You can always brace yourself (against a pole, tree, etc.) or place the camera down on something (the ground, a bench, table, etc.) or even use a tripod.
I have some experience stabilizing myself for taking a shot in poor conditions, so yes, that is some of the things I do always when looking for better results
What I really fear is GF3 low light perfomance. For example look how in this video review they criticize so much it, even when taking shots with ISO 3200 :Ohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLTKgNdhpvk
And it's funny how the same reviewer praises Canon S100 low light perfomance and says 'it even gives mirrrorless system cameras a serious run from their money' in this other review, with ISO 3200 examples shots too!!!!!
Also, one the things I look forward to finding in a camera is HDR in camera... is so useful!!!!! I give this function a lot of consideration.
And in order to evaluate the performance part of that ratio, it would help to know what you plan to take pictures of. Different cameras have different strengths and weaknesses, and thus will perform differently in different circumstances. e.g. as you noted above, if you really do take a lot of static low light shots in situations where you cannot support the camera any other way except handheld, then this may not be the best camera/lens combination for you. But it could serve someone else well who doesn't take those kinds of shots.
Well, I'm guessing 60% would be night or low light shots (of marketing and advertisements events, people, etc.) and 35% would be my work which would vary a lot between jewelry, macro of watches, food (like restaurants and coffees), spas (and some clinics of the beauty sector), luxury furniture, etc. as I'm a marketing and sales specialist, and finally 5% would be portraits of my friends and myself.
That's correct. And it's another good example of a situation where the type of pictures being taken will affect the relative level of performance of a camera.
Could you explain this more please?
Even though it talks about the NEX lens, the only place where I found the most information about 'pancake' lens is this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5nex3/page8.asp
Where is stated things like: 'the fixed-focal length 16mm pancake is a tiny lens that matches the cameras' miniaturized body size very well, but as 24mm-equivalent wideangle, we think it's far from ideal as a general-purpose kit lens' , 'most notably poor corner sharpness and relatively high chromatic aberration' , ' wideangle prime like the 16mm isn't really a general purpose lens, but instead better suited to specific subjects - typically landscapes, architecture, interiors and the like. It's certainly not a great choice for photographing friends or family on a day out'
It's only a good deal for you, if it performs well in the situations where you plan to use it. e.g. I could get an awesome deal on an astrophotography kit, but since I do absolutely no astrophotography, my money would be better spent on equipment that I would actually use. Although, it should be noted that the GF3, being an interchangeable lens camera, offers more opportunities to grow than the (fixed lens) S100.
I would like so much the 14-42mm lens, but it sacrifices so much portability. At this point I think I could buy the 14mm GF3 and in a couple of months buy the 14-42mm lens as it cost half the 14mmm at retailer
Thank you so much 'Maestro'