Lumix G3 Replacing Pentax K-5

I am taking the big step and selling my K-5 and all the lenses I have for it.  I have replaced it with the Lumix G3.  The primary reason is that I decided to reduce the size & weight of my gear.  As configured above, the Lumix G3 with the 14 – 42 mm lens weighs 560 gm. and the K-5 with the comparable 18 – 55 mm lens weighs 1010 gm.  I had not been using the K-5 and had been primarily using my Olympus E-P3 with prime lenses since it was lighter and easier to carry … until I got the Panasonic Lumix G3.

My rationale is that the extra weight & size of the K-5 is not worth it to me.  The K-5 is a better camera, has an APS size sensor, is weather resistant, and is sturdier with a magnesium body; but I have not been utilizing those features.  Those benefits had no value to me if I didn’t take the camera out and use it.  The weight and size disadvantage of the K-5 system was even worse when I used it with the 55 – 300 mm lens and that was my main configuration.  I preferred to use the long zoom lens on it rather than a comparable zoom on the E-P3 since the E-P3 doesn’t have a viewfinder and it was harder to hold steady when holding it out so I could see the LCD to compose pictures.

I have ordered the Panasonic 45 – 175 mm Lumix GX Vario PZ lens and intend to use it on the G3 most of the time.  The lens doesn’t have quite the reach of the Pentax set-up (only an effective 350 mm rather than the 450 mm I had with the Pentax), but I think that will be sufficient.  I could have ordered a longer lens for the G3 but I liked that the new 45 – 175 mm lens doesn’t extend when focusing or zooming.  It will be easier to hold steady and won’t be so noticeable when using it on the street.  If I need a longer zoom, Panasonic has a 300 mm lens (effective 600 mm) … longer than anything Pentax has.

It will take a little more time to get real familiar with the G3, but so far I really like the ergonomics and the quality of the images.  I’m even thinking that I might sell my E-P3 and just use the G3 for my photography … I still have my Canon S95 for a pocket camera but haven’t been using it so I might also sell it.  I will wait and see if I’m always carrying the G3 with me when I go out.  If not, I might keep the E-P3 as a jacket/vest pocket camera with either the 14 or the 20 mm pancake lens and just a wrist strap on it.

Normally on a day like yesterday when it is foggy and drizzling, I would prefer to take my K-5 while out walking; but this time I took the G3 with the 14 – 42 mm lens.  I kept it on a neck strap under my raincoat and only took it out while shooting.  Here are a few shots that I took.  The G3 did just fine.  I’ll soon be saying goodby to the K-5.

 

Panasonic G3 instead of Olympus E-M5

Sun glare was bothering me and when I came to a fork in the path I took it.

I discovered that I’m having a lot of difficulty in using the LCD to compose shots on my Olympus E-P3 while wearing my sunglasses.  I didn’t have this much trouble with the E-P1 in Tunisia so I hope that it doesn’t mean my eyes are changing that much.  To get around the issue I tried using my Pentax K-5 since it has a good optical viewfinder; but, that meant lugging the “beast” around.  It’s interesting in how we change.  The K-5 is one of the most capable, smallest DSLRs around and now I’m referring to it as a beast after experiencing the value of micro 4/3 cameras.

The combination of my eye problem with the E-P3 and the weight problem with the K-5 plus lenses, led me to decide that I needed to get something like the new Olympus E-M5 when it becomes available this summer.  In looking at info on the E-M5 I came across a picture of it sitting beside the Panasonic G3 … and I noticed that the G3 is about 5% lighter and about the same size.  That led me to take a closer look at the G3, and that is when I discovered how similar they are.

The primary differences relative to the functions and features that I’m concerned about are: 1) the G3’s LCD swivels rather than just fold down or up slightly, 2) the G3 is not weatherized and does not have in-body image stabilization, 3) the G3 costs approximately half what the E-M5 will cost.  That did it.  I decided that the E-M5 wasn’t worth the cost for me.  I ordered the Panasonic G3 camera instead.  Getting the capabilities I need at half the cost was an over whelming decision breaker.

I decided that I probably won’t need the weather resistant qualities and that the G3 is small enough to put under my rain jacket or in a zip lock bag if I run into inclement weather … and that it is highly unlikely that I will actually need to take pictures in the rain.

I also decided that having the on-off switch at the bottom of the back on the E-M5 would make it difficult, if possible, to reach into my bag, pull the camera out, and turn it on so that it was ready to shoot the minute it reached my eye … all with one hand.

I also decided that having the swiveling LCD along with the EVF would give me more options for using the camera.  In bright sun light I could either turn the LCD at an angle to minimize the sun glare or use the EVF.  Having the swiveling LCD also gives me more options to shoot holding the camera down low.  After my back fusion I don’t have the flexibility to bend down low like I did.  This is something I often miss when using my E-P3 or K-5.

Since the G3 uses the image stabilization in the lenses, it will mean that I have to buy another lens or two to supplement my Panasonic primes, but the total cost will still be less than for just the E-M5 body … and some of those new Panasonic  Leica lenses really look great.

I was much encouraged when Kirk Tuck came out with his article right after I had ordered my G3.  You can read his initial views about the G3 by clicking here and here.

My future plan is to use the G3 for a while and if all goes as I expect, I will sell the K-5 and all of the Pentax lenses.  The big uncertainty then will be to decide whether it is worth keeping the Olympus E-P3.  I’ll make that decision after I see if I’m using it any.

 

Down the Road

I have a Canon S95, a Pentax K-5, and an Olympus E-P3 camera with multiple lenses for the K-5 and the E-P3 … more cameras than I need or use.  I mostly use the E-P3 because of the quality, size and weight compromise.  In addition, I seem to be gravitating towards using a prime lens on the E-P3 … the Panasonic 14 or 20 mm, or the Olympus 45 mm.  My dilemma is what will I need in the future?  It’s always easier to look back in time, and these cameras have all served me well under different circumstances.  The question is, what will I need down the road?  Will one of the newer cameras better serve my future needs?

I’m contemplating replacing my cameras with the new Olympus OM-D, E-M5.  It would give me the weather protection that I have with the K-5 but in a much smaller, easier to carry system package.  It would also allow me to continue to use the micro 4/3 lenses that I have and love, but it might not have the image quality that I can get with the K-5. The E-M5 might be the single camera solution that I have dreamed about.

My current reservations are:

• Will I use a camera enough to warrant buying a new one?
• Will I really need an all-weather camera?
• Will I do a lot better with the EVF of the E-M5 due to my eye-sight?
• Will I be able to handle the E-M5 with one hand if my other hand is holding a cane or walking stick?
• Should I keep the E-P3 for backup?

If I only knew what was down the road.

 

Walking with a 45 mm Prime Lens

In earlier posts I talked about the advantages I have found in using 14 mm and 20 mm prime lenses while touring in Ireland, etc.  I’m not going to repeat the advantages of touring with prime lenses since you can read them in many of my earlier posts.  What I’m addressing today is why I have added another prime lens to my daily walks … the 45 mm f/1.8 Olympus lens which gives me an effective 90 mm focal length.

In Ireland the 14 and 20 mm lenses were ideal for the wider landscape pictures that I took, but I learned that while walking around Hanover city streets, the things with the most character were found in the smaller details.   To capture this I decided to get the 45 mm f/1.8 lens to obtain a greater reach.

The question I’m sure you want to ask is “why not use my 14 – 150 mm zoom lens?” since it would give me a lot more focal length flexibility.  The primary reasons are that it is bigger, weighs more, doesn’t have as good low light capabilities, and isn’t as sharp.  The 45 mm lens is sharp at f/1.8 and the sharpness is quite good, and consistent at f stops between f/4 and f/8.  If I wish to focus on details with the further stuff blurred, I can set the aperture at f/1.8 … can’t do that with the 14 – 150 mm f/4 to f/5.6 zoom lens.  If I’m interested in maximum detail and depth-of-focus I can set the 45 mm prime at f/5.6 to f/8 and keep shooting without any thought.  In addition, since the 45 mm is so sharp, and since I display my pictures on digital devices, I can crop-zoom significantly to home in on the details thus negating the need for a longer zoom.  If I need to take a wider shot and don’t have a wider lens in my pocket, I can take a panorama with two or more pictures and then join them when I get home.

The only potential disadvantage of shooting with prime lenses is the occasional need to change them and this raises the possibility of getting dirt on the sensor or dropping a lens; but I haven’t found this to be a problem.  My practice is to choose the best lens before going out depending upon where I’m going and what I’m shooting.  In doing this I am almost always able to change lenses while sitting at home or in my car, and almost never need to change them while walking.

Since this is a different focal length than I am use to using, I have tried to learn more about shooting with it by walking around close to home.  Above is a picture that I took while testing the lens under the conditions I expect to encounter.  I’m showing the same picture below in B&W.  That is another aspect of my pictures that I’m exploring; i.e. displaying the older buildings, etc. in B&W.

 

Light, Wet Snow

I recently purchased the Olympus 45 mm, f/1.8 prime lens for my E-P3 camera.  It’s the third leg of my trifecta:  14 mm, 20 mm, and 45 mm prime lenses (effective 28 mm, 40 mm, and 90 mm focal lengths).   The weather hasn’t been great for trying it out but here are a few shots from a walk this morning.

 

Square Sensors for Lighter Systems

All of those planes going somewhere without me this morning.

Oh well, I’m still fine tuning my techniques and style in anticipation of future travels, and that means I need to get on with today’s topic which is aspect ratio.  Olympus provides you with many different aspect ratios in the E-P3 with the native aspect ratio of the sensor being 4:3.  For the above picture I chose to set it for 6:6, or for square pictures.  I like this ratio for displaying pictures in my blog, but it means that I’m cropping the sensor as you can see in the following picture.

(Note that I took this picture with my Canon S95 and that the color balances were different.)

Even though I set the aspect ratio to 6:6, when I review the picture taken at that ratio in the LCD, the above is what I see.  It shows me how the camera cropped the sensor to achieve the square format.  Obviously they recorded the full sensor’s data but when I extract the picture from the camera to LR as a DNG picture I only get the square picture.

I have several issues with the above info.  The first is why doesn’t Olympus show the above scene on the LCD while composing the shot?  If they did, it would help in deciding whether to continue with the 6:6 ratio rather than the native 4:3 ratio.  Second, if they record all the data in the 4:3 format, why not make it available when I bring the picture up in LR in a view similar to the above?  But, I’m not as concerned about these first two issues since I usually shoot in the 4:3 format and crop in development.  I’m left wondering about my third issue:  Why don’t they make the sensor in a square format?

I see at least two advantages to having a square sensor.  First, it would eliminate turning the camera to compose in landscape or portrait mode and thus eliminate the awkward holding and use of the camera in a vertical orientation, but that is a minor issue.  My main thought is that a square sensor would enable the construction of smaller lenses.

The primary reason that many of us are moving away from DSLR cameras is to reduce the size and weight of the combined camera and lenses.  The micro 4/3 cameras achieve that by eliminating the mirror and by reducing the size of the sensor.   Efficient production techniques necessitate that lenses be round.   This means that the rectangular sensors only utilize a portion of the lenses’ image projection.  Going from the APS ratio sensors to 4:3 ratio is a more efficient use of the round image and that enabled the lenses to be smaller.  If they would go to square sensors it would be even a more efficient use of the round lens image as depicted below and it would enable us to have even a smaller camera-lens combination with adequate sensor sizes for quality images.

Come on camera designers; give us an even more efficient, smaller, and lighter system with a large square sensor and right-sized lenses.  Seems to make sense to me.

 

Deceptive Phrasing

My wife was using some Hersey’s Syrup yesterday and I was glad to note that it utilized genuine chocolate flavor.  I suppose the words are meant to make us feel better about the product.  I checked the list of ingredients and it did contain some cacao along with artificial flavoring.

The way the words are arranged, it appears that the word “genuine” applies to “chocolate flavor”, but maybe they mean it applies to the net weight.  It’s hard to tell.  But, I’m sure that they are hoping that our mind interprets it as genuine chocolate and that we miss the rest.

The artfully arranged words are as informative as the current Republican Presidential candidates’ claims.  We just don’t know what lies behind a few well-chosen words and they are no more than vacuous terms meant to deceive us.

 

Morning Fog

It was 26 degrees, dark, dreary & icy at 7:20 am today.

 

Going Down

This is a picture of the steps within Blarney Castle in Ireland, the home of the Blarney Stone.  To reach the stone you go up one set of steps and down the above steps to return to ground level.  If you aren’t familiar with the Blarney Stone, at the top of the Castle, I suggest you click here and see what gyrations you have to go through to get the gift of eloquence.

 

Apocalypse

Olympus E-PL2 with 20 mm lens in Ireland

The word “apocalypse” has been used for “disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception.”  The future is not always clear and it is often hard to see it through a lens, especially when it is raining so hard, but here is what I see coming … the apocalypse or reduction in sales of large DSLR cameras with mirrors and the rise of mirrorless, smaller cameras.

Lots of new cameras have been, or are being announced, and most of them are mirrorless and smaller.  We can look forward to the new Canon PowerShot G1 X, the Nikon J1 & V1, and the Fujifilm X10, X100, & X-Pro1, the Sony NEX-7, the Panasonic DMC-GX1, and the rumored Olympus OM-D as well as others.  (You can click here to read about them as they are announced.)

They have a range of sensor sizes, and thus lenses, and it appears that they are all trying to establish a niche with a camera and lens system that locks the buyer into their product.  While all the new cameras look great they are all still compromises, and while the image quality of the APS or larger size sensors have better high ISO performance, they still have large lenses which make a large, heavier kit for carrying.  And thus, while the end of the larger DSLRs with mirrors is most likely coming to an end, if cameras still stick to the APS size sensor, they will have large ungainly lenses on smaller bodies … and that doesn’t interest me, nor do I see that to be a good solution for the hobbyist.  If you are a pro and are relying upon selling pictures for a living, go with the largest size sensor that you can manage.

For all the rest of us, I still see the micro 4/3 cameras to be the optimum compromise with very good image quality and small, high quality lenses; i.e. the optimum carry-with-you size camera for travel, street, and general all around use.  Most of the manufacturer’s excursions above and below that size are being driven by marketing and the desire to establish a unique niche.  From research & technology, ergonomic, and cost viewpoints, I see my future to be with micro 4/3 cameras with better image quality, the best affordable lenses, and the best size for handling and carrying.

If you wish to follow this transformation in cameras and make your own decision, I suggest you read (click on) the following bloggers, all photographers of renown.  They are/were larger camera owners, mostly for professional use, and have switched to smaller cameras for all other uses.

• Steve Huff
• Kirk Tuck
• Thom Hogan
• Atmtx Photography