Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ??Trip Camera??  (Read 4406 times)
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2011, 07:10:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems like the Pentax has better weather sealing over the panasonic?  Both systems wide zooms are f4. Hard to pick one over the other with having both in hand....no way to test.   

Weather sealing is missing on all MFT cameras, and the first "pro" camera (from Oly) is only expected this summer, at the earliest. It's questionable if that will have weather sealing, though. Even if it does, there's not much point since none of the current MFT lenses have weather sealing.

K5 also has better IQ than any MFT camera, and almost all other APS-C cameras. But it's also considerably larger and heavier than MFT, NEX or whatever Samsung's mirrorless is called.
Logged

WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2011, 09:34:40 AM »
ReplyReply

There is soooo much information... too much perhaps...

The Canon EOS 7D w/ 10-22mm lens also looks great. Any of you cybernauts use this?

It's  (the 7D) 2.65 lbs verses the sony/Zeiss (A900 w/ 16-36) @ 3.9 lbs.
Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2011, 11:00:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I have had this conversation several times with pro friends.  Finding a small camera that will produce good quality images and occasionally a great portfolio shot is not easy.  Weight and convenience is a big issue in these situations.

IMO a full size DSLR won't cut it.  To big, too bulky and difficult to loo after in restaurants and so on.  I have bought and tried a variety of small cameras over the years and have finally ended up with an M9 and a 35mm lens.  Outstanding image quality, compact and light and not at all difficult to use quickly once you get used to it.  This is however a very expensive camera and if the budget is an issue I would suggest an M8 with a 35mm Zeiss Biogon - these can be had for roughly half the cost of an M9 body alone.  Finally if this is still too much I have used and like very much the Panasonic GH2 with the 14-140 lens.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
degrub
Guest
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2011, 11:10:07 AM »
ReplyReply

a GH2 with lens is just at 1 lb.  Smiley That 7d combo is just over 3 lbs by the specs.  Sad the  5d +16-35 is about 3 3/4 lb. Shocked
Logged
David S
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2011, 11:28:26 AM »
ReplyReply

a GH2 with lens is just at 1 lb.  Smiley That 7d combo is just over 3 lbs by the specs.  Sad the  5d +16-35 is about 3 3/4 lb. Shocked

The GH2 with the 14-140 lens (28-280) weighs in at 36.6 oz. The GF1 with the same lens and extra viewfinder weighs in at 31.9 oz.

GH2 with the 7-14 lens weighs in at 28.8 oz.

Dave
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2011, 11:31:51 AM »
ReplyReply

the 7D weighs the same and is the same size as the 5D2 -- one of the rebels with the same sensor as the 7D weighs a lot less (and is a lot less rugged but pretty cheap).  i replaced my my 10-22 with the Tokina 11-17 which is a stop faster and has a bit better edge resolution but is heavier (full disclosure - i only use this lens underwater, use the 5D2 and 17-40 topside).  a rebel and the Tokina are about as good as it gets for crop-frame wide angle IQ (the 10-22 not far behind, but like all wide angle zooms look out for asymetrical performance).

a couple other compact and relatively lightweight lenses are the Voigtlander 20 and 40 pancake manual focus lenses (i have the 20 and it's resolution in comparable to the 17-40) and the Canon 50 1.4.  i've considered using a rebel with the 20 and the 50 1.4 for lighter weight travel, but i'm still carrying a full 5D2 kit because i love the results.
Logged
degrub
Guest
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2011, 11:34:46 AM »
ReplyReply

well between my eyes and the typos, via cut and paste -

Camera: 13.82 oz (392 g) (Body only)
Lens: 16.23 oz (460 g)
battery 50g
902 g ~ 2 lb

for the GH2 w/14-140.

with the Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Lens (55g)

447 g + battery 50g, so 497 g or ~ 1,1 lb

« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 12:49:09 PM by degrub » Logged
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2011, 01:37:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I made a spreadsheet (also posted here http://www.roosphoto.com/RobG/trip_cameras.xls.zip) of some choices. Aside from cost and weight no hidden answer jumps out.


Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
degrub
Guest
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2011, 02:41:29 PM »
ReplyReply

ok. pretty even at first glance.

How long does this camera have to last ? What kind of travel - car / city / off road / hiking /all weather/ camping ?

what is the maximum realistic print size ? 8x10 or smaller ? or >> ? or screen only ?

what is most important ? weight  / size / controls familiarity / cost / technical control / ruggedness / Huh

When i struggled with this to pick a camera to take on business trips, i ended up with a P&S that allowed full manual control and ability to save raw captures, AA batteries (no charger to carry ), with decent optical zoom, and small enough to stuff in a fanny pack while exploring the area on foot. Cost was low enough that if it was lost, no big deal. Images were good enough to print 8x10, or on screen (without pixel peeping!).

When i want to engage in my hobby, then i bring the good gear and no other distractions.

It's hard to say whats "good enough" because compromises must be made. i've been satisfied with the choice i made. Could i have made some better captures with better equipment ? sure some of them, but >75 % were just fine. And i enjoyed the trip more by not being concerned about the equipment as much.
Logged
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2011, 04:44:48 PM »
ReplyReply

How long does this camera have to last ? What kind of travel - car / city / off road / hiking /all weather/ camping ?

           2 weeks in four counties in Europe..long days on feet...then in the car for just in case situations

what is the maximum realistic print size ? 8x10 or smaller ? or >> ? or screen only ?

           Could go large 16x20 or 20 X 24 or just screen.. not sure.  Can't get great stuff from poor files..


what is most important ? weight  / size / controls familiarity / cost / technical control / ruggedness / Huh

           Good /great photo's/ but not too heavy

When i struggled with this to pick a camera to take on business trips, i ended up with a P&S that allowed full manual control and ability to save raw captures, AA batteries (no charger to carry ), with decent optical zoom, and small enough to stuff in a fanny pack while exploring the area on foot. Cost was low enough that if it was lost, no big deal. Images were good enough to print 8x10, or on screen (without pixel peeping!).

          I'm serious about shooting... it's what I do..but I'm looking for something not so heavy to lug and wear all day, Sure I can take the Canon or Sony...great choices.... but traveling light could be a better one. Thus my search.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 07:42:07 PM by WarrenRoos » Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad