[Closed] Cameras

The bad point being never able to zoom in or out if you ask me.

It looks like it'd make a decent street shooter

Shame it'll be obsolete in 18 months. At least it looks obsolete to start with I guess...

Just been reading about the 18-180mm f3.5-6.3 from Oly. It's soft, there's some abberation and f6.3 is a bit rubbish, and I have lenses that cover that range with better quality and bigger apertures. But it'd be pretty good for taking out on the bike...

Would you use something like that?

Sure*. My 'worst' lens is a 35-200. I've made several prints from shots taken with it simply because it's so versatile. No point having an ultra-sharp lens which has too limited a range or is too heavy to carry so you end up missing the shot that the mediocre flexible lens would have worked for.

Another [relatively] crappy lens I have, a Tokina 80-400, has given results I've printed canvases from and won my one and only competition with. While it's not that great, it is very light and compact so I get shots I really wouldn't get with a [i]good[/i] (read big) lens.

*Depending on how bad it is.

But Snot quite the same . The Fuji is smaller, better sensor, different dials, built in hybrid VF. The bad point being the price

And the fact you can't change lenses.

Just saw a guy in the pub with a Leica M9. Jeebus they are expensive - was quite tempted to mug him. 🙂

'diijical'
worse than saying 'dark side'

I've just gone for a Lumix LX5, brought it for $499 (£315) in Banff a couple of months back. I did consider the S95 also but the LX5 had the wider lens (24mm) so I went for that. Chuffing lovely camera and small enough to chuck in my backpack when I'm out and about.

No point having an ultra-sharp lens which has too limited a range or is too heavy to carry so you end up missing the shot that the mediocre flexible lens would have worked for.

I wouldn't have thought that ultra-sharp and light or a large range would or even could work together.

'diijical'
worse than saying 'dark side'

From now one I'm going to say digittle then.

Weight's not so much of an issue for that ultra zoom - it weighs not much different to the 14-42 and 40-150 together which are the two most common kit lenses and give sharper images, more range and larger apertures. The only issue is actually switching lenses, which is a bit of a bind to be fair.

Looks like I need a second body 🙂

The more I read about cameras and lenses, the more depressed I get. Most of the review say that between a nicely built body which does most things well and decent quality optics you have to spend, at the very minimum, a grand and a half, and probably more.

This is more than I was planning to spend, but at the same time I want to get my wife something of good quality that will last her a while.

Of course I suspect that most of the things reviews complain about are irrelevant since she will never be able to tell the difference, but as a complete ignoramus I have difficulty distinguishing between those nit-picking unimportant complaints and those that do actually matter when picking a camera and lenses.

For example, reviews invariably recommend ditching the kit lens in favour of something a bit better (and of course pricier). So now I don't know whether it's better to get a kit which seems like a really good deal, or blow the budget and buy a body only with some better, separate glass. Is a better, non-kit lens likely to significatly improve the resulting photos in the hands of an amateur?

Molgrips, are you satisfied with the Olympus 14-42 + 40-150 pair?
Can you direct me to some photos you've taken with them?

Maybe I should just buy her a cashmere blanket instead.

It's all relative. The worst lens will be 90%+ as good as the best. Most people will be unable to appreciate that last 10%.

[url= http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml ]I posted this comparison the other day.[/url] It's relevant here too. They compared a canon compact whose lens is similar to a typical kit lens with a $40,000 medium format camera/lens combination. The result:

In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

The more I read about cameras and lenses, the more depressed I get

simple - don't do it! Buy something 2nd hand you can afford - most people (unlike me) take great care of their photographic kit and 2nd hand stuff can still be in very good condition. Then stop worrying about kit and think about the shots you want to take 🙂

TheyEye - don't get too worked up, you've just read too many reviews! Yea ultimately lenses will make more difference than camera bodies to image quality, but kit lenses aren't as bad as all that. One good option for getting very good image quality for not crazy money is to buy primes (fixed focal length). They often have a wide aperture so good in low light and can do arty shallow depth of field pics. 50mm 1.8s are usually very good value at around £80.

Yea ultimately lenses will make more difference than camera bodies to image quality

The rapid development of digital bodies make that old rule a lot less relevant now. Just the astronomical improvement in high ISO alone lets a slow lens on a modern body walk all over an old body with a fast lens. Then there's the improvement in dynamic range... etc etc

I'd take a new body with reasonable lenses over an old body and good lenses any day.

theyeye - as above - don't worry about it. Get what you can afford either new or second hand.

What will it be used for. I've got a D80 with the kit 18-135 lens and it's great. I'm sure you could pick one of these up for a fairly decent price second hand.
Yes it's not the latest body out there, but it will do me for several more years - it's quick, got a decent size screen, will shoot at 3fps. It's probably a bit noisier than newer bodies & doesn't do video/live view so that might be an issue if your wife intends on using those features.

Something like this would be spot-on for 99% of piccy taking:
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/8299389/art/nikon/d3100-af-s-dx-18-105-vr-l.html?srcid=867&key=ZUstJxAya+uNeotzDz9SBHdCRnZfRdPsGOxGYgw9Mh1/d0t9beXRLdEqUGYHVXtFEyQKBA==

The more I read about cameras and lenses, the more depressed I get. Most of the review say that between a nicely built body which does most things well and decent quality optics you have to spend, at the very minimum, a grand and a half, and probably more.

It's all rubbish. Seriously.

There is something of a difference between compacts and SLRs but even that's really not that great in practical terms. My walls are adorned with lovely pics I've taken on a compact.

DSLRs offer a few advantages in practical terms - different lenses, which allow you to get different shots (ie zoom, wide angle), more control, they are faster and nicer to use, and there are SOME fairly subtle (to the normal person) advances in image quality (ie grainyness in low light or chromatic abberation). That's all.

The people who are saying you need to get this or that for optimum quality are simply camera geeks. They are purists chasing an academic goal, that of great sharpness. But you can only see that sharpness if you open the picture up on a computer and zoom right in. If you print it out or put it online you won't see the difference.

You DO NOT want to be one of those people 🙂

I've limited myself to basic quality lenses because I don't want to get carried away with the money. I have four lenses, because I wanted them for different purposes. I found myself on holiday in the US looking at lovely birds and animals but not being able to take pics of them because they were too far away - so I wanted a zoom. And then I also love taking close ups, so I wanted a macro. I only buy stuff that specifically allows me to do something I couldn't otherwise do.

99% of taking great photos is having a good eye for a picture. The rest is ALL geeky rubbish.

You almost certainly will not notice the difference in image quality between the kit lens on a £400 camera and a lens costing a grand unless you really know what you are looking for, and go looking for it. Which is self defeating.

One of the reasons I love my Olympus that the kit lenses are excellent and they others are cheap and just as good, so that keeps me happy. The 40-150 was not enough for me taking wildlife pics when I was in the US which is why I bought the 70-300 but really, who am I kidding? I'm not going to spend hours sitting in a hide somewhere trying to get pics so is there really any point?

Best thing about the 40-150 tho is its extreme small size. I could see myself taking the 14-42 and the 40-150 on a ride in a camelbak without any difficulty - would be a good way to get some slightly different biking shots I reckon.

I will dig out some shots but all you'll be able to see is my photo taking skills (or lack of). Lens quality doesn't come into it!

Just got an S90 for out and about. Was thinking about the S95 but couldn't justify the extra cost, especially for stuff I probably wouldn't need. Managed to get it on a deal from John Lewis, they were trying to get rid of them.

Not been out much yet but looking forward to shoving it in my pocket next I do

Here's a pic taken with the kit lens (the horror) and also that most desperate of all situations, high ISO on an Olympus! How terrible! What a disaster!

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/5094313518_a68c794751_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/5094313518_a68c794751_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5094313518/ ]Meggie walking in chapel 3[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

I think it's a nice pic tho 🙂

The more I read about cameras and lenses, the more depressed I get. Most of the review say that between a nicely built body which does most things well and decent quality optics you have to spend, at the very minimum, a grand and a half, and probably more.

If you're starting out spending that much on a lens will be a waste of money...you won't have the skill or technical knowledge to make the most out of a £1500 lens.

Go out with an experienced photographer for the day to the same location...you borrow his £6k worth of body and lens, and he uses a entry level DSLR and kit lens. I guarantee his pictures will be stunning, and yours will look like holiday snapshots (assuming you are a beginner!).

For a beginner on a limited budget (or even someone who's not sure if they'll take it seriously), an entry level camera and kit lens will last them a long time. If you can afford it, get a body only and a decent mid range zoom lens (say 18-200 slow Sigma or something). You certainly don't need to get a pro spec lens if you're starting out.

A side note...you won't get the most out of a pro spec lens on an entry level DSLR, you need a full frame body for that and they start at £2k. It'll work and the quality will be good, but the image will be cropped.

And as Molgrips says...build up your lenses as you need them. If you find things are too far away, think about a zoom lens. If you like to take close up shots of small things, think about a macro lens.

The only way you'll know what lenses you should be buying is by getting out there and taking pictures of stuff...and the only way you can do that is by buying your first camera and lens.

The limitations you notice of your first lens will dictate what lens you should buy next...then just buy the best one you can afford.

You don't need an expensive fast lens (f2.8) unless you're either, a) loaded, b) a pro, or c) a gadget freak.

Me? I'm a gadget freak and waste my money on all sorts of things I don't need!

Some of the third party lenses are very good as well. I have a Tamron 28-75 which has a big maximum aprture (f2.8) for a zoom, is mega sharp, and 'only' cost £250 (pretty cheap for a sharp, fast zoom).

And btw McHamish my full frame camera cost £650 😉

What the camera experts do given a choice between Canon S95 and G12? Only these two in the running. Intended uses included family portraits, bike and ski action, general lndscape and scenics? Especially keen on the ability to "isolate" the subject as on my old SLR but never been able tonon several compacts...(not sure if isolate is the correct photographic term - just mean getting someone's face in shap focus and then blurring the background...)

sold my 400d recently and bought a sony hx5 instead. just wasn't using the slr and wanted something more versatile for being out biking/walking. it's brilliant. the video quality is stunning and the images in daylight are great. loved the slr when i was travelling but don't think they are the be all and end all for general shooting unless you really are that serious about it

And btw McHamish my full frame camera cost £650

Good point, that's another option...go second hand.

MussEd - no small sensor camera (like the S95 or G12) will really be able to do that (without some kind of software trickery which I seem to remember some camera has now).

Mmm, well, still need to pick one of these 2. Eeny meeny miny mo it is...

Both good, depends how small you want really - S95 is quite a bit smaller innit?

Also, doesn't the G12 have a flippy screen? As above quite useful in many situations.

You might be able to play around with the automatic modes on those cameras to isolate your subject from the background.

At a basic level you need to use a large aperture to minimise the depth of field (DOF), i.e. the area in focus;

[img] [/img]

In laymans terms, the smaller the f number the larger the aperture.

You can affect the DOF by adjusting the distance you are from the subject;

[img] [/img]

By moving closer to the subject you'll be able to get a smaller DOF...so using the compact camera in say 'Portrait Mode', and standing closer to the subject, less of the background will be in focus.

If you don't have any choice, and you have to be further away from the subject, then a compact camera isn't going to give you a narrow DOF. As grumm say's you might be able to get a camera with built in software to articficially blur the back ground, or you can do it in photoshop.

MussEd - no small sensor camera (like the S95 or G12) will really be able to do that (without some kind of software trickery which I seem to remember some camera has now).

My Ricoh CX can do that - takes multiple shots in fast succession at either differing focus or exposure, you can then combine either on camera (exposure - LIKE an HDR) or with the software after.

Works OK, as long as subject doesn't move!

How lucky was he to see three red squirrels in the one place the same time? Thanks for the helps guys!

Think I'm drawn to the S95 for sheer portability, but the screen and extra features on G12 are attractive(though my never get round to using them)

or you can do it in photoshop

Really quite easy in Photoshop, and Photoshop Elements is very good also and sensibly priced (£70 or so). Well worth a pop I'd say.

MussEd - those look like European red squirrels - a bit more brown and less brick than the British variant - and they are quite common. I remember being thrilled to bits and utterly amazed to see one living in the tree outside my flat in Helsinki until I learned this 🙂

Next question - what about using a fluid damped tripod head for wildlife shots? I'm thinking it might damp out a lot of shake whilst still being able to pan and follow say birds in flight. I appreciate these are really for video, but could also be good for action wildlife?

Sounds like a good idea Mol, although I'd reckon you'd need a fair bit of practice panning along more than one plane, as boids don't tend to move perfectly vertically or horizontally.

Probbly best off panning hand-held really, I'd say. A still cam isn't like a huge hefty professional video cam, is it?

That pic of your little girl is lovely. You're right about 99% having a good 'eye'. It helps to have the kit to help realise your vision though.

'diijical'
worse than saying 'dark side'

From now one I'm going to say digittle then.

😆

If something as daft as riteing a word rongly annoys someone sooo much, maybe they need to have a think about their inner rage...

That pic of your little girl is lovely.

Thanks, I appreciate that 🙂 A few more from that day on my flickr stream.

It helps to have the kit to help realise your vision though

It does, and that's why I think it's better to get a range of different types of lens on the cheap than worry about pro levels of sharpness. As in, lenses that allow you to get certain shots in the camera. All my lenses together cost less than the Oly 12-60 pro quality general lens that the forum geeks are faffing over and I can do far more and in most of the pics they take the difference would be negligible I'd bet.

Probbly best off panning hand-held really, I'd say.

Quite possibly. Getting carried away looking at camera support options now but given that I could get every option for less than the price of a fancy zoom lens and give my pictures much more sharpness simply by supporting the camera properly, I reckon it's worth it.

Never really used a damped head so I dunno what it'd be like. Of course that tern pick I took the other day would have been impossible with a 'pod since it was swooping overhead.

Thing is though, some of the better quality damped heads are designed to be used with hefty pro video cams, so the damping might be a bit much for a much lighter still cam, unless you have a mahoosive 600mm f4 or something like that on it. A lighter 'consumer' video head might be more suitable. Best to try a few out in a cam shop I'd say.

Yeah I will do so. My camera's pretty light all in so I'd only need light damping. Maybe I could rig something up with gas struts. And maybe some servos.. connected to a computer with a video camera for motion tracking.. hmm.. now we're talking 🙂

Nutter...

(Wanders off, shaking head)

Gimbal head would probably be better although birds in flight pics take some practise, probably even harder with a tripod than hand held.

The high shutter speed required should negate the camera shake though, had limited success with a spotted woody yesterday, little sod insisted on only landing at the top of the highest trees.

Hard to get the balance between manageable lens, fast AF, IS and cost. The ideal for me would be the 100-400mm IS, but with normal twist zoom and the IQ of the 400mm f5.6 which I use.
The 500mm IS f4 is very nice, but just a bit too weighty (and expensive)for me

Oh yeah, gimball heads.. I did read about those a bit. Are they damped? My setup is so light it doesn't need support from the weight point of view - just anti-shake.

Wimps...hand hold it...

[img] [/img]

This might be worth a look at [url= http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/ ]Lensmaster[/url] not damped, but with the support and high shutter speed shake shouldn't be a spoiler

Still better to work on a good hand held stance, can't say iv'egot it sorted quite yet, but its improving

How about one of these...
[img] [/img]

I've got something similar. Works very well but a bit OTT most of the time.

Wonder if that gimball head would work with my lens as it doesn't have the lens tripod mount bit, only the camera. And hence the thing would be front heavy...

Holy crap 5thElefant, that is not something I would go anywhere near a central London landmark with. I think you'd have the kind gentleman of the Met on your back before you could say "shutter speed".

I haven't read all this thread but skim reading some posts I would say 'obsolete' is a too-oft used term. The core of my camera bag is currently a second hand Nikon D1h, second hand 80-200mm Nikon f2.8 (battered), and a second hand Nikon SB28 flash. Total price, under £1k.

The only serious limitation to this set-up is with cropping. For those looking for an SLR on a budget I would seriously not discount ex-pro stuff from a few years ago.

Pretty much all of the recent stuff of mine is shot with the D1h:

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5438699739_8639b700dc.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5438699739_8639b700dc.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/ed_rollason/5438699739/ ]HitTheNorth_CX_040[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/ed_rollason/ ]Ed Rollason Photography[/url], on Flickr and also on my Blog [url= http://edrollason.wordpress.com/ ]edrollason.wordpress.com/[/url]

D1h

Wonder if that gimball head would work with my lens as it doesn't have the lens tripod mount bit, only the camera. And hence the thing would be front heavy

If your setup is that light surely a normal balhead would do? For birds in flight you need a long'ish lens, fast AF and good technique.
Camera with decent continous tracking focusing is handy too, what sort of birds were you thinking of photographing?

If your setup is that light surely a normal balhead would do?

Yeah perhaps but what I want is something to damp out the shake. It's 600mm zoom in 35mm terms so quite difficult keeping it trained on stuff. Aside from the shake issues if I have centre weighted or spot metering on it's quite difficult to keep it on target for the continuous AF to work. Something to smooth it out would be all I want, hence the fluid heads I was considering.

I did look at shoulder braces (or should that be singular) a while back, then recently I saw this:

[img] [/img]

Shoulder brace for a monopod, only £20. It's a bit flimsy apparently but it works well.

Aside from the shake issues if I have centre weighted or spot metering on it's quite difficult to keep it on target for the continuous AF to work

Got me a bit confused there, surely the spot and centre refer to the metering (which you could lock) not the AF points or mode you choose.

Do you collect steam engines too?

[sniffs]Hey if I could afford a D3 I'd have one but until then my work horse will have to do![/sniffs]

Got me a bit confused there, surely the spot and centre refer to the metering (which you could lock) not the AF points or mode you choose

Er yeah quite right, I mix those two terms up. When shooting at birds I usually select spot metering AND the centre AF point. Perhaps I shouldn't? I wonder if I left it on ESP and let it choose the AF itself, would it still pick out a bird against a background? It probably would against the sky. Maybe. Then again perhaps not with the metering.

Evaluative wouldn't be a great idea, spot is fine, but maybe lock it in and then just concentrate on the AF issue

Rather than continous AF you could try predicting their flight path rather than tracking the bird/s, had some success with this method. Pick the spot you think they will fly into then fire off a fair few continous shots rather just using single shot mode.

Yeah my one success was with C-AF and rapid burst mode. Lots and lots of shots of blank sky, my hit ratio wasn't too good 🙂

Thanks for all the pointers for me so far (the 60d/550d question). What is has brought up is whether it's worth going 2nd hand 5d Mark 1 and coughing for some better quality glass?

The improvements over my 300d should be massive, even though the 5d is "old" tech. Is it worth going used pro level body over shiny new consumer level?

The improvements over my 300d should be massive, even though the 5d is "old" tech. Is it worth going used pro level body over shiny new consumer level?

Not quite sure how to emphasis this enough... [b][i][u]ABSOLUTELY!!![/u][/i][/b]

Your main problem is, in time, you'll want new pro level. That's an expensive place to be...

worth going 2nd hand 5d Mark 1 and coughing for some better quality glass?

That's what I did and no regrets at all. The 5D feels very good quality and there is the full frame pixie dust magic on the images imo, when paired with decent glass anyway.

There is a lot to be said for Full Frame Pixie Dust 😆

Just bought a "L-series" 24mm 1.4f bad boy... Even from ebay it cost more than I paid for my 550D from the shop... Don't cameras have a strange habit of doing that? Next on the shopping list is a 5D mkII... And ANOTHER external hard drive 😉

External hard drive? For backup? DVDs are much cheaper you know 🙂

DVDs? Do they still sell them? With a terabyte NAS costing £80 it's hard to imagine why.

Who keeps a terabyte of photos?

Who keeps a terabyte of photos?

24MB cRAW + 24MB jpeg - that's only 20,000 photos. About 3 years worth for me.

And that would be a lot of DVDs.

i think i have about 10tb but that's actually 5 because it's backed up twice. i know photographers with 4-5 times that as i don't shoot people so usually a shoot can just be 40-100 frames.
it's not unusual for some photographers i know to shoot 1000 raws in a day.
i do get rid of a lot of the raws after a year in the archive and just keep the essentials, the accompanying layered photoshop files can easily be over 1gb though.

So you keep absolutely every shot? Even the junk?

Pros need not respond, of course 🙂

I self-edit as I go along so most that come off the camera are candidates. I then process the best ones. The best of the best get sized (and often go through Elements first producing another file) and make it to picasa which forms my candidates index for future printing (photo books, enlargements etc). All of the files get archived and cross-backed up to my PC HDD.

Obviously there's a lot of stuff that I'll probably never look at again. But given the price and convenience of a NAS it doesn't seem worth the bother to sort through the files. I found when I did use DVDs, which are a massive PITA, they'd generally get lost or thrown out.

I've read through this interesting post, but seem to be having some doubts about my own photography of late.

I've built up to what most people would probably envy (in terms of gear), to a Canon 1D3 , various primes , Pocket Wizards TT1 & TT5 ,external battery pack to fuel the flash etc.

Can't help thinking that to take an image I've got an arsenal of gear.......

Looking at the type of images that I tend to take, and those which I actually like to view , well they're a mile apart in terms of subject and content.

I'm close to selling all my gear except the tripod and buying a Fuji X100 or a Leica X1.

I just want to be able to put my camera in my pocket (or small man bag 🙂 ) and take images of places of interest. Natural light, one focal length - near dslr quality.

Anyone else on here gone back to simpler photography? could be tempted with just a 5D2 and a 35mm lens though - but that would be the extent of it.

Why not have a dabble with a m4/3 or Nex and see how you get on before doing anything drastic 🙂

Play have the Nex3 with 16mm for [url= http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electronics/4-/15116686/Sony-NEX-3-14-2-Megapixels-720p-HD-Movie-Sweep-Panorama-3-inch-Tilt-LCD-Compact-Digital-Camera-16mm-Lens-Silver/Product.html?searchstring=nex&searchtype=allproducts&searchsource=0&urlrefer=search ]£268[/url] at the moment.

I'd also suggest micro 4/3 cameras or the Nex. If you want fixed focal length then a Pen with the 17mm pancake is hard to beat.

Bit of looking and you can get the E-P1 or E-PL1 bodies for 199 and 239 respectively

GF1 body for 199 also

I've read through this interesting post, but seem to be having some doubts about my own photography of late.

I've built up to what most people would probably envy (in terms of gear), to a Canon 1D3 , various primes , Pocket Wizards TT1 & TT5 ,external battery pack to fuel the flash etc.

Can't help thinking that to take an image I've got an arsenal of gear.......

Looking at the type of images that I tend to take, and those which I actually like to view , well they're a mile apart in terms of subject and content.

I'm close to selling all my gear except the tripod and buying a Fuji X100 or a Leica X1.

I just want to be able to put my camera in my pocket (or small man bag ) and take images of places of interest. Natural light, one focal length - near dslr quality.

Anyone else on here gone back to simpler photography? could be tempted with just a 5D2 and a 35mm lens though - but that would be the extent of it.

Yes the x100 on paper looks decent. Question is how much better will it be than the equivalent m43 setup in reality (for which you can change lenses).

-The best camera is the one that you have on you

The e-p1 is quite an interesting one. It's got more traditional controls than the newer bodies and the new (more expensive) ones don't offer any sensor upgrades (in fact I think the e-p1 has better in body stabilisation than the e-pl series).

I'll have a look at the 4/3rds suggestions, my main concern would be the noise in the images.

A friend has a 5D2, and it's simply stunning in terms of image quality - the reviews on the Leica (in particular) and the new Fuji , appear to have very good ISO performance as well.

If you can stump up the cash and find one! theres the Voightlander Nokton 25mm F 0.95 lens (built for m43)

http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_mft_lenses.htm

Which should deal with some low light concerns

This things sells out before the factory batch is done though

m4/3 can't compete with FF but they're very good given the size. The Nex's are better as they have APS sensors. We're talking about 1.5 stops worse for the m4/3 and 1 stop for the Nex so it's not night and day.

NEX controls sound a tad cumbersome and they've not made any particularly fast lenses yet IIRC

At normal ISOs and conditions the Olympus JPEG engine might take some beating.

When the NEX system gets some fast primes maybe Pana and Oly might feel the heat a bit more

I'll have a look at the 4/3rds suggestions, my main concern would be the noise in the images.

It's not that bad, seriously. If you want a simple portable small camera you are going to end up with a smaller sensor and there are going to be compromises from a pixel peeper point of view. However from a practical point of view there's no difference. See earlier in the thread for a pic I took at ISO1600 on a 4/3 camera.

NEX controls sound a tad cumbersome

See earlier in the thread for a pic I took at ISO1600 on a 4/3 camera.

Lovely image, must get back to taking more varied photo's myself.