Should I buy a Panasonic G5? (1 Viewer)

[John Fleet]

Now that the G5 is down to around £250 with the kit lens I'm wondering about purchasing one. I have a Canon Powershot SX50 which has enormous reach but a small sensor.

If I went down the micro 4/3 route; initially using some of my old Pentax lenses with the necessary adaptor to mount them on the Panny, what could I reasonably expect in terms of image quality viz a viz the Canon?

I know I'd lose auto features on the Panasonic - which I think I could live with but the lack of image stabilisation might be more of an issue?

any what about an old style 2 x converter mated to a 35 mm format lenses then affixed to the Panny? - would that be a devil's brew or could it potentially give me the equivalent of 1200 mm reach (300 mm lens x 2 with reduction factor then x 2 again with the converter)

 

[SteveClifton]

A few thoughts John. I suppose this ultimately depends on what you want to do with it? You already have a very capable bridge camera that can rival a DSLR/400mm lens in many real world situations (distant record shots etc). Under ideal conditions the DSLR will produce better results when the subject is close enough (pretty rare in my opinion!). The DSLR will also be better for flight shots.

You are correct that a 300mm lens with 2x TC will produce the equivalent of 1200mm but that is only half the story IMO. For any lens to benefit from a 2X TC it usually follows that it will be a high quality fast prime such as a 300mm f2.8 = heavy and ££££!. However, using such a lens in manual only will be a pain to use unless a bird is sitting still for long periods. Likewise birds in flight will be extremely difficult.

I bought a G3 a couple of years ago, with the intention of doing similar. I even bought a m4/3 to Canon adapter to use some of my Canon lenses in manual only, but in practice it just didn't work out not having AF and IS that i had grown used to, not to mention the lack of aperture control! My 100-400 L IS works far better with a Canon body with all of the modern features we've got used to. Also, using a larger lens, even with a m4/3 body, you lose the small form factor that the compact system cameras are famous for, thus making them rather pointless?

The G5 would make a very good general purpose camera, as well as a decent digiscoping camera with the right lens/adapter, but as a replacement/complement to your SX50 I would have reservations, especially if using older glass that might be of questionable quality compared with modern equivalents.

 

[John Fleet]

Thanks Steve

that's exactly the kind of real world advice I was looking for. I think I'm hankering over the nostalgia of having a system camera again. As it happens the Jessops offer on which I was tempted to push the button on last night has now disappeared, so maybe it wasn't meant to be!

 

[SteveClifton]

No worries John. One thing I have never understand about the m4/3 system, was all the talk of the 'reach advantage' that the 2x crop effect would bring for birders. I get the versatility advantage for more general photographers, and indeed there are many of them around the world who have happily bought compact system cameras to bring back into use their old lens collections. However, that same 2x crop factor means that you also lose out at the wide end!
You need a very wide lens to compensate for that, and there were very few legacy lenses that could give you an ultra-wide equivalent on m4/3.

The other problem is lack of quality long glass! There are already mid-range zooms of 300mm available, and there finally appears to be some hope on the horizon for birders, as Olympus announced last year that they are developing a 300mm f4 lens that should give full automatic control with the equivalent reach of a 600mm (which is about the same as a 400mm on Canon/Nikon crop body). As it looks like it will be a 'pro' lens it will no doubt have a 'pro' price tag, and excellent image quality. Not sure yet about IS? or if converters will be available?

Of course you can have all of this now with Canon/Nikon, or even Sony/Olympus/Pentax if you prefer, just in a slightly larger package.

The other problem IMO with compact system cameras, is that even if they have a viewfinder, they are usually of the electronic type, which are a definite step down in terms of birding use. Things are getting better though, slowly...

 

[iveljay]

Most of my kit is 4/3 & m4/3, mainly Olympus with the odd Nikon & Fuji APSC stuff for when I need the pixels.

I bought a G5 at Christmas in another sale at a silly low price to see if I was missing out in any way.

It is a perfectly good machine for taking pictures, however, the viewfinder is definitely way behind modern standards, both compared to current Olympus and Panasonic. The lack of in-body stabilisation is something you can live with, but it can cut down on your lens options if you want to use it for general photography in low light.

I can't see Olympus putting image stabilisation in any of their lenses ( though stranger things have happened) and Steve is very right on the likely pricing.

I did once put an Oly 500mm mirror lens I have from way back, on the front of a slr 4/3 and it worked quite well - obviously everything in manual. Adding a 2x convertor made it a bit dark to focus with (equivalent 2000mm f16 lens). At these focal lengths forget about hand holding, in body IS or not, I am not up to it.

My feeling about the G5 if the deal is repeated is that the viewfinder is just not up to what is needed and I would keep on with the SX50 until you come across a reduced G6 when Panasonic bring out the G7.. The trouble is that Panny must have produced far too many G5s and I suspect they are simply reducing inventory in sales - excellent value for the performance, but probably not a camera that you would want to keep for birding. Obviously a personal view.

My G5 is now a family day out camera and does an excellent job in that role.

 

[njlarsen]

No worries John. One thing I have never understand about the m4/3 system, was all the talk of the 'reach advantage' that the 2x crop effect would bring for birders. I get the versatility advantage for more general photographers, and indeed there are many of them around the world who have happily bought compact system cameras to bring back into use their old lens collections. However, that same 2x crop factor means that you also lose out at the wide end!
You need a very wide lens to compensate for that, and there were very few legacy lenses that could give you an ultra-wide equivalent on m4/3.

The other problem is lack of quality long glass! There are already mid-range zooms of 300mm available, and there finally appears to be some hope on the horizon for birders, as Olympus announced last year that they are developing a 300mm f4 lens that should give full automatic control with the equivalent reach of a 600mm (which is about the same as a 400mm on Canon/Nikon crop body). As it looks like it will be a 'pro' lens it will no doubt have a 'pro' price tag, and excellent image quality. Not sure yet about IS? or if converters will be available?

Of course you can have all of this now with Canon/Nikon, or even Sony/Olympus/Pentax if you prefer, just in a slightly larger package.

The other problem IMO with compact system cameras, is that even if they have a viewfinder, they are usually of the electronic type, which are a definite step down in terms of birding use. Things are getting better though, slowly...

In my mind, the reach factor is real right now: I like my GH2 + 100-300 combo because it is half the weight of a similar reach canikon combo, and in fact not much heavier than a good bridge camera.

However, for my money, the use of legacy lenses is not worth the trouble at all - or maybe I just expected too much help from the camera with this type of application. Regarding wide angle, there are some wide angle lenses for the m4/3 that is getting good press, and there is an adapter (0.7x converter) giving the reach equivalent of what a legacy lens used to have on 35mm camera that can be used for legacy wideangle lenses. As I have very little interest in wideangle shooting anyway, that is not something I have messed around with.

Niels