go to b&H and play around! drools... megastore!! i guess the other thing is the "feel" of how it goes in your hand tho i guess that's something that can be gotten used to i'm so tempted to upgrade my slr =( but ughhh don't think i should atm LOL
Yeah, that B&H store (the other being Adorama) had gotten so much of my money over the years. But still, I never left without a smile. At any rate, after trolling the net I found out that both Sony and Panasonic are about to announce newer models than the NEX 5 and GF2; both of which will feature 16 true Megapixel resolutions. So, it may be in my best interests to wait a month or two.
I understand that the Lumix series of camera's are quite small, especially with a pancake lens... however one other thing I hate about carrying around a M4/3 is the fact you always need to keep track of your lens cap Something as minor as an automatic shutter to protect the lens actually goes a pretty far way for me. But I'm exceptionally lazy with things like this... in any case, all of your camera choices are excellent and I'm sure you'll do well even if you closed your eyes and chose at random. (Also, I'm hoping that the P7000's lag issue will be cured with a firmware update)
You know, Fearless, even way back to the 1960's when I picked up my first camera, the first thing that I threw away was the lens cap. I never found any use for them as they were more often than not, just in the way. If I seriously wanted to protect a very expensive lens, I would use a permanent skylight filter (screwed on and left there) that I didn't have to futz with when I needed to shoot (yes, I'm exceptionally lazy too, LOL...) I also get what you're saying about the relative lack of consequence of all the choices as is. Like you stated, they're all good; anyone who is a half-ass photographer should be able to use any of them to make a good image. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that precept. However, like getting the right woman, it isn't only just a pair of headlights with a soft spot in the middle (if you know what I mean). Sometimes, the minor subtleties can make or break our choices and I think that with cameras, for me unfortunately it's the same rationale. That's why I literally "can't" make a purchase unless I talk ad infinitum about it first, LOL... Mrs Ralph ignores me and I've even had salesmen avoid me when they see me <sigh> At any rate, I'm waiting with bated breath for the Lumix GF3 announcement next week. It supposedly has a much larger true MP res (16+). But, I fear that they may have eliminated the hot shoe, which IMHO would be a huge mistake. Time will tell. The video with the leaked suspected Lumix GF3: Lumix GF3 lộ diện trong video quảng cáo của Panasonic (GF3 Lumix shows up in Panasonic's promotional video) [video=youtube;cfrqmc0FAjk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfrqmc0FAjk[/video] One can only get very brief and short glimpses but it is intriguing nonetheless.
then the thing is... when the gf3 arrives, of course it'll be just outta budget =P and hten you have to decide all again!!! hahaha
LOL, thanks Reno. Well, I'm hoping that won't be the case. But in terms of marketing rules, I don't think it will be; as class price point practice would dictate that a particular buyer's market won't spend beyond any given amount specific to that class (if they did, they would go then for the next class up if money isn't going to be an issue). An example would be Honda Civics will always be around the same price regardless of model year, while the Accord will always be a certain percentage more. I suspect that the GF series of cameras will stay within a set price range. If people wanted the next or better class of camera, eg the GH series, then that would justify more money (at least that's how these companies seem to think). One has to also realize that the market in consumer electronics remains highly competitive and price points have traditionally moved lower vis a vis performance. That is in general, we've been traditionally getting more megapixels and better features at ever declining costs over the years. I suspect that that trend will continue. Another important price clue is that the GF2 was only released eight months ago. To announce a new model in less than a year shows how dramatically aggressive the electronics consumer market actually is. They're afraid that if they don't come out quickly with newer and better features, that the competition will edge them off the playing field. In such a scenario, it tilts the costs factor heavily towards the consumer's favor, as there is so much competitive pressure they cannot afford to be even seen as pricing themselves out of the market.
Latest update, in a word... WOW! Here's a picture reportedly to be of the official Panasonic GF3, scooped by the boys at 4/3 Rumors. If this is genuine (and not a Photoshopped, too good to be true scam) it looks like a 4/3 lens mounted onto a credit card sized camera body! Absolutely incredible. And not to be left out Sony's new NEX C3 is previewed here: [video=youtube;clU0jhd14dY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clU0jhd14dY&feature=player_embedded[/video] [video=youtube;La4AB6-2_y0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La4AB6-2_y0[/video] This certainly doesn't make my choices any easier, LOL...
well... now its official ralph!! =D http://www.dpreview.com/news/1106/11061310panasonicGF3preview.asp http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/13/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gf3-official-12-1-mp-1080i-video-no-hot-s/ http://www.twice.com/article/469516-Panasonic_Unveils_Lumix_GF3_Mirrorless_Digicam.php lightest ever, 4/3, 12MP, 1080i all for 700 with 14mm =D there's also a 25mm f1.4 to be made available! now when r u going to get and do a review for us! hehehe
Yes, saw the previews on DP Reviews, but in truth, I'm sort of luke warm about the GF3's features. The biggest let down was the fact that it's still a 12 MP camera (not the rumored 16 MP), and instead of it being an enthusiast's light weight stand in for a DSLR, it's really a dumbed down version of the GF2. Sure, it has a some nice things, but in the trade off, it took away some of the things that semi-pro's want. Further, for that fast 25MM f/1.4, they're talking a some heavy bit of change. I'm not so sure that I would pay that amount for what would be a 50MM 35 equivalent. I like the speed, but I'm not crazy about that focal length, so despite its sharpness, it won't hold any allure for me. I would likely keep the 14MM f/2.5 (28mm 35 equiv) as my prime lens. In fact, I used to do a lot of superwide street stuff with a 21MM; in 4/3 terms, that's roughly a 10 or 11MM. Frankly, after the GF3 came out, the NEX C3, and even the GF2 is starting to look better and better. <sigh> I've got a lot to think about.
I recently bought a new camera probably not as pro as other camera, but at least it does the job - take pic, zoom in, non-battery, record. lol. kodak m341 [black]
i know wat u mean for whatever reason, so many times the "next gen" is upgraded in sections and downgraded (or left out) in others but the other thing is, does 12 vs 16MP really make any difference?? until u really blow it up a zillion times and cover your whole wall as the photo, i don't think you'd really notice that much difference my d50 still only runs 6MP =( dunno if i can justify upgrading to like d700 tho... and yes, the non-standard lens appear quite pricey for what they are especially on a lumix, given you don't have that much choice of lens decisions decisions decisions...
Well, from 12 > 16 is nominally a 33% increase numerically. As for how much is actually useful resolution would depend on your shooting format but more is always better, IMHO, LOL... Yeah, I can certainly understand the sentiment, that sometimes, too much devotion can get into the way of the craft. Simple cameras may often be one's best photographic friend. However, I like to have the option to either go easy or whole hog. So having something that allow both would be ideal. And here's some GF3 Video: [video=youtube;Br2ElAcBT9o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br2ElAcBT9o[/video] [video=youtube;187kS8_H6JM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=187kS8_H6JM[/video]
LOL... Make a long story short, I really did a lot of soul searching and asked myself, what it was about a new camera that I wanted more than anything else. The answer that I came up with, was a slightly better wide angle that didn't have rectilinear distortion, as my tiny ultracompact SD1400is Canon is wont to bend and curve lines really badly. Moreover, the idea of having interchangeable lenses, in retrospect, was more a romantic notion than practical daily necessity. My style of shooting has always been on the street with an ultra wide angle, so I likely won't ever carry any telephoto unless I specifically wanted to shoot something closeup that I couldn't physically come close to (like a celebrity, but zero chance of that as I don't care about that stuff). Also, I was greatly disappointed by Panasonic's decision to dumb down the GF3 and their keeping the new model unchanged at 12 MP. That was the deal breaker. I just couldn't justify the extra cost to have the same MP count. So bottom line? I went with an older model that had only what I really needed, the Lumix LX5, which is about 10 MP, but has a 24MM f/2.0 equivalent lens; nice wide and fast. Further, the camera isn't much larger than my ultracompact SD1400is, and has a hot shoe and flash, with nice manual physical (not touch screen) controls. Comparison of my old Canon SD1400 to the Panasonic Lumix LX5 Maybe I'm too old school when it comes to adjustments, but I like to feel the "click" of a dial or lever to psychologically assure myself that a function has been set. Touching a screen and hearing a "beep" never really floated my boat. And, the best part about this is, that it's really cheap, I just ordered one from Amazon for USD $399 (plus tax of about $43 USD). With a few extras like batteries, and two 16 GB SD cards, the whole thing came to a little more than $500. Hopefully, when Panasonic gets real with pro-sumer considerations for the GF4, or Sony does more with its lens line up, then I would justify shelling out the grand or so in aggregate for those systems. As for your Nikon D7000, if you can afford to spend that kind of change then go for it. I get a nose bleed just thinking about it, LOL...
unfortunately there's a slight difference between "afford" and "justification" LOL i'm sure many of us can "afford" it, whether its "justifiable" for what we need, is a whole other story my d50 is just... i dunno, getting old need to get a proper clean for it too... and i somehow lost my flash contact cover, and the rubber grip around the viewfinder... >.< so maybe it "might" be worth contemplating an upgrade alternatively can always go the d90, but then its not that much of an upgrade so if anything - i'd rather go a but more out there and go with the d7000. b&h have it for 1200? plus tax >.< but no stock so i guess i'll worry about it when there's stock but congrats! least u got ur camera that u needed! =) i guess the other thing is, if i have my compact p&s, i'm less likely to use my slr. which is y i force myself to take it around with me and make most of it i have the ixus70 with me here (somewhere). but i've yet to even bother to use it =/
I hear ya, Reno. But the problem often is that one may not be always able to take a large camera. I usually like to have a camera on me all the time, for the incidental things in life, and not specifically for "photography" per se. For example, I like to take a picture of something to remind myself of a specific location, or a parking sign, or for that matter, which lot my car was parked, LOL... Many of these things are done not for photographic beauty, and so they obviously don't need a full fledged DSLR. But wouldn't it be great if the functions of a full sized DSLR was crammed into a tiny body like an ultra compact? Granted, because of the size constraints and technology involved, never the twain shall meet; I do understand the limitations. But having said that, it does seem that many companies are nonetheless cramming more and more control ability into these ultra compact bodies. I think that's great because I just love the ease of carry of the tiny camera, I just miss having the photographic control. BTW, my Canon SD1400is, is like having a pack of gum in my pocket, and that's with two extra batteries. I can quite literally hold the thing in the palm of my hand and shoot without people even seeing the camera.
Sony DSC-HX9v highly rated so far.. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_cybershot_dsc_hx9v_review/
but it's a sonyyyy.... >.< LOL i've always said to myself... only get nikon for slr and canon for p&s LOL so true tho ralph... camera for incidentals (and the iphone doesn't count... it sux... lol) maybe cos i find the ixus so outta date that i don't wanna carry it. or maybe wen i get a manbag, then i can justify throwing it into the bag hahaha of course the pain of getting a new slr also = getting more accesories... =/ should upgrade my manfrotto too! saw a nice carbon fibre one... droolls.....
Sony P&S isn't that bad.. I prefer Sony over Canon for P&S sometimes when comparing a model similar for the price.
[video=youtube;gyH0GZdeEmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyH0GZdeEmk[/video] Great video, but I certainly don't recommend holding a camera outside a moving vehicle (at 1:24) without the benefit of at least a wrist strap. One little bump and the entire incident would be considered a $400 lack of forethought, LOL... http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-LX5-vs-Sony-HX9v Indeed, it was close call between the DSC-HX9v to the LX5. However, though the Sony advertises 16MP and uses a better sensor (CMOS over CCD), it's true resolution is actually only 9.7MP, or less than the Lumix's 10MP. Additionally, it's 380MM equivalent telephoto was initially enticing, until one realizes the hit that it then invoked with lens speed, with a max aperture of only f/3.3 against Panny's f/2.0, about one and a half stops faster. In view of the personal fact that I hardly, if ever, shoot telephoto, the admittedly astounding optical zoom factor of the Sony really didn't interest me at all. Thus, for my shooting style, it is a function that I would likely never use. That would render it analogous to say, ...serving a lobster dinner to someone allergic to shellfish. Additionally, the hit it took to do it in lens speed was significant. Losing one and a half stops for a street shooter like me is nothing to scoff at. It seemed that Sony made a conscious decision to support the Joe Blow Tourist Travel long distance shooter style at the expense of the quiet, up close and personal Henri Cartier Bresson approach. Additionally, the Lumix offers RAW images while the Sony doesn't. This was tantamount to Sony shouting out the fact that their product was never meant for an enthusiast shooter. To Sony's credit though, they too, chose the 24MM equivalent to be their minimum focal length (which was one of my key issues), and they can admittedly shoot full high def movies. But, to their detriment, in all the other factors that really mattered to me personally (as mentioned above), they went completely against my assumptions of how a camera should respond. Thus, I went with the Lumix. Cost comparison between the two were moot. They're about the same price. Oh, and BTW, for the super wide angled lovers, the Lumix can add a 0.75 factor conversion lens, reducing effective focal equivalent down to an amazing 18MM. To the best of my knowledge, there is no conversion lens ability on the HX9v. I never did like the idea of putting cameras into a bag and then carrying them around. I had actually done this years ago when I did some wedding photography, and the number of lenses, film, and other accessories made it seem more like a camping trip than photo shoot. Nowadays, all the photo equipment has to fit into my pockets or into a belt pouch. I have to able to have both hands free at a moment's notice and I have to be able to run with everything and not worry about dropping anything. If it doesn't fit all the above criteria, it gets left home or given to a relative, LOL... As for tripods, I had several, the largest of which was a full sized Bogen (Manfrotto's predecessor) that I used to use for 4x5 cameras. But honestly, nowadays, I rather use one of the table top models that could then fit in one of the cargo pockets of my pants. A really good one that I had been looking at is the Vortex Shooting Stand: ...and as an alternative, the Manfrotto 709b: Either are small and lightweight, but would get the job done. Obviously, the Vortex would give much better precise control, but the Manfrotto would be the lighter, smaller and easier to operate, but at the loss of a central elevating pillar. Both retail around $50 USD.
