Which camera type should i buy - Micro 4/3 or high quality digital?

November 18, 2010 7:45 AM

Looking to buy an upgrade from a standard point and shoot. Should I go higher end point and shoot or micro four thirds?

We are going on a safari (and hiking kilimanjaro) in a feb, and wanted to get a new camera. We have a small Canon point and shoot now. In addition to the trip, we are planning on having a baby sometime in the future and want a higher quality camera than what we have now.

I am a graphic designer, and have always wanted a nice camera, but have never been able to justify the cost, or bulk, of a dslr. I'm an amateur, but am interested in taking more photos if I have a decent camera. Before I was frustrated with the lack of control, esp in low light.

I've been looking at the Panasonic gf1, which seems to get great reviews. The problem is the lens - I'd have to buy a more telescope lens to be able to use it on the trip.

So should I buy the gf1 (with the pancake lens) and also a more telescopic lens? Or buy a high quality digital camera with a 24x zoom (for example)?

posted by cavs33 to sports, hobbies, & recreation (17 answers total)

The micro 4/3 system is a nice compromise between the interchangeable lenses of a DSLR and the portability of a point and shoot--but it ain't cheap. If you're really looking for cheap and light, you might still be better served by a point and shoot with a long throw lens on it (even though it's not interchangeable), or at around the same price (apologies) a used DSL with a nice zoom on it. Provided you keep to Nikon or Canon, you'd have a pretty steady supply of cameras and lenses at your disposal used on Craigslist. The way I see it is that you'll probably be in a jeep on safari, and you'll want the best telephoto you can get--you probably won't have to carry it much, and a safari is usually a once in a lifetime kind of trip. Hopefully when you go hiking, you leave the telephoto at the hotel/lodge etc. and bring a small, light lens.

If you haven't tried it, dpreview.com has a great camera finder--just fill in the parameters you want (i.e., 24x zoom) and it can narrow down your choices.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:08 AM on November 18, 2010

While there's nothing wrong with the GF1, I have to say I've been very happy with the Canon G10 and (currently) G11 that I carry as my everyday camera. Don't leave home without it, in fact. Its sufficiently compact but offers all the features you'd want. It doesn't quite match my 5DmkIIs, but for a compact camera I think its fantastic. I use mine with the Lensmate A/B usually - its a great lens hood, protects the telescoping lens and allows you to use filters - totally worth the extra $ - although it does increase the size of the the camera.

A whole other route would be to buy a small, used dslr (such as one of the Canon Rebels) from a reputable dealer such as B&H Photo or Adorama. There's more bulk but the trade off is better image quality. Sometimes its a tough choice - good luck!
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:10 AM on November 18, 2010

I know it's not really an answer to your question, but I've found the bulk of dSLRs to be worth it, especially for something monumental like a safari, or Kilimanjaro, or a baby. And with how fast technology advances, you can probably get a Canon XTi (what I have) for really cheap, less than a micro 4/3. Add the sub-$100 50mm lens, and you're taking some really nice shots, especially in low light. (It's a f/1.8.)
posted by supercres at 8:14 AM on November 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Well, you have to figure out what you want out of a camera to decide.

I have the GF1 and fucking love the fuck out of it.

That said! Just having the pancake lens would fucking suck "On Safari." The pancake lens is a pretty wide lens. But it is a fucking amazing wide lens.

"HEY GUYS I TOOK A PHOTO OF A LION. ZOOM IN REALLY CLOSE, SEE IT? NO, CLOSER!"

They have some great zooms for them, but that's more money up front.

Also, any camera that only has only an LCD screen will suck shooting in the sunlight. Get the viewfinder adapter, which RULES (you can point it upwards, and shoot with the camera like as if its a Rolliflex). I think B&H gives them to you for free, but that may have expired. If it did expire, that's another $200 right there.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:25 AM on November 18, 2010

This really depends on several factors like size/weight, budget and your needs.

The panasonic system does have a very nice 45-200mm lens that does not break the bank, and paired with the 20mm/1.7 and 14-45mm is a very capable system indeed.

An alternative would be a regular dslr with a super zoom? Or even one of the smaller digital cameras with a super zoom lens. Given the travel you are doing, you will need to also see what kind of power sources are available for you. E.g. my dslr will easily shoot 600 shots on a single charge with image review off; not highly possible on my digital camera.

I would think posting a budget would allow us to give improved suggestions. Ta!
posted by TrinsicWS at 8:28 AM on November 18, 2010

but it ain't cheap

Have to disagree here. You can get a refurbished EP-1 for $369, and many other cameras can be found in the ~400-450 range. By comparison, a high end Powershot like the G12 is 489! And the image quality sucks.

I have the Sony NEX-5 and while I don't recommend that camera specifically, you are GOING TO LOVE an m43 system and I highly recommend you buy one. Consider buying used and/or refurbished, you will get an amazing deal.
posted by fake at 8:39 AM on November 18, 2010

Budget wise - I'm looking at around $600 to $700 if possible. The gf1 with the second lens looks like it would run around $800, but I'm willing to pay that if its the best option. I'd probably use the 20mm lens on the hike and for everyday shooting, and then the zoom for the safari.

I'm planning on hiking with this camera, as well as a point and shoot. So smaller would be better.

While I'm leaning towards the gf1, I'm also a little worried that I'm dazzled by a shiny new toy. I'll look at the used route tonight. Luckily I live in new York and went to B&H last night, and will go again. The guys there had many, many differing opinions.
posted by cavs33 at 8:40 AM on November 18, 2010

So, I shot with a early '60's rolleiflex camera on chrome film for a long awhile until I needed to upgrade to the 21st century. I wasn't thrilled with any of the lower end DSLRs I had used (the Nikon d-70, Nikon D-40, Canon Rebel) and I highly dislike the bulk of most higher end DSLRs (the Nikon D3 makes awesome pictures but it is not easy to carry around). I purchased an EPL-1 back in March and that camera has made my photographic life infinitely much better. It is pretty small (especially with the pancake lenses on it), lightweight, enormously versatile in all shooting conditions, has all sorts of dings and whistles programmed into and the learning curve is short-ish. The pictures (and HD video) it makes are gorgeous, too. Check out my profile; the pictures posted from flickr are taken with the EPL-1. They are edited in Lightroom but minimally.

Olympus makes fantastic glass. I have the 17mm pancake and the lens that comes with the kit (14-42mm) and I love the shit out of both of them. They have a 14-150mm as well as the 9-18mm (!!!) as well adapters that allow you to use any Olympus lens.

There are things about it I don't love. The HD video button is in a place that I bump pretty often and despite not feeling digital-y, it is still fragile feeling. I am ridiculously careful with it, which was something I had to get used to.

I will note, however, that the system new wasn't cheap. Though I do work at a camera store and get things at cost (which is more or less what you are paying at B&H), the camera body with the kit lens, the 17mm and an external flash (because the little one is okay but not awesome) cost me 1000 bucks. Considering I was going to buy a D3 and drop more money for glass, the 1000 dollars I spent has been well-justified and man, I love my pictures.

Lastly, I tell this to anyone who's thinking about spending serious money on a new camera. Go to a store in your area that sells a good selection of cameras and ask to hold them and play and poke at them. See if you can rent one. Buying a camera online is a little bit like buying a car without sitting in it or test driving it first.
posted by godshomemovies at 9:13 AM on November 18, 2010

The problem with the 4/3 system and mirrorless dSLRs, in my opinion, is that unless you're using a pancake lens the lens will easily eat up any size/weight savings you might get in the body.

For safari you definitely want a long lens. I have what I think is a pretty high quality 12x zoom on my P&S (Panasonic DMC-Z53) and its photos are really flat and lifeless next to those from the 55-300mm on my Pentax. I would definitely recommend a cheap dSLR and put as much money as possible into a good set of lenses. It might be a stretch, but you could probably fit a cheap used dSLR (Nikon D40s are ubiquitous), a high-speed 50mm prime, and a 70-300mm zoom into $700 if you're a careful shopper. (The 18-200mm lenses are P&S-equivalent, as far as I'm concerned -- there is a direct correlation between the extra range and reduced image quality on the ends.)

I know that Canon/Nikon are the new IBM (nobody was ever fired for choosing, etc.) but I will throw in a recommendation to consider Pentax -- they make the smallest and lightest dSLR bodies, have in-camera stabilization on all models and weather sealing on most, accept every lens in the company's history (I got a $30 100mm macro lens off eBay that is just awesome) and are far more focused on image quality over "features" than the other majors. I think lens selection is way overhyped, unless you regularly borrow from friends or plan to spend thousands of dollars. Autofocus speed is the major weakness but for safari I wouldn't consider that the critical factor.
posted by bjrubble at 9:21 AM on November 18, 2010

I always advocate buying a new or refurb low end DSLR and kit lens to someone in your shoes. The low end models give you more image making capability, speed and ease of operation, quick shutter response, and general usability than any high end point and shoot camera, and more than comparably priced micro 4/3s cameras.

Bottom line DSLR cameras with "kit" lenses aren't that much physically larger than m4/3 cameras with comparable lenses.

Plus, you'll get yourself into a system which offers more eventual lens choices down the road.

I don't consider using a m4/3 camera with an adapter for other brands of lenses to be particularly conducive to a lot of general photography, even though it seems like a number of m4/3 owners love to harp about this.
posted by imjustsaying at 9:27 AM on November 18, 2010

Budget wise - I'm looking at around $600 to $700 if possible.

You can get it right now for $600.

unless you're using a pancake lens the lens will easily eat up any size/weight savings you might get in the body.

Respectfully disagree. And the flexibility of a mirrorless system is that you can use any lens on it, with an adapter (and of course, using manual control). But you are right that the new tiny DSLRs are pretty small and sometimes have more controls.

IMO, for my purposes, mirrorless cameras are the best thing out there. I am borrowing an EP-1 and own a NEX-5, and I really, really love them. I have owned and heavily used a Nikon D200 for four years, and use and modify cameras professionally, and these cams still hold my interest. In fact, I've taken more pictures with them in the last few months than I did in the last year with my Nikon.
posted by fake at 9:59 AM on November 18, 2010

I would totally just buy a D40x + lens from somebody on craigslist. This isn't rocket surgery, and you really can't go wrong with this setup. Some quick searches on allofcraigs.com have turned up kits for between $450 and $650, depending on the lens(es).

This setup will not let you down. As well, the new Nikon D7000 is proving to be proof (henh?) that the DX system is futurep..proof. The APS-C sensor seems to be beating the beastly D3s in quality and sharpness tests, so I would not hesitate to put some money into a DX system if a dSLR is your kind of shooter. I haven't always felt that way, but Rockwell has convinced me that unless you use legacy lenses, FX is dead.
posted by tapesonthefloor at 10:01 AM on November 18, 2010

The reality of wildlife photography on safari in East Africa is that your pictures will be unimpressive unless you have the kind of fast, long, expensive and heavy glass that fits on a DSLR and spend more time and have more patience than most visitors will ever have. On a smaller sensor DSLR that means starting at 200mm. Thats why lenses like this 200-400 are favorites with pros and rich amateurs.

If photographing wildlife isn't the primary purpose of your trip, I suggest taking the smallest yet capable and controllable camera you can find, a Canon S95, say. Enjoy the trip, not have to lug a heavier camera with a big lens about and get your fill of great wildlife pictures (of which there is a glut in the world and better than what you'll ever make with any amateur kit and no experience) from books, postcards and the web.

If it were me, I'd buy a good set of binoculars, instead.
posted by normy at 10:19 AM on November 18, 2010 [3 favorites]

Oh, and Kilimajaro? Planning an ascent? Have you spent much time above 15K ft before? That DSLR and long lens will feel like 10X the weight, if not. It's another reason for a small automatic camera - when you're concentrating on the getting the next breath, exposure settings and composition beyond vaguely pointing aren't really relevant.
posted by normy at 10:26 AM on November 18, 2010

Thanks everybody. I got some thinking to do.
posted by cavs33 at 11:45 AM on November 18, 2010

i'm another vote for micro4/3 ESPECIALLY for any vacation that is somewhat adventure-y. in peru i wanted to throw my heavy DSLR off a mountain after all that trekking but was perfectly fine with the size and weight of my epl-1.
posted by raw sugar at 3:00 PM on November 18, 2010

Also voting for micro 4/3. I currently own a D300, and it never gets taken out ANYWHERE because it's just too big/bulky with the 18-200 lens on it. The nice thing about m4/3, is that you can get 400mm equivalent in a pretty damn small package. *IF* that's something that interests you. I do most of my shooting in the 25-85mm (35mm equivalent) range, which means I can get an even smaller package for my needs :)
posted by antifuse at 6:57 AM on December 13, 2010