From: Paul Furman on
David J Taylor wrote:
> RichA wrote
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> RichA wrote
>>>
>>> > NX10. By quite a large margin. $699 with an 18-55mm kit lens.
>>>
>>> .. or you could get a "proper" camera for even less:
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09073005nikond3000.asp
>>
>> Click-whir "I must buy a traditional DSLR," click, whir....
>
> You really should get that oiled, Rich.
>
> You want wider than 18mm, longer than 200mm? You want fixed focal
> length lenses? You want image stabilisation? You want an optical
> finder? Then the NX10 is not for you today.

I'm tempted by the Panasonic GF1 although it lacks a decent viewfinder
and stabilization (except some lenses) just because it's small & seems
easy to use with good AF & controls and that 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens.
The price sucks though.

BTW here's what a 45mm Ai-P pancake looks like with adapter on a GF1:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/winginging/craigslist%202010/IMG_6053.jpg
Kind of silly, but interesting how much difference in the mount. It
could be handy with a longer lens kept in your pocket like a 75-150
Series E would be darn near like a 300mm f/2.8, or a 105 macro lens,
50mm fast prime, etc.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: David J Taylor on

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hit232$5cp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
[]
> I'm tempted by the Panasonic GF1 although it lacks a decent viewfinder
> and stabilization (except some lenses) just because it's small & seems
> easy to use with good AF & controls and that 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens.
> The price sucks though.

I've wanted to look through that camera for some time - strange how all
the times I've tried there has never been a battery in the demo camera! I
do feel that stabilisation is a must, and the lack of it in the NX10 is a
deal-breaker.

> BTW here's what a 45mm Ai-P pancake looks like with adapter on a GF1:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/winginging/craigslist%202010/IMG_6053.jpg
> Kind of silly, but interesting how much difference in the mount. It
> could be handy with a longer lens kept in your pocket like a 75-150
> Series E would be darn near like a 300mm f/2.8, or a 105 macro lens,
> 50mm fast prime, etc.
>
> --
> Paul Furman

Yes, rather silly! If I want something compact, I take my Panasonic TZ3
(and have to compromise on ISO).

Cheers,
David

From: Paul Furman on
David J Taylor wrote:
>
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:hit232$5cp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> []
>> I'm tempted by the Panasonic GF1 although it lacks a decent viewfinder
>> and stabilization (except some lenses) just because it's small & seems
>> easy to use with good AF & controls and that 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens.
>> The price sucks though.
>
> I've wanted to look through that camera for some time - strange how all
> the times I've tried there has never been a battery in the demo camera!

The add-on EVF is supposed to be just sort of adequate and costs another
$200, which is probably a deal breaker for me. You'd think they could
make a simple optical range finder clip on for the 20mm lens.


> I do feel that stabilisation is a must, and the lack of it in the NX10
> is a deal-breaker.

Not really a deal breaker for me.
No stabilizer in the lenses either?
I wouldn't even bother getting the stabilized kit lens for the GF1 and
the un-stabilized 20/1.7 wouldn't really need it.

The Oly m4/3 is supposed to not handle very well.

The Samsung 30mm f/2 sounds reasonably useful.



>> BTW here's what a 45mm Ai-P pancake looks like with adapter on a GF1:
>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/winginging/craigslist%202010/IMG_6053.jpg
>>
>> Kind of silly, but interesting how much difference in the mount. It
>> could be handy with a longer lens kept in your pocket like a 75-150
>> Series E would be darn near like a 300mm f/2.8, or a 105 macro lens,
>> 50mm fast prime, etc.
>
> Yes, rather silly! If I want something compact, I take my Panasonic TZ3
> (and have to compromise on ISO).

My only compact is a 10 year old Oly 3MP as big as these.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: Rich on
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid>
wrote in news:W4n4n.27184$Ym4.9976(a)text.news.virginmedia.com:

> "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:07a0ed63-590a-4dc2-90cf-9a1b50a8f760(a)q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> On Jan 16, 4:28 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...(a)blueyonder.delete-
>> this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:5c46c9a3-9025-4c5b-a88c-194292cc189d(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
>>>
>>> > NX10. By quite a large margin. $699 with an 18-55mm kit lens.
>>>
>>> .. or you could get a "proper" camera for even less:
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09073005nikond3000.asp
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> Click-whir "I must buy a traditional DSLR," click, whir....
>
> You really should get that oiled, Rich.
>
> You want wider than 18mm, longer than 200mm? You want fixed focal
> length lenses? You want image stabilisation? You want an optical
> finder? Then the NX10 is not for you today.
>
> David
>
>

I don't pretend they should have the system range of Canon and Nikon when
they JUST RELEASED THE FIRST CAMERA. Besides, Olympus and Panasonic
(4/3rds, micro 4/3rds) have 7-14mm (14-28mm equivalent on FF) lenses that
are better than ANY Canon lens and most Nikon lenses. Give Samsung some
time, if they get it right, they could have a fuller system.
From: David J Taylor on
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hitbh9$4d3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> I do feel that stabilisation is a must, and the lack of it in the NX10
>> is a deal-breaker.
>
> Not really a deal breaker for me.
> No stabilizer in the lenses either?
> I wouldn't even bother getting the stabilized kit lens for the GF1 and
> the un-stabilized 20/1.7 wouldn't really need it.
>
> The Oly m4/3 is supposed to not handle very well.
>
> The Samsung 30mm f/2 sounds reasonably useful.

I saw no mention of lens-based stabilisation, no.

If you're into just wide-angle, image stabilisation is certainly less of
an issue, but even so it can extend your taking speeds down to 1/8s or
1/4s with wide-angle lenses, which can be useful for interiors without a
tripod. Not so good if your subject is moving, of course, except for
special effects.

Cheers,
David

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Flying with cameras
Next: Nikon D3000 and a teleconverter