Panasonic FZ200 Or Micro 4/3 G5?

02/16/2013 02:21:58 PM · #1

Opinions? This is on sale again for $498. I am wondering if it would make a good camera to carry on bike rides or when I otherwise travel light (I don't take my SLR on the bike anymore).

I do already have the Sony RX100...I love that, great photo quality, but not enough zoom (and for that matter, not enough wide).

Since I ride by the river most of the time (except Winter), it would be nice to be able to shoot the wildlife when I see it!

I see lots of good reviews, but I care more what DPC owners think, since they are more likely to be "more like me"!

(Postnote...it's still seems a bit expensive for a point and shoot; though I thought that when I bought my RX100, and now I can only say it was worth every penny of the $650!)

Message edited by author 2013-02-16 14:31:49.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

02/18/2013 11:21:23 AM · #2

Well I spent a lot of time last night looking at the M43 G5 versus the FZ200. The FZ200 is lighter, f2.8 etc. But pixel peeping at least, there was no comparison with the results against the Micro 43 G5 or G3 at ISO 400 and above.

And although I wanted it for outdoors, I'm always surprised how quickly I end up at ISO 800.

The G5 was on sale, as were the lenses. And while I think I'd prefer the Oly OM-D, as a second camera system (or third), I could not justify the $999 versus $498 difference for the Oly. The nice thing is that if I ever switch the system to Oly, the lenses go with.

I am a little distressed to spend so much on yet another camera considering I have a D90, D7000, and D600 and some pretty nice lenses with that. But I figured I could cost justify the G5 + the 100-300mm lens as a lightweight 600mm (effective) lens (which I also ordered for 499). Maybe I'm wrong though...maybe my 28-300 FX lens is no different once I crop on my D600 (though it's almost twice as heavy). But really, I haven't wanted to take my D600 and lenses with me on any trips because they're so big and heavy. So it's either back to the D7000 for travel, or time to try something new. We'll see how it goes.

gwsallen

Nikon D300

02/21/2013 11:18:06 AM · #3

i think you could get better price on //www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008MB71IS/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B008MB71IS

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/21/2013 01:32:02 PM · #4

Man, you never used to have such camera ADHD! You've been blowing through different options like crazy lately :)

I would've just bit the bullet and gone OMD if I were you and thinking that hard about MFT. That's a sweet little cam.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/21/2013 03:33:42 PM · #5

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Yes, you're right.

I love my little RX100...and it convinced me of a few things...neither of which may be completely true in "general"!

1) More megapixels can get you some nice detail! (unless it's just that incredible Zeiss lens)
2) A little camera can take pics as good as an SLR (is it the lens, or the bigger sensor relative to other compacts)
3) Face recognition is a great way to quickly focus for people shots -- too bad SLRs don't do this.

and thinking about DOF, for landscapes, I want as much as possible at the widest possible aperture (for letting in light)

So I've been looking at new cameras at least since Summer...I finally bought the D600 because I couldn't decide on "which" smaller camera, and it had 24mp, which sounded good for my Canyon hike trip.

I love the D600 overall, but having to carry bigger and heavier lenses, like my new Nikon 16-35 versus the 10-20 Sigma I used to carry, and the 28-300 instead of the 18-200, it's a pretty heavy proposition. I have a 2-day trip to NYC coming up...do I want to carry around 10 lbs of camera equipment? No. Is the Sony RX100 enough by itself? Hmmm...not wide enough, not tele enough.

So I continued to think about and consider smaller solutions. As another EXTRA camera, it was hard to justify the $1299 OM-D against the $499 G5. I was originally going to get the FZ200. Then I was thinking G3, which I saw for $250 (body only). But I bought the G5 to get the latest, and with it the kit lens (included) and the 100-300. I also bought the 14-140, but I haven't opened it...i just saw it for $100 less so I may just return that (assuming I keep everything else too).

I have been doing some test shots...will post some later. The camera is relatively small, the 100-300 is long but relatively light.

spiritualspatula

02/21/2013 04:12:31 PM · #6

Yeah, and the issue is the cost of the wide angle lenses, as well. It's a big reason why I didn't pick one up myself instead of just using an LX5. For me, the LX5 has become a "good enough" option that is super easy to carry and still works for decent landscapes but going beyond that is a bit overkill for me.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

12/17/2013 12:47:07 AM · #7

Just thought I use this thread to point out there's a gold box deal on FZ200's now at Amazon for $429!

//www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ200-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B008MB6ZX0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1387259201&sr=1-1&keywords=fz200

tnun

Ricoh GR III

12/17/2013 01:06:34 AM · #8

or $434 at B & H here

yakatme

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/17/2013 11:15:29 AM · #9

Originally posted by Neil:

Now it is down to $359.99 here on Amazon.com until around 3pm Eastern time.

Message edited by author 2013-12-17 11:23:13.