One for the Camera/Photo peoples.
Wifeys birthday coming up and I know she (we) want a good camera. We've had numerous compacts and want something which can take higher quality images. Both rank amateurs but enjoy taking photos.
So. Was thinking a 4/3rds thing? I'm finding full DSLRs pricey and rather large. Looking at around £300.
Seen this;
http://www.shopfotoaglow.com/products/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx1-digital-camera-with-g-vario-14-42mm-lens-silver?utm_source=google-product-search
Any good? Also looked at the Sony NEX 3 but it oddly leaves me a bit cold.
Any advice/recommendations gratefully received.
The Sony's are supposed to take excellent photos, the GX1 is, IIRC, a fairly old camera now, but still good. Look on dpreview.com.
I think you mean micro 4/3. 4/3 is a different system.
My tip would be to go to stores.ebay.co.uk/olympusmarket - they are the European Olympus refurb outlet. Currently only a couple of Pens on there though (the m4/3 ones) and I'd recommend anything with a number higher than 3 if you can find it (E-P3 or E-PL3) because they are later and have better AF. The 1 and 2s are still great though. The 2s have a slightly better lens in terms of operation.
I went from Olympus m4/3 to Sony Nex and won't be moving back.
They're all good though. Really for £300 it's who's doing the best deal at the moment. I'd get a Nex-3N with 16-50 pancake zoom fron Currys if it was me, but that's £50 over budget.
I'm sure others will be along shortly to recommend even more expensive options 🙂
Thanks for the advice so far. The budget is [i]fairly[/i] flexible. All the Olympus models I like are eye-wateringly expensive though. The dpreviews site gets a bit technical for me, I would prefer laymans terms but it's probably a massive help to enthusiasts.
Second-hand...
You can get an e-p1 or e-p2 (or e-pl) for half your budget or less. Same with the Nex-5, or a Nex-5N can be had on budget.
Had this exact conversation with a work colleague last week, he ended up buying a Lumix GF5.
If you don't want to 'learn' photography and just want a good point & shoot, something like the Canon S110 might be a better choice?
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-powershot-s110
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-PowerShot-S110-Digital-Camera/dp/B00APEHM3O/
If you do want to learn how to take better pictures, go with the Panasonic.
In the Olympus world, the micro 4/3 cameras are labelled E-Pxn where x is either nothing, l or m and n is between 1 and er 5 currently I think.
L refers to 'lite' and they are more user-friendly, a little smaller and I tihnk they have built-in flashes, but not sure.
M refers to 'mini' and these are quite a bit smaller but lack some features like flippy screens and flash etc.
Nothing models are more enthusiast orientated. Although there's not a huge amount in it for any of them.
The 2 range got a better stock lens that was the same optically but quieter in operation so you don't hear it focus when you are shooting video.
The 3 range get much faster autofocus performance.
4 and 5 not too sure about, but I think the 5s have the new sensor that first came in the £1,000 OM-D so they have really good low light performance which competes with the best mid range SLRs and knocks spots off the previous models.
That's not to say the older ones are bad in reality, despite what geeks will say. I can still get lovely pictures from my sensor of that type. But the better sensors will take the same quality of picture in much lower light, so you are pretty unlikely to need a flash indoors or at dusk. And using a flash gives you crap pictures unless you really know what you are doing.
So to summarise, get an Olympus E-PL3.
EDIT holy cow, £240 at Curry's now - that's an incredible bargain for what you get.
Yeah, at that price, buy the e-pl3.
Agreement? E-PL3 yeah?
Actually I almost wish I'd got that instead of the E-420 I got for my wife.
I wouldn't get a camera without an optical viewfinder.
Screens are awful in high or low light and necessitate holding the camera away from you, so it is less steady.
This means you can't take pictures in as low a light as they will come out blurred.
It's also much easier to track moving objects with an optical viewfinder.
Oh my, just seen the E-P3. What a lovely thing....
Do it. If you don't like it blame molgrips.
I don't necessarily agree with sbob. Many people these days are so used to looking at the back screens that they do it anyway even if they have a VF - my wife does.
As for tracking moving objects - these cameras don't track focus on moving objects well anyway.
If you really must use one then you can get a clip on electronic viewfinder for the E-PL3 but it's pricey.
Oh my, just seen the E-P3. What a lovely thing....
I know.. do not whatever you do google for OM-D E-5 in silver...
No, do it. They're hideous! Like a retro toy camera.
The e-p and e-pl line are lovely though.
Alas, no amount of googling will put the EP-3 anywhere near budget...
molgrips - MemberI don't necessarily agree with sbob. Many people these days are so used to looking at the back screens that they do it anyway even if they have a VF
That's true but it doesn't mean that screens are better than VF.
I was sat at the back of a theatre watching a performance where flash photography was definitely not cricket, and the photos I took on my £75 compact were way better than the blurry offerings taken by the people around me, who were all using their screens to take the photos.
I've taken photos of birds in flight that simply wouldn't have been possible using a screen (I have tried).
Some good deals around lately for the Nikon 1. A mate of mine got one a few weeks back; think it cost him £289.
That's true but it doesn't mean that screens are better than VF.
Hmm yeah.. well I should say that you do make good points, but Iif I were buying I would just put up with it. Electronic VFs are available on more expensive cameras, and optical ones are only on bigger and more expensive SLRs. So whilst good, it's a compromise I'd make I reckon.
I don't think that it's necessarily going to be blurry if you don't have it clamped to your head though. Especially as a better camera like an E-PL3 will offer higher ISOs than a compact.
I picked up my Sony NEX 5N from MPB for about £260 I think, it was in new/open box condition.
I only have experience with a DSLR 450D and a few compacts, but I'm absolutely loving the NEX. Ticks all the right boxes for me.
Menu system takes a wee bit of getting used to.
Way off topic. Took longer than usual mind.
That's true but it doesn't mean that screens are better than VF.I was sat at the back of a theatre watching a performance where flash photography was definitely not cricket, and the photos I took on my £75 compact were way better than the blurry offerings taken by the people around me, who were all using their screens to take the photos.
View finders and LCDs are different. Optical view finders are different to electronic. There is no best.
I use the LCD a lot. Angle it out and brace against your body like a TLR camera. You can't do that with an EVF or OVF.
I've taken photos of birds in flight that simply wouldn't have been possible using a screen (I have tried).
And that's when I'd use an OVF or EVF but I certainly wouldn't use a mirrorless camera as the tracking AF is useless.
Ive got a sony nex 6 - bit more then you meant to spend, but uses a very similar sensor to the nex 5s and 3s. And i think the newly released nex 3 is in your price range.
Personally i find it great, easy to pack/carry compared to a dslr,but produces excellent results.
Think the new nex 3 has a touchscreen so would make it even easier to navigate menus, select focus points etc
I prefer using the LCD in low light on mine. You can also zoom in on it to manually focus, which is handy. Can't do that with an OVF. So it's not black and white, as 5e says.
Lumix G3 is in budget. Any good? Nikon V1?
The Nikons have a tiny sensor and the image quality isn't much better than a compact. But I think they do have a unique autofocus system with the lcd view, which has the advantages of a normal SLR in things like tracking moving objects.
I wouldn't bother though - m4/3 is the most common system now and has the most stuff to go with it.
G3 apparently has the better sensor with much better low light performance, but is not as nice to use or handle, according to DP review. That may be an issue if you are novices.. perhaps go into a shop and have a play.
molgrips - MemberElectronic VFs are available on more expensive cameras, and optical ones are only on bigger and more expensive SLRs.
Admittedly, in my budget (sub £100) there was the grand choice of one with an OVF, which did at least make the decision process quite simple. 😆
but is not as nice to use or handle, according to DP review.
As the GX1, EPL3 or V1?
Oh yeah, OVFs also come on better compacts.
but is not as nice to use or handle, according to DP review.
I think I'll retract that, must've been reading something else. DP review liked it.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg3/19
You can also check here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg3/16 and compare the images.
The image quality looks a lot better on the E-PL3 in JPEG mode than the G3 or GX1
[img] 
[/img]
This is where my £300 would go.
Looking at this page
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1100D/16
The 1100d has worse image quality than the G3 or the E-PL3, and is bigger and heavier to boot.
Big lump with an ancient sensor. Canon can stick a badge on any old crap and people will buy it. It's their speciality at the budget end.
A small DSLR will do all you ask and more.
The four thirds system, no matter how loud people shout about it, is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.
The ONLY camera systems worth investing in are Canon & Nikon DSLR - the Microsoft and Apple of the camera world.
Anything else is like buying a Dragon 32 or an Atari - a massive waste of money & time.
You [b]need [/b]an optical viewfinder. Anyone who says otherwise is just deluded - you can't take decent pictures if you can't see the subject.
But the most important thing is the manual - a camera is just a box with a hole in it. You need to strip away all the crap and learn how it works.
This takes about five minutes.
If you can tie your shoelaces, you can work it out.
If you just want to take better, as opposed to different, photos, buy a good book, read the manual and learn simple relationship between apeture, shutter speed and sensor/film speed.
I bought 2nd hand, Panasonic gf2 with 14mm pancake was only £150!!
great little camera, pocket sized and very good image in my opinion.
if you want a built in viewfinder the g2 is very good , avoid the g3 as a lot of the functions were "simplified"
The four thirds system, no matter how loud people shout about it, is dead. It just doesn't know it yet.
four thirds will always be niche but micro-4/3 has some very good lenses and 3rd parties like zeiss, leica and sigma are now making high end primes and zooms for the format. there is a lot of interest form the film world too with the blackmagic cameras available in the same mount.
Wow, RS, almost everything in your post is wrong.. wait, no, EVERYTHING in your post is wrong, but this is the worst bit:
You need to strip away all the crap and learn how it works.
This takes about five minutes
I was a competent enough film SLR and compact camera user, but it took me several months of sitting in my living room going throught the 100-odd page manual trying things out and really understanding what it all meant to my photos before I was confident. I'm still learning. Recently for example I realised that the 'vivid' colour profile actually does a bit of sharpening, and to get the best out of a high ISO JPEG I can reduce NR and sharpening to good effect. I've had the camera for over three years.
As Mr Smith said, [b]Four Thirds[/b] has become a niche, but there are still people using it, the lenses are still prized, and Olympus are producing a new Four Thirds compatible camera.
However [b]Micro Four Thirds[/b], which is different, is by far the most popular mirrorless interchangeable lens format, it has the widest and best selection of lenses, and is selling well.
A small DSLR will do all you ask and more.
All the m43 cameras are smaller and lighter than SLRs. This is a consideration for many people, including me and the OP if you read it.
The ONLY camera systems worth investing in are Canon & Nikon DSLR - the Microsoft and Apple of the camera world.
There are compelling reasons to consider Sony and Pentax too. No-one benefits if we end up with a dupoloy, by the way. Sony and Pentax offer unique features in SLRs, and even Olympus did too.
If you can tie your shoelaces, you can work it out
That tells me you don't really understand digital photography properly. They don't do degrees in shoelace tying, after all, and no-one makes a career out of professional shoelace tying.
See my thread on a similar conundrum [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/photography-types-please-recommend-me-a-camera-for ]here[/url]:
I went for a Nikon V1 in the end at a bargain £230 with kit lens on Amazon as they were about to be superceded. Everyone will tell you the sensor is too small and they can't possibly take as good photos compared to the equivalent Sony etc, but in reality the autofocus is blindingly quick and image quality has been absolutely superb.
molgrips - MemberWow, RS, almost everything in your post is wrong.. wait, no, EVERYTHING in your post is wrong, but this is the worst bit:
What an amazingly patronising reply - well up to your usual current standards.
I was a competent enough film SLR and compact camera user, but it took me several months of sitting in my living room going throught the 100-odd page manual trying things out and really understanding what it all meant to my photos before I was confident. I'm still learning. Recently for example I realised that the 'vivid' colour profile actually does a bit of sharpening, and to get the best out of a high ISO JPEG I can reduce NR and sharpening to good effect. I've had the camera for over three years.
So you didn't read the manual properly at the beginning?
Who's fault is that?
There are compelling reasons to consider Sony and Pentax too. No-one benefits if we end up with a dupoloy, by the way. Sony and Pentax offer unique features in SLRs, and even Olympus did too.
Go on then, list the 'compelling' reasons.
That tells me you don't really understand digital photography properly. They don't do degrees in shoelace tying, after all, and no-one makes a career out of professional shoelace tying.
Yeah, cheers for that.
You know nothing about my photographic history - still, it's a good line, why waste it?
And complete bollocks too, btw.
The relationship between apeture, shutter speed and sensitivity is very simple indeed.
TBH, if I'd thought about it properly, I wouldn't even have bothered contributing to a thread you've already posted on.
Pointless isn't it?
You're right, everyone else is wrong.
I used to enjoy your contributions, but the smugness is getting a bit wearing.
I'll leave it there.
What an amazingly patronising reply - well up to your usual current standards.
It's not meant to be patronising, I just disagree!
So you didn't read the manual properly at the beginning?
No, it's stuff that isn't in the manual, but you learn over time spent with a camera. The manual tells you how to operate the controls, it doesn't tell you how to take photos. Well actually, the Olympus one does, but only basic advice.
Go on then, list the 'compelling' reasons.
Pentax have the cheapest weather sealed offering - that's pretty compelling imo.
Sony have a different mirror technology, which works pretty well, and when I was shopping offered more features for the same price. I was going to buy one until I found a special offer on my Oly.
The relationship between apeture, shutter speed and sensitivity is very simple indeed.
It is, yes, but there's a lot more to photography than just that.
I apologise for being so confrontational, but your original post did get me a little irked, because you were calling me deluded and making some very sweeping pronouncements. What I meant to say was that I disagree with those sweeping pronouncements. I really didn't think they are helpful for someone such as the OP.
It's cameras chaps!
I really appreciate the replies and also that everyone is trying to be helpful.
I will be getting a compact system camera (apparently that's what they are called) DSLRs are just too big, and as novices we wouldn't use half of the functionality. Perhaps in the future.
Currys is shit. They won't deliver and will only allow collection from a store which has it in stock. Truly a new standard in customer service. The olympus PEN epl3 is winning, the aesthetics leave me a little underwhelmed but you can't argue with the image quality. Just need to find one at a compatible price from a decent retailer now. Unless anyone has stumbled upon some heavily discounted camera pron?
Bid this now!
Assuming you missed that, try this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0058GI33W/?tag=hydra0b-21&hvadid=9550945629&ref=asc_df_B0058GI33W
Lumix GX1?
Meant to be the eventual successor to the extremely well regarded GF1.
Nice in the hand too, very good image quality. The Olympus and lumix cameras were always related and so image quality ought to be similar but usually the Olympus versions had a better Jpeg processor. This certainly applied to the earlier models. Not sure with the current ones but guess its similar.
