Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:44 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

What camara buy?
Canon PwerShot S100 for $360 33%  33%  [ 2 ]
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 with 14mm pancake lens for $320 17%  17%  [ 1 ]
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 with 14-42mm lens for $300 50%  50%  [ 3 ]
Other (in the range of less of $400 and mirrorless) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:11 am 
I got the opportunity to purchase a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 with 14mm pancake lens for 320$ or with 14-42mm lens for 300$ (both like new and yeah, I know, sick! XD) or a new Canon PowerShot S100 for 360$. What do you suggest people? Thanks in advance.

It is just a matter of choosing one of the three. I want to take best pictures possible (point for GF3) as sometimes I need semi-professional photography (as it could get great use for some marketing services I offer). I also need/want best portability/perfomance ratio possible :wink: (point for the S100) . I wouldn't mind sacrificing some portability, I wear suits most of time. But, yes, 14-42mm lens would be probably too much to handle.

Thanks!

Edit: improved info


Last edited by JaimeCarlos on Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:52 pm
Posts: 2173
Location: The Netherlands
What do you wanna do with it?

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 711
Which is more important to you: pocketability (S100) or low light performance (GF3)? Even with a pancake lens--BTW I'm not aware of any 16mm pancake lens for the GF3; Pany makes a 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7, and Oly makes a 17mm f2.8--the GF3 requires a larger (cargo pants, sport coat) pocket. And once you mount any other lens--including the 14-42mm you mention--forget about putting the combo in a pocket. OTOH the GF3's larger sensor will do much better in low light (with an appropriate lens).

HTH -Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:47 pm 
I want to take best pictures possible. Semi-professional (as it could get great use for some marketing services I offer). I also need/want best portability/perfomance/cost ratio possible :wink:

Sorry, I meant 14mm pancake lens. Actually, low light perfomece of GF3 is considerable worse than S100 with stock lens. Some reference:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgf3/8
(play with charts, look out for Canon S100)
It is also because GF3 pancake lens doesn't have lens stabilization and it's maximum aperture is 2.5 against 2.0 of the S100
Some more reference:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-S100-vs-Panasonic-GF3

If I would like extreme low light performance I should get Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 Aspherical Pancake Lens which is at 460$, additional money I wouldn't like to spend.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002IKLJVE

I wouldn't mind sacrificing some portability, I wear suits most of time. But, yes, 14-42mm lens would be probably too much to handle. In any case, if sometime in the future I want a Panasonic Lumix 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 G Vario Aspherical MEGA OIS Lens I could get for 125$ against the 280$ that costs the Panasonic Lumix 14mm f/2.5 G Aspherical Lens.

Thanks you very much people.

P.D. Also, can someone please create me a Forum account at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ with the following e-mail please???
jaime_carlos_camacho@hotmail.com
For some reason I can't load page (SSL connection error). I really would appreciate that!!!! *Would use that account to post similar thread there :wink: hehehe


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 711
JaimeCarlos wrote:
I want to take best pictures possible.


Then get a Rollei 6008. :)

Quote:
I also need/want best portability/perfomance/cost ratio possible


Now we're getting somewhere. But it would still help if you answered Ruben's question: "What do you wanna do with it?" i.e. what do you plan to take pictures of? For example, for general "walking around" type shots, I would say the that the best portability/performance/cost ratio is currently represented by an Olympus E-M5 with a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. But this obviously wouldn't work for sports or wildlife or macro photography. (And probably exceeds your budget.)

Quote:
Actually, low light perfomece of GF3 is considerable worse than S100 with stock lens. Some reference:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgf3/8
(play with charts, look out for Canon S100)


No, it's not. At least, it's not to my eye when doing an apples to apples comparison. Actually, it's not even possible to do an apples to apples comparison on that page since there's no way to disable NR on the S100 jpegs. But even with the S100 set to low instead of off, it still looks worse to me than the GF3 set to zero. The difference is even more pronounced in the RAW comparison, which agrees with DxO's ISO numbers (which are quoted on the snapsort page you liked to) of 153 vs 459 for the S100 and GF3 respectively .

Quote:
It is also because GF3 pancake lens doesn't have lens stabilization and it's maximum aperture is 2.5 against 2.0 of the S100
Some more reference:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-S100-vs-Panasonic-GF3


Not really since stabilization and lens aperture don't directly affect sensor noise. Yes, stabilization and a larger aperture lens may allow the photographer to use a lower ISO so the resulting image will probably have less noise than if it was taken with a higher ISO, but noise at any given ISO will be the same regardless of whether or not stabilization and/or a large aperture lens was used. (But you may want to note that the Oly E-M5 I mentioned above has in-body stabilization, and as you note below, the 20mm f1.7 is a more appropriate low light lens.)

Quote:
If I would like extreme low light performance I should get Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 Aspherical Pancake Lens which is at 460$, additional money I wouldn't like to spend.


OK, so you're really looking for the best portability/performance ratio for ... under $400?

Quote:
I wouldn't mind sacrificing some portability, I wear suits most of time. But, yes, 14-42mm lens would be probably too much to handle.


OK, so not even portability so much, then.

So good pics of _____ (jewelry? people? something else?) for under $400 that fits in a jacket pocket.

Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:07 am 
Maestro wrote:
Then get a Rollei 6008. :)


hahahaha That happens me for writing so 'fragmentally'. Also please note that english is not my native language.

Maestro wrote:
No, it's not. At least, it's not to my eye when doing an apples to apples comparison. Actually, it's not even possible to do an apples to apples comparison on that page since there's no way to disable NR on the S100 jpegs. But even with the S100 set to low instead of off, it still looks worse to me than the GF3 set to zero. The difference is even more pronounced in the RAW comparison, which agrees with DxO's ISO numbers (which are quoted on the snapsort page you liked to) of 153 vs 459 for the S100 and GF3 respectively.


Excellent observation. The thing is that as my photography knowledge is so limited, I just compared them not considering NR nor RAW results. It can be said that I'm in the path of learning, and I'm starting with the basics... Really, just a rookie :wink:

Maestro wrote:
Not really since stabilization and lens aperture don't directly affect sensor noise. Yes, stabilization and a larger aperture lens may allow the photographer to use a lower ISO so the resulting image will probably have less noise than if it was taken with a higher ISO, but noise at any given ISO will be the same regardless of whether or not stabilization and/or a large aperture lens was used. (But you may want to note that the Oly E-M5 I mentioned above has in-body stabilization, and as you note below, the 20mm f1.7 is a more appropriate low light lens.)


As I would probably chose the GF3 with pancake lens, I just wanted to state that it would be wonderful to take night shots with no lens stabilization without fearing blurry images :)
Also, I'm just figuring out different ISO shots for different situations. Got to read more! Have no that many time :(

Maestro wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere. But it would still help if you answered Ruben's question: "What do you wanna do with it?" i.e. what do you plan to take pictures of? For example, for general "walking around" type shots, I would say the that the best portability/performance/cost ratio is currently represented by an Olympus E-M5 with a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. But this obviously wouldn't work for sports or wildlife or macro photography. (And probably exceeds your budget.)

OK, so you're really looking for the best portability/performance ratio for ... under $400?

OK, so not even portability so much, then.

So good pics of _____ (jewelry? people? something else?) for under $400 that fits in a jacket pocket.


Again, this is my fault for not being clear about my doubts. It is just a matter of choosing the Canon S100 or the GF3 with 14mm OR the one with 14-42mm chasing the best portability/performance ratio. This buy is for replacing my Nokia N8 as my point and shoot of preference for something reeeeally delightful (I'm so in love with the GF3) but also considering I might be love blind and need a cold shower of reality.

About 14mm lens I also fear the distortion that happens at the edges of the pictures (unless I understood it wrong) and the thing it might be not so good with macro/landscape photography.

As I can buy the GF3 with pancake lens LIKE NEW for 320$ I'm considering it such a good deal that it convinces to be more serious about photography. I always loved photography :) :) :)... Never had time even for learning the basics. Really. I know when someone loves something it makes time for it even against difficult circumstances, but things just couldn't be that way :(

Anyway, Maestro you got no idea how I feel grateful for your comments. It happens that I'm always totally open to critic observations. Really, really hope to hearing more from you. You are a great member of this community! :)

Once again Thanks people!!!!!!! :)


Last edited by JaimeCarlos on Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:52 pm
Posts: 2173
Location: The Netherlands
The S100 might be better for nightphotography, but Im not too sure. Why? With the S100 @400 ISO (which is kind of the limit for good quality) and the 3 stops (or is it 4 stops?) IS you could get the ''same'' as the GF3, but the GF3 not at ISO 400, but 3 (or 4) stops higher for a steady shot (due to the low shutterspeed).
So it's looking like this:

S100: ISO 400, f/2.8, 0.5s shutterspeed
GF3: ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/15s shutterspeed

But then the GF3's 1600 ISO may be as clear as the S100's 400 ISO. At the end of the day I would choose the GF3, because of its capabilities of the big sensor.
You should also have a look at the Canon G12 though.

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:51 pm 
Ruben123 wrote:
The S100 might be better for nightphotography, but Im not too sure. Why? With the S100 @400 ISO (which is kind of the limit for good quality) and the 3 stops (or is it 4 stops?) IS you could get the ''same'' as the GF3, but the GF3 not at ISO 400, but 3 (or 4) stops higher for a steady shot (due to the low shutterspeed).
So it's looking like this:

S100: ISO 400, f/2.8, 0.5s shutterspeed
GF3: ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/15s shutterspeed

But then the GF3's 1600 ISO may be as clear as the S100's 400 ISO. At the end of the day I would choose the GF3, because of its capabilities of the big sensor.
You should also have a look at the Canon G12 though.


Good info Ruben. My thoughts also (as my favorite contender is the GF3). About the G12, even though I considered it (and even the G1X) I feel it a little bit outdated and most certainly big and heavy in comparison (and a very much smaller sensor). But thanks for your answer and giving a good additional option!

Some reference:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_Power ... asonic-GF3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGxwNbpIKZ0


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:52 pm
Posts: 2173
Location: The Netherlands
Well, what you call outdated. I shoot with (digital) cameras from 2003 to 2005 which give me excellent results when used correctly.

EDIT:
And er, the G12's sensor is the same size as the S100. :wink:

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:12 pm 
Yeah, it's very true. But when carefully mentioning G12 kind of outdated and when saying it's sensor is kind of small I was comparing it to the G1X :wink: (as some reviewers say: all the G12 should have been in the first place). Then I also handled a comparison to the GF3 that I used to leave the G12 outside my preferred options (not so portable, not as good performance :( , etc).

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_Power ... asonic-GF3

Anyway, thanks Ruben for your insight... Have a nice weekend! ^__^


Last edited by Bjorn van Sinttruije on Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Removed unnecessary quote. Please quote responsibly.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 711
JaimeCarlos wrote:
I just wanted to state that it would be wonderful to take night shots with no lens stabilization without fearing blurry images :)


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.

Quote:
Again, this is my fault for not being clear about my doubts. It is just a matter of choosing the Canon S100 or the GF3 with 14mm OR the one with 14-42mm chasing the best portability/performance ratio.


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.

Quote:
About 14mm lens I also fear the distortion that happens at the edges of the pictures (unless I understood it wrong) and the thing it might be not so good with macro/landscape photography.


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.

Quote:
As I can buy the GF3 with pancake lens LIKE NEW for 320$ I'm considering it such a good deal that it convinces to be more serious about photography.


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.

Mark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:17 pm 
Maestro wrote:
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 :O
http://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!!!!! :shock: in here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA0aXSx6IPM
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.

Maestro wrote:
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.

Maestro wrote:
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'

Maestro wrote:
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' :D hehe


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:55 am 
nice post*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:53 am 
...have the 60D there's no reason to change. The difference in image quality is not big enough to justify that extra work to change the equipment. The K-5 from Pentax has an even better image quality (and a better weather sealed body and built-in image stabilizer that works with any lens and a nice speed and...) - so what?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 385
Location: Manchester (UK)
Sound like you need to buy GF3 with 14mm prime (or better still 20mm).

If you are happy with aperture range on 14-42mm zoom then save up for 14-42X (pancake sized) zoom instead so as not to compromise on portability.

_________________
Canon EOS 400D, EF-S 18-55mm, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 MK I, EF-S 10-22mm, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 85mm f/1.8
Canon 430EX II, Manfrotto 055CXPRO3, Arca Swiss P0
Panasonic GX1, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8
Canon EOS 30/33 and Pentax MX/ME Super

MY FLICKR!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group