lumix G5 or?

bastic

bastic

A star
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,809
Name
Lukas
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi.
Friend of mine asked me if G5 with kit lens is any good...have no idea so is it?
He is willing to spend around 500-600£ for a camera.
At the moment Currys sells them for £499.
Down from 600something.

Are there any good alternatives ?
Maybe someone from here looked on similar cameras in last and could share opinion.
Thanks
 
He is willing to invest in zoom lens in future so have told him to look in to brands like Nikon canon or Sony.
 
Depends on if he wants something smaller and lighter or a full blown DSLR setup. There are loads of excellent M4/3 lenses available. Only he can decide what he wants to carry.
 
Asked him that and waiting for reply
 
Finally told me that he would like of a real camera but could go for small body if that would be a killer camera :)
 
So he hasnt really narrowed it down. Its like me saying, I like oranges but I also like apples, if they taste okay.
 
bastic said:
Finally told me that he would like of a real camera but could go for small body if that would be a killer camera :)
Click to expand...

So does that mean he prefers a smaller body or not? 500 quid for the G5 is still quite expensive when you can pick up the previous model (G3) for half that price. M43 lenses tend to be quite pricey too compared to similar dslr equivalents.

For around £600 budget you can pick up a Nikon D7000 - although that would be body only. http://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/Ca...-D7000-D-SLR-Digital-Camera-Body_VBA290AE.htm

For £500 you can get a Sony A57 or A58 with kit lens:
http://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/Ca...-D7000-D-SLR-Digital-Camera-Body_VBA290AE.htm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...U&linkCode=shr&tag=1567&qid=1363224450&sr=8-1

Or a Pentax K30 and kit lens - all the above are good options on a £500 to £600 budget.

'Entry level' dsrls can be had for even less, eg Nikon D3200 + kit lens for £400: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200
 
Thanks for breakdown.
Yes he wants a proper camera;)

I was that thinking Nikon 32/5200 or Sony a57 Canon 650d.
Never thought of Pentax....
 
applemint said:
M43 lenses tend to be quite pricey too compared to similar dslr equivalents.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that's the case. Some MFT lenses tend to be quite good and when you compare them to quite good Canon or Nikon lenses MFT prices look to be in line or even cheaper.

The problem comes when people view MFT as a cheap system (it isn't) because it's small and from minor makers like Panasonic and Olympus and go on to compare quite good MFT lenses with cheap and relatively poor big make Canon or Nikon lenses.
 
bastic said:
Thanks for breakdown.
Yes he wants a proper camera;)
Click to expand...
I moved from a 5D2 plus a number of L lenses to a G5 and some pro quality glass from Panny.

I couldn't be happier - I definitely made the right decision.

The G5 is a proper camera ;)
 
I have a G5, it's epic, would certainly recommend it. Tell him to go and touch one, it's an impressive bit of kit.

The build quality is excellent and a huge choice of lenses. Performance is certainly comparable to xxxD, although I think the G5 has a more expensive feel to it than my 450D, and of course there's the size benefit.
 
woof woof said:
I'm not so sure that's the case. Some MFT lenses tend to be quite good and when you compare them to quite good Canon or Nikon lenses MFT prices look to be in line or even cheaper.
Click to expand...

Well, not for the focal lengths I wanted - I have a G3 and a Sony SLT, but the Sony lenses are all cheaper: ie

'normal' prime: Sony 35mm f1.8 (£150) the Panasonic 20mm is £250 and the 25mm £420
'portrait' prime: 50mm f1.8 (£90) the Olympus 45mm 1.8 is £215
fast zoom: Sony fit Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (£290) [Sony 16-50mm f2.8 is £480], the Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 is £800
portrait prime: Sony 85mm f2.8 (£180) - there is not really a m43 equivalent, but the Olympus 75mm f1.8 is £630.

Don't really know much about Nikon/Canon lenses, but I know the Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G is £370 and the Nikon 35mm 1.8 is £150 (both have good reputations/reviews) and both Canon and Nikon do inexpensive 50mm 1.8 lenses and the Tamron prices above are roughly the same for Canon and Nikon.

The only lens where there was not much price difference was the cheaper/ budget telephoto lenses, Sony fit Tamron 55-200 £89 which is the same lens internally as the Sony 55-200 (£130), m43 were only a bit higher: Olympus 40-150 £170 and the Panasonic equivalents a little more.

But yes, the G3/ G5 is a 'proper camera'. :)
 
applemint said:
Well, not for the focal lengths I wanted - I have a G3 and a Sony SLT, but the Sony lenses are all cheaper: ie...
Click to expand...

Well, you've partly done what I said people do. You've picked some largely ho-hum and cheaper lenses and compared them to (being kind to you...) arguably in some cases better MFT lenses.

As an example in Sony fit you picked the Tamron 17-50mm. I've had one of those and it's a good budget to mid priced lens but it's built to a price and it looks and feels like it. You compare it to the 12-35mm which is a top end lens that's been favourably compared to L series lenses. That doesn't seem fair to me.

You can cherry pick back and forth all night but what's the point. All I'd ask is that people have an open mind and when comparing prices don't just jump to the conclusion that MFT lenses are more expensive... check the spec, build and performance first.

As I said...

woof woof said:
I'm not so sure that's the case. Some MFT lenses tend to be quite good and when you compare them to quite good Canon or Nikon lenses MFT prices look to be in line or even cheaper.

The problem comes when people view MFT as a cheap system (it isn't) because it's small and from minor makers like Panasonic and Olympus and go on to compare quite good MFT lenses with cheap and relatively poor big make Canon or Nikon lenses.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top