[blueback]

What do you guys think about these compact interchangeable lens cameras? I've decided I'd like to start taking nice pictures, but I'm not about to spend the time/money necessary to get and properly use a DSLR (let alone a film camera! what am I, a caveman?). I want the nice lenses and nice sensors, but I don't want to spend a grand and I don't want to lug those giant cameras around. The micro 4/3 system seems to be a good solution.

I'm inclined to get the Lumix GF3 because the reviewers describe it as being right in line with those desires. It doesn't even have a hot shoe or a viewfinder. Sure, it doesn't have the bigger sensor like Sony's NEX, but it's still a world better than the standard compact cameras I can get at that size.

Also, I kind of like the Panasonic/Olympus cooperation thing. It irritates me to no end when manufacturers create proprietary standards (I'm looking at you Sony). At least the micro 4/3 thing has two manufacturers behind it. If I outgrow the GF3 I can use the lens(es) I bought on a model much closer to the professional level (I doubt I'll ever justify the expense of a professional camera).

What do you guys think?

[Nikonman]

The GF3 is a great buy right now, but so is the Olympus EPL1, which should be down to $400 or less; there are credible rumors that it will be down to $300 for Black Friday sales. You've ventured into an area I enjoy. I shoot everything from a "full frame" D700 Nikon with big f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes down to a tiny Canon SD770. While there are some events that I don't trust to anything other than the D700 with a good Nikkor lens, I've gone to m4/3rds for my casual shooting in order to keep the size/weight down while still having a decent sensor.

As for the GF3 itself, it looks like a nice little camera, but it does have a somewhat "old" (in digital camera years, which are kind of like dog years) sensor. The Oly Pens, in particular the bargain priced EPL1, also have a somewhat old sensor, but Oly gets a bit more pleasing image out of camera without having to mess with processing the raw file. If you like editing in software, then I don't think there is any significant difference between the Oly and the Pany as far as what you can get out of them. If that is the case, then try to handle each and buy whichever feels best to you as far as the user interface. If you'd like the best possible out of camera JPEGs, I think the Oly is better. Oly's JPEG processing in camera yields very pleasing colors (skin tones, skies, grass/leaves). I don't think it gives accurate colors, but that is different from "pleasing" colors. Other factors in favor of the Oly include the accessory EFV if you do a lot of shooting in bright light and have a hard time seeing the LCD, the hot shoe for an external flash, in-body stabilization (works all lenses) and the collapsible Oly kit lens that makes it more compact than the Pany kit lens. Pany is coming out with some smaller lenses, but they are not a part of the current sale on the GF3.

While it may sound like I'm an Oly fanboy, I'm actually a bigger fan of Panasonic. But if you don't want to shoot raw and edit, the Oly is probably a better pick than the GF series. If you jump up to a GH2 or G3, that is a different story. Also, if you don't mind the size increase, DSLRs like the Nikon D5100 will give you a substantial increase in dynamic range as well as better high ISO capability. The D5100 body is not much bigger than the GH2 body, but the DSLR lenses are substantially larger/heavier. The D700 is substantially larger, but it is simply a fantastic camera. I've been thrilled with mine for the past 3 years.

If video is of interest, I think the Pany's are better, but don't know anything at all about video with the Olys. I only use the Pany for video.

[thesorehead]

I do like the m4/3 system. The machines, prices and results really fill the gap between P&S and DSLR cameras.

I happen to prefer Sony's APS-C equipped NEX mirrorless designs, but you pay through the nose for that. Mate of mine has an Olympus m4/3 camera and mostly uses it like a P&S. I can vouch for the quality of the output of even the most casual of shots.

Got to use my sister's 5D MkII the other day. Damn it's nice, but I barely use my P&S camera as it is.

[Nikonman]

	Originally Posted by thesorehead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I happen to prefer Sony's APS-C equipped NEX mirrorless designs, but you pay through the nose for that.

The output I've seen from the newer Sony sensors is great, better than 4/3rds. Nikon's D5100 and D7000 use Sony sensors. But the sensor in the Sony mirrorless cameras is larger than the 4/3rds sensor, and thus the lenses have to be larger as well, defeating much of what is attractive to me about the mirrorless designs. The Sonys have gotten some bad reviews as far as their menu system as well, but I've not used one, so I don't know if that's a legit issue with them.

One thing I should have mentioned in my first reply is that if you plan on taking many action shots, you need to be careful when it comes to the mirrorless cameras. Continuous auto focus tracking is vastly superior in the DSLRs. Many of the mirrorless cams have very quick AF, but if you need to track a subject for multiple shots, they struggle. My keeper rate for action is much, much higher with a DSLR than it is with my 4/3rds cameras.

[blackbangs]

I use a GF2. I chose it over the GF3 simply for value-for-money. I don't want to talk specs because it really doesn't matter how awesome your camera is...if you suck, you suck. Get it?

[JackCY]

4/3 to me cost the same as DSLRs at least the ones that are worth something
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Read about one yesterday and including 1 additional lens the price was $2k and it lacked so many features but the quality was on par with Canon 7D.

What sucks about most 4/3 is absence of a viewfinder.
Doesn't seem to me worth it to switch from P&S to 4/3, would rather get an entry level DSLR like 60D.

4/3 are nice yes, but the features lack too much, lenses are a proprietary mess, good quality sometimes but expensive, like very expensive.

[Nikonman]

	Originally Posted by JackCY To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	4/3 to me cost the same as DSLRs at least the ones that are worth something To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I guess that depends on how you'd define "worth something" and what you want to do with your camera. If you'll never focus manually and don't care how large your kit is, then a DSLR is the way to go. If you want something smaller or if you like to use manual focus with old lenses, M4/3 is a great option. The Olympus EPL1 is old tech but with the kit lens can be found for as little as $150 and will blow away any comparably priced point and shoot. An electronic viewfinder can be added for $160 if needed. A huge assortment of old manual focus lenses can be added, some quite cheap, with the addition of a $25 adapter. I use old Minolta Rokkors that are very nice, my 50mm f/1.4 in excellent condition was $60. I also use some of my Nikkors via an adapter.

Micro 4/3rds is all over the price spectrum. The Pany G3 has a built in viewfinder and can be found for a pretty good price now. The Oly OMD is quite high at the moment, but also very high quality. The Pany GH2 is expensive, but is fabulous for video and actually a pretty good buy if video is important to you.

The thing I like about M4/3 is the small size, especially when you include the size of the lenses. I can carry a very nice multi lens kit at a fraction of the size and weight of a similar kit with my Nikon DSLR. I use a Sony NEX 7 some as well; it is great camera handicapped by a lack of lenses and slow auto focus.

[Kadadj]

I would really encourage you to get a DLSR. A 1100D is relatively cheap, and (I assume) produce good enough shots. I don't know what you're going to shoot, so answering is a bit hard.
I just love the feel of a DLSR, and the control you get.