[seanofford]

No µ43 cameras have OVFs - they are all EVFs. Best cameras are either GH2 or G3.
Sean

[Hobbes2]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

What camera is the best Panasonic for the 100-300 zoom? It has to have a OVF etc :)

Hi Kristoffer, from reading the forums (dpreview and here), I'd say the two Panasonic cameras that are favoured for AF speed/accuracy, image quality, low light performance and so on, are the GH2 and G3. The new Olympus EP3 camera reportedly has similar AF speeds now to the Panasonics but you don't have the EVF and it's pricey/new the market.
Hope that helps
Hobbes

[kristoffer]

Originally Posted by seanofford

No µ43 cameras have OVFs - they are all EVFs. Best cameras are either GH2 or G3.
Sean

Sorry, meant EVF. Using rear big display is not enough :)

[njlarsen]

choosing between GH2 and G3 is very much a personal matter, I believe. Enthusiasts of the Olympus range will say that they have an excellent EVF as an accessory

I am very happy with my GH2 so far.

Niels

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

choosing between GH2 and G3 is very much a personal matter, I believe. Enthusiasts of the Olympus range will say that they have an excellent EVF as an accessory

I am very happy with my GH2 so far.

Niels

Hi Niels,

How does the "reach" of your set up (gh2 plus 100-300) compare with the FZ-18 plus teleconverter? (I think you used tc). I'm impressed with how easy it is to get frame filling shots with the FZ-18 plus 1.7 tc--though not always with the IQ of course. Wondering if I'd have to take a step down in terms of "magnification" going to a setup like yours unless I wanted to take on a lot of weight. (I'm using scare quotes because I know there's more variables than just optical magnification that affect this issue--though I'm skeptical of any sort of virtual magnification).

Best,
Jim

[postcardcv]

I was just about to order the 100-300 but got cold feet... looks like a great lens but I am slightly worried that I would miss the 45-100mm range when I sell my 45-200. A real dilemma - I think I need to play with the 45-200 tomorrow and see if I can live with the gap in coverage, can't afford to have both lenses.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

Hi Niels,

How does the "reach" of your set up (gh2 plus 100-300) compare with the FZ-18 plus teleconverter? (I think you used tc). I'm impressed with how easy it is to get frame filling shots with the FZ-18 plus 1.7 tc--though not always with the IQ of course. Wondering if I'd have to take a step down in terms of "magnification" going to a setup like yours unless I wanted to take on a lot of weight. (I'm using scare quotes because I know there's more variables than just optical magnification that affect this issue--though I'm skeptical of any sort of virtual magnification).

Best,
Jim

Hi Jim,
I was mostly using the fz18 without a converter; I have a cheap and not very good 1.4x tc that was not worth the trouble. Therefore, for me, the reach was actually better in the GH2/100-300 combo. I have occasionally used the extended zoom with the fz18 with good results; I hated the trouble of going through the menues to reset that option. I think something similar could be done using the C-options on the GH2/G3, but have not gone into it deeply.

Having 16 MPix to crop from on the GH2 instead of 8 on the FZ also helps

Niels

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by postcardcv

I was just about to order the 100-300 but got cold feet... looks like a great lens but I am slightly worried that I would miss the 45-100mm range when I sell my 45-200. A real dilemma - I think I need to play with the 45-200 tomorrow and see if I can live with the gap in coverage, can't afford to have both lenses.

I'd almost talked myself out of getting this lens but have suddenly swayed back the other way! Found one at a decent price so have agreed to buy it, now to sell the 45-200.

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Hi Jim,
I was mostly using the fz18 without a converter; I have a cheap and not very good 1.4x tc that was not worth the trouble. Therefore, for me, the reach was actually better in the GH2/100-300 combo. I have occasionally used the extended zoom with the fz18 with good results; I hated the trouble of going through the menues to reset that option. I think something similar could be done using the C-options on the GH2/G3, but have not gone into it deeply.

Having 16 MPix to crop from on the GH2 instead of 8 on the FZ also helps

Niels

Thanks Niels. Are there teleconverters that would work with this lens and the G3?

Jim

[kristoffer]

Tough to decide over G3 or GH2, you guys prefer G3 I take it?

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

Thanks Niels. Are there teleconverters that would work with this lens and the G3?

Jim

To the best of my knowledge, no TC for use between lens and camera at the moment. I am not sure if any TC intended for superzooms would be usable on the 100-300; close up lenses seem to work fairly well.

Niels

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

Tough to decide over G3 or GH2, you guys prefer G3 I take it?

I really like my GH2 and would not switch over at this time. The presence of an automatic sensor to switch between EVF and screen when paired with my style of shooting means a very good battery life on the GH2. Then there is the shape of the finger grip which fits me well.

To illustrate the issue of battery life: I just visited South Africa on Safari, and as this was my first visit south of Sahara, took a lot of images, especially early on (I ran more than 3000 images total on the trip). At no time did I recharge a battery more often than every other day, even in the first couple of day where I shot constantly (at least so it felt).

The jpg engine in the G3 might be better, but is there any such advantage if using RAW? (I am currently using the combination as this is still early days for me). Of course, some difference in cost is an advantage for the G3

Niels

[seanofford]

I preferred the G3 cos I could afford it!
Sean

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

Tough to decide over G3 or GH2, you guys prefer G3 I take it?

I'm just checking things out on paper and haven't held either camera yet. But given the similarity in image quality it's hard to ignore the price difference (if that matters to you). I like the idea of not spending a lot on a digital camera especially given the rapid rate of innovation and obsolescence in this area. I would like to have a microphone for video capture in case I hear a puzzling song (my understanding is the G3 lacks any mic), but I can live without that. And the G3 is 2 oz. lighter.

Originally Posted by njlarsen

The jpg engine in the G3 might be better, but is there any such advantage if using RAW? (I am currently using the combination as this is still early days for me).

DP Review says of the G3 that JPEG rendering is deficient above ISO 1600 and says you need to shoot in RAW to get the most out of the sensor at those levels. So I'm guessing they are similar in that respect. This is a drawback for me because I don't see myself shooting in RAW much. But I don't see a better alternative even with this drawback, though am interested to see how the FZ-150 turns out.

Jim

[postcardcv]

Well I should get my 100-300 next week and as I haven't got round to selling the 45-200 yet I will compare them when the new lens arrives... I hate waiting for new toys!

[njlarsen]

One example of what the lens and my GH2 does: Marabou stork, not cropped -- just resize and sharpen, on jpg straight out of camera.

Niels

[Hor Kee]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

Thanks Niels. Are there teleconverters that would work with this lens and the G3?

Jim

A friend of mine had an adapter to attach a Raynox 2.2X Adapter to the 100-300 lens. I'm not sure how the adapter looks like but it is necessary to counteract the extra weight of the teleconverter. This does not seem to affect the quality of the pic attached.

[Common Crane]

Hi,

I just did a small comparison:


1. Canon 60d + 300l + Kenko 1,5TC = 720mm, 5 meter distance
2. G3 + 100-300 at 300mm = 600mm, 5 meter distance
3.G3 + Tokina 400mm for minolta + minolta 2xTC 6 m, distance on a tripod

all aimed at a small brass plate on a garden chair, then cropped (the shorter focal length heavily) so that the same letters fill the frame. Here is the result:

the old manual Tokina with the 2x TC does not look bad, does it?

Reinhard

[Hobbes2]

Originally Posted by Common Crane

<snip>

the old manual Tokina with the 2x TC does not look bad, does it?

Reinhard

Hi Reinhard
I agree, it looks pretty decent! I'll be interested to see how you get on with using the set up for birds. Good luck
Hobbes

[J. Moore]

Originally Posted by J. Moore

I would like to have a microphone for video capture in case I hear a puzzling song (my understanding is the G3 lacks any mic), but I can live without that.

Read the review more carefully. What the G3 lacks is a jack for an external mic--it has a built in stereo microphone. So recording bird songs is possible.

Jim

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

One example of what the lens and my GH2 does: Marabou stork, not cropped -- just resize and sharpen, on jpg straight out of camera.

Niels

I found out I had another, sharper image, cropped a little and uploaded here: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/sho...1/limit/recent

Niels

[postcardcv]

I had my first little play with the 100-300 the other day, seems to be a nice lens. I'm using it on a G1 and the AF is a bit on the slow side but the image quality seems good to me. It was a grey, dull day but the lens performed well enough, I need to get out and use it a bit more.

[Hor Kee]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

To the best of my knowledge, no TC for use between lens and camera at the moment. I am not sure if any TC intended for superzooms would be usable on the 100-300; close up lenses seem to work fairly well.

Niels

A friend of mine uses this unique setup. It is the 100-300 lens with a Raynox 2.2x TC. The upper pic is the setup with the lens at 100mm zoom, 35mm equivalent is 100x2x2.2mm Lower pic show lens at 300mm zoom.
TC1 - black tripod collar for lens
TC2 - white tripod collar for teleconverter
The part in front of the tele is the lens hood that comes with the converter. Zooming slot is a slit which allows the teleconverter to move forward and back free while supporting its weight.

Tripod collars were custom ones suited for the diameter of the lens and TC, sourced from eBay.

Although the Lumix 100-300mm lens have a filter thread diameter of 67mm, the actual diameter of the front objective glass is much smaller, and maybe that's why there is no vignetting at all with the tele. The Raynox is the 2.2x HD type which is large, heavy and more expansive than other smaller ones. It has filter threads of up to 62mm. You will need a good step-down ring.

The weight of this system including the lens, TC, tripod collars, support bar and Manfrotto quick plate total 1542gm, length 35cm excluding the camera body. Effective 35mm equivalent focal length is 440-1320mm.

Pimp your gear!

[Hobbes2]

Originally Posted by postcardcv

I had my first little play with the 100-300 the other day, seems to be a nice lens. I'm using it on a G1 and the AF is a bit on the slow side but the image quality seems good to me. It was a grey, dull day but the lens performed well enough, I need to get out and use it a bit more.

Glad you're pleased with it. The colours and quality look good in your photos. The weather hasn't been the best for testing it out has it, lol.
Enjoy
Hobbes

[Hobbes2]

Originally Posted by Hor Kee

A friend of mine uses this unique setup. It is the 100-300 lens with a Raynox 2.2x TC. The upper pic is the setup with the lens at 100mm zoom, 35mm equivalent is 100x2x2.2mm Lower pic show lens at 300mm zoom.
TC1 - black tripod collar for lens
TC2 - white tripod collar for teleconverter
The part in front of the tele is the lens hood that comes with the converter. Zooming slot is a slit which allows the teleconverter to move forward and back free while supporting its weight.

Tripod collars were custom ones suited for the diameter of the lens and TC, sourced from eBay.

Although the Lumix 100-300mm lens have a filter thread diameter of 67mm, the actual diameter of the front objective glass is much smaller, and maybe that's why there is no vignetting at all with the tele. The Raynox is the 2.2x HD type which is large, heavy and more expansive than other smaller ones. It has filter threads of up to 62mm. You will need a good step-down ring.

The weight of this system including the lens, TC, tripod collars, support bar and Manfrotto quick plate total 1542gm, length 35cm excluding the camera body. Effective 35mm equivalent focal length is 440-1320mm.

Pimp your gear!

Nice going! I really hope Panasonic or Sigma et al bring out a prime lens for the m4/3 cameras. Something like a 400mm or even 500mm prime would be superb.
Hobbes