to use a graded ND filter and a polariser, but I'm willing to consider changing which ones I use to accommodate a new camera and lenses. This is as secondary kit to use on longer trips when keeping weight down is desirable. Ideally, I'd like to keep my weight down to the range where the camera weighs no more than 700 grams (less is better) and using lighter-weight lenses.
Currently I shoot film for the most part on a Voigtlander Bessa IV and have the relevant lenses, but even there in terms of lenses I'm willing to change. Does anyone have a view about whether the newer M4/3 cameras produce attractive results in landscapes- I'm especially interested in prints rather than electronic results? I haven't seen prints from them or from many digital cameras that I can identify. At present the largest enlargements I normally make are 20" x 20" (I shoot a lot at 1:1), and it's hard to imagine that I have need to go any larger. I don't need many features, but I do care about weight. ease of manual exposure and focusing, and image quality (from RAW files, OOC jpegs aren't of much interest to me).
I'm sorry to ask such a general question, but while I can afford to spend once on a good digital system, I can't afford to keep cycling through bodies or lenses and want to make an intelligent decision. I'll sort out a tripod and filters once I figure out a camera and lenses.
Thank you for any thoughts.
-
I think a m4/3 or APC mirrorless system could work well for you. I have made 20 inch prints from my E-P1 with Cosina Voightlander lenses and have been very pleased with them. The Panasonic and Olympus lenses are for the most part better. The latest, almost to be released, Olympus OM-D/E-M5 might work nicely for what you do as the body and new zoom lens is weatherproof. I would wait for reviews to come out.
I would try to get your hands on some of these cameras. Just to see how they feel and the way they operate. It will also give you an idea what working with an EVF/Monitor is like. Many folks have made a good transition to mirrorless cameras, a few have not.
-
The previous poster said it all but I just wanted to add that I use a Panasonic G1 mostly with a manual 25mm f0.95 Voigtlander lens and I find it to be a very film like experience as the size and weight of the camera and lens is more in line with the film cameras I previously used than the bloated and heavy DSLR's. I mostly use primes but the 14-42mm kit lens is small and light and produces sharp images.
-
Thank you for your reply; that's very helpful. It's especially good to hear some positive results for printing. I'm quite open minded about using an electronic view finder. The EM-5 looks pretty interesting, from what I can find online. I'll wait until there are more sample images and until I can handle one in a store, at least, before rushing to judgment.
-
Just one more thought, if you are shooting with a Bessa rangefinder, the new Fuji X-Pro1 might be an interesting choice for you. While not a rangefinder proper, it would have both an OVF and EVF.
-
That's also reassuring and sounds like a good fit for me. I'm glad to hear that m4/3 might do the trick and will echo film shooting to some extent, which would bring a nice feeling of familiarity. My main experience with digital cameras is with a point and shoot, which was convenient but not terribly satisfying.
Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated.
The previous poster said it all but I just wanted to add that I use a Panasonic G1 mostly with a manual 25mm f0.95 Voigtlander lens and I find it to be a very film like experience as the size and weight of the camera and lens is more in line with the film cameras I previously used than the bloated and heavy DSLR's. I mostly use primes but the 14-42mm kit lens is small and light and produces sharp images.
-
That sounds like an interesting idea. I had taken an interest in the x100 when it came out, but there seemed to be a lot of controversy in photo forums about ease and reliability of operation. I think I really need to try out a camera of that cost in person, since it seems like there are so many dogmatic fans and also skeptics of the x series cameras that it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff in the first-hand reviews of the product. I'm not really a rangefinder (or rangerfinder-inspired camera) nut per se, but I do like the much smaller physical profile of the camera and lenses. On the down side, I suppose, it's more difficult to get things right using filters than on an SLR. But, the EVF must work through the lens, so it's probably possible to see what's going on adequately well with the Fuji or an M4/3.
Thanks for the suggestion. This gives me a few things to look into more closely once the cameras are around to try in person.
Just one more thought, if you are shooting with a Bessa rangefinder, the new Fuji X-Pro1 might be an interesting choice for you. While not a rangefinder proper, it would have both an OVF and EVF.
-
from my brief comparison of Panasonic GX1 and G3 to Canon 7D and 5D2, you may find m4/3 marginal for 20x20 prints. on the other hand, i'd say the GX1 or G3 is as good as the 20D which was the first digital camera i thought practically comparable to film. and Panasonic has enough high quality lenses
the x-Pro 1 is interesting (although not nearly as light and compact), but i'm certainly going to wait for some thorough testing to demonstrate that the clever sensor - and editing tools to go with it - deliver as hyped
from test results, the Nex-7 is the only "available" compact/light camera that can - with good lenses - deliver larger prints. problem is limited availablility - so far - of many lenses that realize the capability of the camera
of course, there's the M9
-
I think a m4/3 or APC mirrorless system could work well for you. I have made 20 inch prints from my E-P1 with Cosina Voightlander lenses and have been very pleased with them. The Panasonic and Olympus lenses are for the most part better. The latest, almost to be released, Olympus OM-D/E-M5 might work nicely for what you do as the body and new zoom lens is weatherproof. I would wait for reviews to come out.
I second that. I just placed a preorder for the EM-5, first time I preorder a camera (I would wait for reviews though if you are not in a rush).
Seems to have a good quality sensor, the lenses available are good to very good (and too many reasons to go overboard with the money ;)), it's half the size and volume of a DX system and has some weatherproofing also.
-
I have a complete m4/3 system, to go along with a Canon 5D Mark II and a pair of 1D Mark IV cameras. I use the m4/3 for travel, personal work, and as a walk-around camera. With careful technique, a 16x24 inch print looks very good, and a great 13x19 is easy. (By that I mean using a tripod, careful focusing, etc. - exactly the same careful technique required with any camera.)
Right now we have a GF1, a G1, and a GH2, along with the 14-45, 14-42, 45-200 zooms, and the 14, 20, and 45/1.8 prime lenses. The GF1 and G1 share the same sensor, which is fine at lower ISO values, while the GH2 is a newer and better 16-mp sensor. The 14-45 is quite nice, and is much better in all ways than the 14-42 for still photography. However, the prime lenses - especially the Panny 20/1.7 and the Olympus 45/1.8 - are just simply excellent.
To create a lightweight system that covers the focal lengths you want, I would buy a Panasonic G3 or GH2, or the new Olympus OM-D, and the Panasonic 7-14, and either the 14-45 or the 20 and 45 primes. Which lenses depend on whether you will want to shoot street or portrait or photo-j with them, or just lock it down on a tripod for landscapes. My next purchase is the 7-14 (though I'm pretty sure it won't take filters on the front, which might lead you to the Oly 9-18.) Which camera you want depends entirely on taste - all of them have a built-in EVF, while the Oly has in-body stabilization. I've grown so used to the Panasonic user interface that I would just keep buying those, but of course YMMV.
Good luck. Shooting with the small cameras is fun.
-
Although I'm open minded and would like to see how the x-pro 1 tests out, I'm inclined to wait quite a while on the x series cameras. With the caveat that I haven't seen any prints, I've seen some stellar images made by the x100. However, the cameras all sound buggy, and I imagine that just a few iterations down the road, a really satisfying version might be produced. The sensor does interest me, but I can't say that I've got a clear sense of which elements of the technology chain, including the question of AA filters, determine ultimate image quality. I don't really care about jpegs from the camera, but even with RAW files there are, as far as I can tell, many variables arising from how individual sensor/software combinations are implemented.
Thanks for the heads up on prints. This again makes me think that I really need to see some test results and some field-tested images.
from my brief comparison of Panasonic GX1 and G3 to Canon 7D and 5D2, you may find m4/3 marginal for 20x20 prints. on the other hand, i'd say the GX1 or G3 is as good as the 20D which was the first digital camera i thought practically comparable to film. and Panasonic has enough high quality lenses
the x-Pro 1 is interesting (although not nearly as light and compact), but i'm certainly going to wait for some thorough testing to demonstrate that the clever sensor - and editing tools to go with it - deliver as hyped
from test results, the Nex-7 is the only "available" compact/light camera that can - with good lenses - deliver larger prints. problem is limited availablility - so far - of many lenses that realize the capability of the camera
of course, there's the M9
-
I can wait for a little bit- I did see a test for the EM-5, but it was written in German, which makes it impossible for me to read. I'll try google translate.
I second that. I just placed a preorder for the EM-5, first time I preorder a camera (I would wait for reviews though if you are not in a rush).
Seems to have a good quality sensor, the lenses available are good to very good (and too many reasons to go overboard with the money ;)), it's half the size and volume of a DX system and has some weatherproofing also.
-
I cannot say enough good things about the Panasonic 4/3 system, current camera model the G3. The lenses are all Leica glass, I believe, and you get 16 MP images. It does not do well at high ISOs, images are noisy, but for landscape work this should not be a problem. In fact, I am in the process of selling my Nikon D700 kit because it has no image quality advantages over the Panasonic and is much heavier and bulkier. You can see some images at my website (below), the Alaska portfolio was all taken with the previous body, the 12MP G2. Last month I spent a week in Nicaragua and was able to easily tote my G3 kit with 14-600 mm equivalent lenses, negotiating muddy jungle trails that would have been problematic or impossible with the Nikon gear. I find the prints to be highest quality. My take is that sensor technology has advanced to the point where the "superiority" of full-frame sensors is pretty much non-existent (high ISO work excepted).
-
Thank you for the very specific information about prints and lenses. 14-45 covers a good range. I've read good things about the Olympus 12mm- with that I'd have most of what I shoot completely covered. Two smallish lenses and smallish camera, that does sound nice! Just out of curiosity, is there any reason to think, adjusting for focal length, that using some of the better Cosian/Voigtlander lenses in screwmount or M wouldn't produce sharp results? The edges of the image circle will far overshoot the sensor- can you safely expect good cent sharpness as a result?
I may eventually invest in a bigger camera, but I am interested in seeing what I can get out of a smaller camera.
I have a complete m4/3 system, to go along with a Canon 5D Mark II and a pair of 1D Mark IV cameras. I use the m4/3 for travel, personal work, and as a walk-around camera. With careful technique, a 16x24 inch print looks very good, and a great 13x19 is easy. (By that I mean using a tripod, careful focusing, etc. - exactly the same careful technique required with any camera.)
Right now we have a GF1, a G1, and a GH2, along with the 14-45, 14-42, 45-200 zooms, and the 14, 20, and 45/1.8 prime lenses. The GF1 and G1 share the same sensor, which is fine at lower ISO values, while the GH2 is a newer and better 16-mp sensor. The 14-45 is quite nice, and is much better in all ways than the 14-42 for still photography. However, the prime lenses - especially the Panny 20/1.7 and the Olympus 45/1.8 - are just simply excellent.
To create a lightweight system that covers the focal lengths you want, I would buy a Panasonic G3 or GH2, or the new Olympus OM-D, and the Panasonic 7-14, and either the 14-45 or the 20 and 45 primes. Which lenses depend on whether you will want to shoot street or portrait or photo-j with them, or just lock it down on a tripod for landscapes. My next purchase is the 7-14 (though I'm pretty sure it won't take filters on the front, which might lead you to the Oly 9-18.) Which camera you want depends entirely on taste - all of them have a built-in EVF, while the Oly has in-body stabilization. I've grown so used to the Panasonic user interface that I would just keep buying those, but of course YMMV.
Good luck. Shooting with the small cameras is fun.
-
I just had a look at your website; very nice work. The composition on the Alaskan photo of the green sprig jutting out from some pebbles and stones really caught me eye.
High ISO work isn't a priority to me- not really an issue for landscapes, anyway, as you say. I'm willing to work some noise in the images at higher ISOs if I need to for other shots. As with the other replies, this really has me looking forward to getting out. I'm not likely to make it to the jungles of central America, but even in my more humble excursions, I think I won't miss and extra kilogram or two (or more) of equipment.
I cannot say enough good things about the Panasonic 4/3 system, current camera model the G3. The lenses are all Leica glass, I believe, and you get 16 MP images. It does not do well at high ISOs, images are noisy, but for landscape work this should not be a problem. In fact, I am in the process of selling my Nikon D700 kit because it has no image quality advantages over the Panasonic and is much heavier and bulkier. You can see some images at my website (below), the Alaska portfolio was all taken with the previous body, the 12MP G2. Last month I spent a week in Nicaragua and was able to easily tote my G3 kit with 14-600 mm equivalent lenses, negotiating muddy jungle trails that would have been problematic or impossible with the Nikon gear. I find the prints to be highest quality. My take is that sensor technology has advanced to the point where the "superiority" of full-frame sensors is pretty much non-existent (high ISO work excepted).
-
Thank you for the very specific information about prints and lenses. 14-45 covers a good range. I've read good things about the Olympus 12mm- with that I'd have most of what I shoot completely covered.
Here's another Olympus 12mm review that you might find interesting and possibly helpful (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-12mm-review.html). And the same photog's view of the Olympus 45mm lens (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-45mm.html).
In my own mind, I would get the 7-14/4 over the 12/2 for general landscape and travel work. That's not to say I don't lust after the 12, since most of my personal work is people and documentary.
-
I cannot say enough good things about the Panasonic 4/3 system... My take is that sensor technology has advanced to the point where the "superiority" of full-frame sensors is pretty much non-existent (high ISO work excepted).
I was recently looking at some on line RAW images taken with various new model cameras at higher ISO's and I compared one of my existing cameras to these new models. Whilst the newer designs produced better higher ISO images I did notice that the example online files from my existing camera looked rather good, and then I spotted that the shutter speeds they'd used for all cameras were into the 1/2000's sec. With such good light levels I'm not surprised that the images looked good but in reality I don't think I'd be using ISO 3200 in such good lighting. If I was using ISO 3200 I'd expect my shutter speed to be considerably less than that, much less than 1/100 with a wide to mid range focal length, surely.
Comparing my own micro four thirds shots to my 5D mk1 I'd say that the 5D is maybe a stop better at ISO 1600 but that my micro four thirds cameras are perfectly usable at that ISO, ISO 3200 being a bit hopeful but usable if you can expose to the right, do some careful processing and don't expect large gallery quality prints.
On the positive side I find that I can hand hold micro four thirds cameras and get usable images at much lower shutter speeds than I can my 5D. With my 5D and a 50mm f1.4 I'd expect my keeper rate to start to drop as I fell below 1/80th sec but with a micro four thirds camera I can hand hold a 25mm at 1/30th or so, in fact I recently got a keeper at 1/15th sec f0.95 and ISO 400. Figures like that go some way to redressing the 5D's superiority at ISO 1600/3200 IMVHO.
-
I agree that the Lumix 7-14mm (14-24mm eqiv) is worth a look. I've been using it for a while and the results compare very favorably with the Nikkor 14-24mm.
-
there have been some tests and discussion of screw and m-mount lenses on m4/3 and other mirrorless cameras - photozone, Reid Reviews, Dlloyd.com (the last two subscription), and by Michael. the long and short of it is that new retrofocus designs work pretty well and older designs not so well because the cover glass on the sensor results in severe chromatic abberation and poor resolution outside the center of the image
-
Slowframe,...before you go any further you need to look at a 20x16 inch landscape print from any m4/3 camera. Expectations and what is acceptable are VERY subjective between photographers. I use Sony NEX 3 camera to produce 20x16 inch prints and, to my eyes, they are visibly better than those from m4/3. Some of the m4/3 cameras are very nice and seductive, but you like me, may think that there is no point in using a good camera when there are better ones for the same (or less) money.
-
I'll go and read the discussions. Thank you for the pointer.
there have been some tests and discussion of screw and m-mount lenses on m4/3 and other mirrorless cameras - photozone, Reid Reviews, Dlloyd.com (the last two subscription), and by Michael. the long and short of it is that new retrofocus designs work pretty well and older designs not so well because the cover glass on the sensor results in severe chromatic abberation and poor resolution outside the center of the image
-
I'm very happy to save money whenever possible. It would be good to look at prints from different cameras, and I also would like to handle them and have a look at the menus/controls. The ability to assign features to external controls, rather than have to swim through a menu, is the one feature that I do care about. This thread has been very helpful for gathering some information and ideas about what to look at, and it'll will certainly help me move forward wisely.
Slowframe,...before you go any further you need to look at a 20x16 inch landscape print from any m4/3 camera. Expectations and what is acceptable are VERY subjective between photographers. I use Sony NEX 3 camera to produce 20x16 inch prints and, to my eyes, they are visibly better than those from m4/3. Some of the m4/3 cameras are very nice and seductive, but you like me, may think that there is no point in using a good camera when there are better ones for the same (or less) money.
-
The wife and I are stalwart Pentax K-5 users, but we have found that other, non-Pentax, cameras can perform just as well (except as very high ISO), and, yet, weigh less:
The NEX-5N with a Zeiss 1.8/24 on, is my favourite just now, a complete camera system weighing in at about a pound (half a kilogram), and it does excellent panormas, even with the camera vertical - just now my outdoor favourite camera system! Add the two-ounce Sony E16 lens to the package, and you have a complete APS-C camera setup that weighs just a little more, with a quality that astounds me again, and again. With a cheap K Mount adapter we've tried some Pentax FA lenses, and a very old Pentax-M 400mm (and a 2X converter), with impressive results (often better results than when I've used the same lens on the K-5).
My wife has just the E18-200 zoom on her 5N, which is an truely amazing lens: Not the fastest out of the blocks, but sharp from one end to the other. It was designed for the pro NEX movie cameras, but works perfectly on any NEX, and she is very pleased with hers - seems the 5N and that lens together produces an amazing percentage of hits, focus almost always spot on, although, occasionally, the camera chooses a too low shutter speed for perfect results. A monopod is a perfect add-on!
But the NEX-5N isn't what I'd call rugged, and nor is it intended for abuse, like the OM-D hopefully is (if we can believe the advertising guys shots of one being soaked in rain). Nor is the NEX-5N very discreet, as its shutter is LOUD - far louder than the K-5, for instance!
And if you are a person that likes to use a viewfinder, it is VERY hard to find (I searched the globe till I found one, but I haven't found a second for my wife). The excellent Zeiss 1.8/24 is sold out, for months to come, according to Steve Huff. Only problem I have with the Zeiss is that it doesn't come with anti-shake (nor does the E16), so you have to keep your shutter speed in mind! The Sony 18-55 kit lens is OK, but I seldom use mine (it is stowed away with a few other kit lenses, that I've managed to acquire through the years).
But there is now another, very rugged, guy on the block, weighing in at about a kilo, with a flash & three lenses, two of which by SLR Gear.com pronounced as among the better there are, for any size of camera (the third haven't been tested, yet).
It is small & quiet, and with an adapter you can use any Nikon lens you can imagine on it (with their auto-focus and anti-shake fully functional, in most cases - need to have their own focusing motor), and it has already proved popular with the long lens guys - seen birds being photographed with 300-600mm zooms (that, in FX/FF terms, means 810-1620mm - to that you can add a converter, or two - the sky is the limit!), with excellent results, as long as you're VERY steady!
I gave one of these marvels to my wife, but she has since opted for the OM-D. So now I a very happy punter, indeed!
I'm talking about the magnesium-bodied, fairly heavy (half a serious DSLR in weight), supersmooth Nikon V1. This camera, with a screw-on Canon 250D close-up lens (you need a stepping ring, of course), is a complete camera system, covering everything (including decent macro) but the very wide (the 10/2.8 prime is very much a 'normal' lens and there isn't anything wider, yet).
Adding a TF1 adapter and you can use (almost - see above) any Nikon lens you can think of on the V1. The results can be amazing - I've just tried a few AF-S lenses (as I wrote, I'm a Pentax guy), and the old 80-200/4 that Ken Rockwell calls the sharpest tele zoom Nikon ever have made! The results have been more than OK, like this picture:
(http://)
-
Great- thank you for the detailed information on the Sony NEX-5N and on the Nikon V1. I'll do some more investigating. And thank you for the photo, too. I'm a little worried about the 10MP resolution of the V1. 10MP might be okay for shooting in native 3:2 (I assume it has a 3:2 sensor, if it's 4:3 it would yield 7 1/2 MPs). I commonly shoot in 1:1, however, and a 10MP sensor will produce 6 2/3 MP images at 1:1. That's probably getting too small. If I don't get an APS-C format camera, I'm coming to think that M4/3 may be more attractive, since I also like 4:3 as an aspect ratio, and it would lose less in a crop to 1:1. The newer 16mp M4/3 cameras would yield a fairly respectable (for enlargement) 12mp 1:1 image.
The wife and I are stalwart Pentax K-5 users, but we have found that other, non-Pentax, cameras can perform just as well (except as very high ISO), and, yet, weigh less:
The NEX-5N with a Zeiss 1.8/24 on, is my favourite just now, a complete camera system weighing in at about a pound (half a kilogram), and it does excellent panormas, even with the camera vertical - just now my outdoor favourite camera system! Add the two-ounce Sony E16 lens to the package, and you have a complete APS-C camera setup that weighs just a little more, with a quality that astounds me again, and again. With a cheap K Mount adapter we've tried some Pentax FA lenses, and a very old Pentax-M 400mm (and a 2X converter), with impressive results (often better results than when I've used the same lens on the K-5).
My wife has just the E18-200 zoom on her 5N, which is an truely amazing lens: Not the fastest out of the blocks, but sharp from one end to the other. It was designed for the pro NEX movie cameras, but works perfectly on any NEX, and she is very pleased with hers - seems the 5N and that lens together produces an amazing percentage of hits, focus almost always spot on, although, occasionally, the camera chooses a too low shutter speed for perfect results. A monopod is a perfect add-on!
But the NEX-5N isn't what I'd call rugged, and nor is it intended for abuse, like the OM-D hopefully is (if we can believe the advertising guys shots of one being soaked in rain). Nor is the NEX-5N very discreet, as its shutter is LOUD - far louder than the K-5, for instance!
And if you are a person that likes to use a viewfinder, it is VERY hard to find (I searched the globe till I found one, but I haven't found a second for my wife). The excellent Zeiss 1.8/24 is sold out, for months to come, according to Steve Huff. Only problem I have with the Zeiss is that it doesn't come with anti-shake (nor does the E16), so you have to keep your shutter speed in mind! The Sony 18-55 kit lens is OK, but I seldom use mine (it is stowed away with a few other kit lenses, that I've managed to acquire through the years).
But there is now another, very rugged, guy on the block, weighing in at about a kilo, with a flash & three lenses, two of which by SLR Gear.com pronounced as among the better there are, for any size of camera (the third haven't been tested, yet).
It is small & quiet, and with an adapter you can use any Nikon lens you can imagine on it (with their auto-focus and anti-shake fully functional, in most cases - need to have their own focusing motor), and it has already proved popular with the long lens guys - seen birds being photographed with 300-600mm zooms (that, in FX/FF terms, means 810-1620mm - to that you can add a converter, or two - the sky is the limit!), with excellent results, as long as you're VERY steady!
I gave one of these marvels to my wife, but she has since opted for the OM-D. So now I a very happy punter, indeed!
I'm talking about the magnesium-bodied, fairly heavy (half a serious DSLR in weight), supersmooth Nikon V1. This camera, with a screw-on Canon 250D close-up lens (you need a stepping ring, of course), is a complete camera system, covering everything (including decent macro) but the very wide (the 10/2.8 prime is very much a 'normal' lens and there isn't anything wider, yet).
Adding a TF1 adapter and you can use (almost - see above) any Nikon lens you can think of on the V1. The results can be amazing - I've just tried a few AF-S lenses (as I wrote, I'm a Pentax guy), and the old 80-200/4 that Ken Rockwell calls the sharpest tele zoom Nikon ever have made! The results have been more than OK, like this picture:
(http://)
-
Yes, the V1 has a disadvantage for your tastes in having a 10MP 3:2 sensor, 3872x2592, so 1:1 crop is 2592x2592, 6.7MP. Micro Four Thirds options like the G3, GX1 and OM-D E-M5 with their 4:3 format do look good for you.
P. S. it is strange to read gear choice discussions like this where Canon is scarcely mentioned: that never happened a few years ago, before Panasonic and Olympus introduced Micro Four Thirds and Sony introduced its EXMOR sensors with column parallel ADC.
-
An apology about an unclear bit of writing above- I had indeed meant to say that on a 10MP sensor with a native 3:2 aspect ratio, you would end up with 6 2/3MP, but if it's a 4:3 ratio sensor (which I now gather it is not), it would yield 7 1/2 MPs on a 1:1 crop. It may have read as though a 4:3 crop from a 10MP 3:2 sensor would yield 7 1/2 MPs. A 10MP 3:2 cropped to 4:3 should yield 8 1/3 MPs.
On Canon, I've been surprised to see how little of real interest to me has turned up looking into building a lightweight camera system. The Canon G1x doesn't really suit my needs, and it's the closest thing I could find. I'm not so surprised to see Olympus's name cropping up. They certainly have a good history with smaller cameras and high quality lenses. Panasonic just doesn't seem like a camera company to me- I associate them with DVD players and other consumer electronics- but it sounds like they've done a bang up job with lenses and cameras.
Yes, the V1 has a disadvantage for your tastes in having a 10MP 3:2 sensor, 3872x2592, so 1:1 crop is 2592x2592, 6.7MP. Micro Four Thirds options like the G3, GX1 and OM-D E-M5 with their 4:3 format do look good for you.
P. S. it is strange to read gear choice discussions like this where Canon is scarcely mentioned: that never happened a few years ago, before Panasonic and Olympus introduced Micro Four Thirds and Sony introduced its EXMOR sensors with column parallel ADC.
-
Panasonic just doesn't seem like a camera company to me- I associate them with DVD players and other consumer electronics- but it sounds like they've done a bang up job with lenses and cameras.
Panasonic make some nice cameras, so nice in fact that for years Leica have been able to buy them and sell them on with a healthy price rise. These days cameras are moving ever more into the realms of the consumer electronic companies and perhaps a little further away every day from the traditional camera companies. In the near future Sony and Panasonic may be the Canon and Nikon of today :)
-
This is an interesting topic to me and I thank all the people who have contributed their ideas.
I am a DX shooter, but have been getting frustrated by several things. The first is the weight and size of the system I have, the second is the weight and size of the system I want (bigger and heavier since I want to add a few good primes to my walk-about zoom lenses), and the last is a lack of choice in the DX lens system ( I do not want to have to go to FX lenses to build a DX system, more bulk and weight).
I do wonder about the comments on the various enlargment sizes. It seems to me that if we don't know what lenses are used then discussing whether or not a certain camera body or type will not matter much. I am assuming that those expensive prime lenses made for the m4/3 systme will produce much higher quality images than the zoons for the same system. But, will they produce higher quality images than the 18-105mm zoom I use in my DX system? That is the kind of thing that concerns me.
-
Slowframe,...before you go any further you need to look at a 20x16 inch landscape print from any m4/3 camera. Expectations and what is acceptable are VERY subjective between photographers. I use Sony NEX 3 camera to produce 20x16 inch prints and, to my eyes, they are visibly better than those from m4/3. Some of the m4/3 cameras are very nice and seductive, but you like me, may think that there is no point in using a good camera when there are better ones for the same (or less) money.
Don't we also have to know what lenses are being used? For example, if the NEX body is mated to a high quality prime lens and the m4/3 is mated to a cheaper consumer zoom, perhaps most of the quality difference is found there and not in the body. On the other hand if the NEX and a consumer zoom can exceed the m4/3 with a quality prime lens, then that would be a significant plus for the NEX. My 2 cents.