400D to GF1

Amp34

Amp34

Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
At the moment my kit consists of what is in my sig. Now, although it isn't the best kit around (and it has some big flaws which i'll come to in a minute) it usually does me well, except when I'm walking. Sticking a full sized DSLR and 3 lenses (normally the 12-24, 24-70 and 300 f/4) as well as the accessories in my walking bag with the rest of my camping kit is a pain due to the size. This may become more of a problem in the near future when I may end up living out of a 35l bag for a few months.

So with that in mind I decided to have a look at the GF1 as a replacement, at least for travel. This is where it gets complicated:

Money wise I would only be able to spend what I could get for the kit I have now (in fact only the 12-24, 24-70 and 300 f/4 as the camera and 75-300 are owned by my dad, we do a sharing system). That will give me in the region of £800-£900 to spend I reckon(?), getting a GF1 would also solve the problem (he wouldn't mind, but I would) of taking kit my dad occasionally uses away with me for a few months or more. With that £800ish I could get a GF1 and a 45-200mm as well as either the 17mm or 14-45mm...

Although obviously getting those lenses I am going to take a hit from what I use now, however is it going to be much and is the size going to outweigh the hit? The main issue with that kit is the lack of any decent wide or long length as I'll essentially be starting from a 28mm equivilent and ending at 400mm, whereas with the kit I have now I range from ~18mm to 480mm.

Considering my favourite forms of photography are landscapes (especially starscapes) and nature/wildlife the lack of wide and long may be a bit of an issue for me. Are there any other lens options (beside the 7-14mm as it's stupidly expensive) that may suit me better?

The main other issue is the GF1 compared to the 400D. Having tried the GF1 the other day the first issue I had with it was the lack of viewfinder, which can be fixed so that's not really a biggy. The issues I have with the 400D on the other hand are noise handling (over 800 is unusable essentially) and focal ability/speed. Are these things better on the GF1?

Right I think that's it, sorry for the ramble, more thinking out loud really. :p

Essentially it boils down to:

1. What is the GF1 like compared to the 400D?
2. Will the lack of wide and long be made up by the size difference?
3. Am I impairing myself too much with the change of kit?

I know technically only I can answer that but I'd like a bit of input, especially those that have switched form a proper DSLR to a GF1. :)
 
Arghh - I can actually detect your frustration.

I've a couple of Munro's left and wished (from a photography point of view) I'd started in 2005 rather than 1985. Back then my SLR was left at home for a 110.

GF1 / DSLR or even a decent compact - It all sounds too technical......you should be able to get some good top notch stuff in this day and age ....
 
:D

True, whatever camera I have I should be able to get something, but there is nothing more frustrating than not being able to get the shot you want, not because of your ability, but the lack of the kits ability. :(

That is where it will rest. Will the m4/3 kit mean I will have a better ability to do it the majority of the time (due to size and carrying it round more essentially) or will it just be too much of a compromise...

I'd love to be able to take a panoramic mF camera around with me too... :p
 
For what it's worth, I recently went from a full Nikon setup (D700, D300, D80, D70IR, umpteen pro lenses) to a GF1 and don't regret it at all. We just weren't using the gear enough and didn't take it with us when hiking, cycling, kayaking, etc. The GF1 comes pretty much everywhere and as a result we get some interesting (and great quality) photos.

To answer some specifics, the GF1 focuses very quickly with the 20mm f1.7, ISO up to 800 is fine, 1600 is okay at a push but some photoshop and/or RAW processing would really help.

You can get a 7-14 lens and a 55-200. Heck, if you really need to then you can buy an inexpensive converter and use pretty much any lens you want :)
 
Your view on noise is interesting and I don't know if you'll find the GF1 any better.

I tend to stick to the lower ISO settings if at all possible with all of my cameras but if the choice is between getting a shot and not getting it then I'll use the higher ISO settings. I find that even the higher settings usually produce a shot that I don't regret taking, particularly when viewed as a whole image, uncropped. I find that often I prefer the look of a noisy shot to one which has been processed post capture to within an inch of its life.

I think that sometimes we get a bit too fixated on noise, plenty of great images actually have lots of noise but that doesn't or shouldn't make us want to disregard them. Maybe it's better to look at the shot as a whole image.
 
woof woof said:
Your view on noise is interesting and I don't know if you'll find the GF1 any better.

I tend to stick to the lower ISO settings if at all possible with all of my cameras but if the choice is between getting a shot and not getting it then I'll use the higher ISO settings. I find that even the higher settings usually produce a shot that I don't regret taking, particularly when viewed as a whole image, uncropped. I find that often I prefer the look of a noisy shot to one which has been processed post capture to within an inch of its life.

I think that sometimes we get a bit too fixated on noise, plenty of great images actually have lots of noise but that doesn't or shouldn't make us want to disregard them. Maybe it's better to look at the shot as a whole image.
Click to expand...

I try and stick to low ISOs as well but sometimes you need to up the ISO, especially when using a long lens. Noise is all very well in small web images but when you blow them up and print them it becomes obvious, what would be a brilliant photo to hang on the wall becomes a grainy photo you'd only look at on your computer. Unless you use noise reduction software, when with ISO 1600 on the 400D all the detail vanishes. :) Noise would also be a big issue as I would be going from f/4 and f/2.8 lenses to 3.5-5.6, a loss of a couple of stops of light.

ricky1981 - So for you the size difference definately outweighed the loss in IQ.:)
 
You say that at ISO 1600 all detail vanishes, are you shooting RAW or JPEG? I've used the max ISO on all of my Canon DSLR's and I've been reasonably happy. I have lots of ISO 1600 300D shots and many ISO 3200 20D shots too.

I find noise less obvious in a printed shot than when on the screen. I haven't used noise reduction on any GF1 shots yet but I suppose that some subjects are more noise friendly than others and I do only have the 20mm f1.7.

I suppose that the way forward is to try a GF1 and see if you're happy with the results it produces.
 
I think you'll find not a huge amount of difference in size/weight of the 400D versus the GF1. Of course the GF1 will be a bit smaller and lighter, but you are trading image quality, lens lineup and a proper viewfinder for that bit of weight. The lenses you have there are rather super, especially the 24-70, and will beat the GF1 lenses quite nicely.

Wth the GF1 you'll get a nice compact 20mm fast lens. The 14-45 is bigger and sticks out a bit, but isn't as fast and wont give as good quality as the 24-70. The longer 45-200 sounds interesting but again will be nowhere near as good as a 300 f/4.

So your decision comes down to that tradeoff - compactness and lightness for IQ and usability.

For what it's worth, I love my GF1 and carry it everywhere, but I have 2x 1D bodies and several kilos of L lenses and the weight difference really makes the GF1 worth it for mountain biking/walking etc.
 
woof woof said:
You say that at ISO 1600 all detail vanishes, are you shooting RAW or JPEG? I've used the max ISO on all of my Canon DSLR's and I've been reasonably happy. I have lots of ISO 1600 300D shots and many ISO 3200 20D shots too.

I find noise less obvious in a printed shot than when on the screen. I haven't used noise reduction on any GF1 shots yet but I suppose that some subjects are more noise friendly than others and I do only have the 20mm f1.7.

I suppose that the way forward is to try a GF1 and see if you're happy with the results it produces.
Click to expand...

I meant after using noise reduction software to remove the noise. :) At ISO 1600 there is a fairly substantial loss of colour and dynamic range as well which is also a problem for me. Perhaps I am too picky (quite possibly) but I just find ISO 1600 almost worthless especially for saleable images.

Tobers said:
I think you'll find not a huge amount of difference in size/weight of the 400D versus the GF1. Of course the GF1 will be a bit smaller and lighter, but you are trading image quality, lens lineup and a proper viewfinder for that bit of weight. The lenses you have there are rather super, especially the 24-70, and will beat the GF1 lenses quite nicely.

Wth the GF1 you'll get a nice compact 20mm fast lens. The 14-45 is bigger and sticks out a bit, but isn't as fast and wont give as good quality as the 24-70. The longer 45-200 sounds interesting but again will be nowhere near as good as a 300 f/4.

So your decision comes down to that tradeoff - compactness and lightness for IQ and usability.

For what it's worth, I love my GF1 and carry it everywhere, but I have 2x 1D bodies and several kilos of L lenses and the weight difference really makes the GF1 worth it for mountain biking/walking etc.
Click to expand...

Weight isn't too much of an issue (although it is a consideration). The size is however, and having tried th GF1 there is a big difference between that and the 400D (although that can be a negative as well, it's more awkward to hold). As you pointed out, that is exactly it, compact vs IQ, I just don't know yet.:lol:

I suppose one option is to replace the 24-70 with a much smaller lens, the same with the 300 f/4, I just don't know if I could cope with the middling nature of it. Not tiny like the GF1 but not as good an IQ as the lenses I have now (not to mention I love the 12-24 and the 300 f/4 :(). Another option with regards to IQ would be to sell the 300 f/4 and get a newer camera, however that would increase the camera size (the x0D and xD cameras are substantially bigger)....
 
I was in a similar dilemma a couple of months ago where I was tempted to sell my 40D, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 for a GF1. Same as you, the 40D wasn't getting much use as it was too heavy to carry about but having used a friends Olympus Pen it confirmed for me that it wasn't a wise move.

The lack of viewfinder (I know you can get one but its an additional cost which I would not wish to pay for) and just the compactness was too much of a tradeoff. My 40D when taken out is a pleasure to use as it feels great and the ISO performance is top notch.

I know this post may not help much but it is probably better to go and try one out to see if you can live with the compactness.
 
I'm just back from 3 weeks in South America (<smug>), I took the tough decision of leaving my canon 5D and bag of lenses at home and just taking a GF1, 20mm 1.7 and 45-200.

Looking at the pics when we got home, most (90%) were with the 20mm, it's a fantastic setup - small, light, unobtrusive, damn sharp, easy to use (you just zoom with your feet...).

The 45-200 was a bit of a letdown after my long 2.8 canon zoom, it's not that sharp and doesnt focus very quickly, but it cost about 20%, weighs about 10% of the canon and fits in a jacket pocket :)

I only had 1 or 2 'damn, I wish I had the canon' moments, but many many more 'thank goodness I've got the GF1, I would never have carried the canon this far / bought it out in this town'

Go for it, but get the 20mm first, get the zoom when you can sell something else..
 
Thanks wingo and mikeyt, two different views that are making me wonder even more what I should do... :lol: (but some great input for the for and against!)

I've just been pricing up another lens configuration wondering if I can get a similar quality with smaller glass. It won't help the body or be as small as the GF1 but the idea is to not lose as much quality but still make big weight/size savings...

So if I sold the Sigma 24-70, Canon 300 f/4 (:() and Tokina 12-24 (:(:() maybe I could replace them with a 70-300 IS, Tamron 17-50 and a Samyang 8mm fisheye for the extreme wide angle? That should come in a reasonable amount below what I could sell the lenses for and be almost the same quality (ish, considering I would use the 75-300 IS trips anyway), yet cover "more" and still take up a smaller amount in my bag... I could possibly persuade my dad to get rid of the 75-300 IS then and possibly even the 400D and get a 40D which would sort some of the issues I have with the 400D out, yet would only be slightly bigger...

It does have the the issue of no video recording (which I would really like) and only slightly smaller collection compared to what have now. Having tried the GF1 just before posting this thread and thinking about it a little more since I don't know if I could "cope" with the camera as my main one for at least a few months, as well as loosing a massive amount at the wide end.:thinking:

With regards to the Samyang 8mm, it's a manual fisheye, which wouldn't really seem like a good lens to take, however it is cheap and most of th 12-24's range is taken up by the 17-50, just leaving the ultrawide end, usually indoors or more likely night sky shots, which I think would be fine with the fisheye (possibly even a benefit), where focus isn't really an issue either as it's infinity or infinity... :lol: I would contemplate buying the 11-16 but it would be just too expensive at the moment.
 
Amp34 said:
I try and stick to low ISOs as well but sometimes you need to up the ISO, especially when using a long lens. Noise is all very well in small web images but when you blow them up and print them it becomes obvious, what would be a brilliant photo to hang on the wall becomes a grainy photo you'd only look at on your computer. Unless you use noise reduction software, when with ISO 1600 on the 400D all the detail vanishes. :) Noise would also be a big issue as I would be going from f/4 and f/2.8 lenses to 3.5-5.6, a loss of a couple of stops of light.

ricky1981 - So for you the size difference definately outweighed the loss in IQ.:)
Click to expand...

The 400D must be horrendous at noise handling compared to the 450D then, because as long as I have good enough light to expose correctly at ISO 1600, noise isn't really a problem.

I used to think that 1600 was a no go area on mine, because I didn't realise that to make the most of high ISO your exposure has to be either correct or slightly over (you can then underexpose it to correct in PP) thus hiding most of the noise. Underexposing with a high ISO is very unforgiving, as any increase in PP will just bring out the noise. This is where I went wrong for many weeks of first owning my camera - it didn't help that I only had slow lenses, too.

This shot was taken at ISO 1600, with no NR (I never use NR anymore):

IMG_8361_sb.jpg


The exposure was dropped slightly in PP to correct it. There's not much noise at all, even in the original, slightly overexposed full size RAW image.

Coupled with a nice, fast lens (say, f/1.8) and proper use of the high ISOs you can take many photographs without the need for a tripod.

Could you post some images from your 400D at high ISO that you deem to be overly noisy?
 
If I remember rightly the 450D is about a stop better with regards to noise, so essentially the 400Ds ISO1600 is the 450D at ISO3200. :)

It's also not possible sometimes to overexpose so you can then decrease the exposure in PP, for example during fast motion or with a long lens where ISO1600 is needed just to keep the exposure lengths up enough.

Unfortunately your suggestion also means getting faster lenses, which means more expense, larger size and heavier (for example I would need to get a 300 f/2.8 over the 300 f/4). :) This is also a major issue if I am going to be loosing a stop by buying smaller lenses.

With regards to samples, not really, I have no available ones, however it looks nothing like even your example shot, much more noisy. :)

However if I did "upgrade" my camera I would really want better ISO performance, not that bothered about increased pixel count, but an ISO performance increase would be very useful.
 
Strikes me that the real size/weight issues that you have with your kit is not so much the camera body, as the lenses you're dragging around.
Do you really need that lot? An option would be a couple of primes (e.g. 24mm and a 50mm). Chances are that once you'd re-adjusted to having to walk to get the shot, that you'd probably be able to capture most of the range you presently have, with the exclusion of the 300mm.
 
I did wonder about a couple of primes, but that would actually increase bulk not reduce it, especially as I would still need a third lens for wide angle goodness. :)

However I think I generally looked at them with regards to using the 300 f/4. If I got a 70-300 and carried that around I may be able to get away with 3 primes to replace the current two lenses, however that would increase costs quite a bit. (The only money I would have to change kit is from what I could sell).

Out of interest how much would the 20 or 24mm f/2.8's sell at used?

If I went with the Samyang as a random wiiiiide lens and use, 20mm, 50mm and 70-300 IS as the main lenses then how much would that cost me used? Also how muh extra would it take up space wise.

EDIT: However just looking at a couple of reviews the 20 and 24mm lenses don't seem particularly good by todays standards, with the 17-50 looking like it will be lighter than two primes and have a better IQ than at least the two wides.
 
maybe you should consider looking in some charity shops to pick up some second hand lenses. Some will be garbage, others will be a gem. I picked up a Pentax Lydith 30mm f/3.5 lens in m42 mount, and with an adapter it fits on my 450D well and produces unbelievably sharp images - in fact, it's probably my sharpest lens.

For under a tenner with images like this you really can't go wrong:

MeholdingDennis.jpg


I find the older lenses seem to lack in contrast compared to more modern ones, but with a touch of sharpening and some added contrast in PP you'd never know. The colour rendition with this lens in particular - and from what I read, a lot of the older lenses - is absolutely gorgeous.
 
I was umming and ahing about getting a DSLR for ages but went for a GF1 instead. I'm quite into walking/biking/climbing and personally I think any possible difference in IQ/useability is more than made up for by the fact that you will just take this camera literally everywhere with you, and not feel self-conscious using it either.

With the 20mm lens it's virtually a compact and will fit in a jacket pocket - with a few other lenses in a bag and a tripod I can go and do 'serious' photography.

I am really happy with mine. The viewfinder thing is only really an issue in very bright sunlight, when I don't really like taking pics anyway - and the Clearviewer is a decent enough cheapo option to remedy that anyway.

I'm also using quite a few old MF lenses and some are fantastic - can be bought very cheaply on ebay and the adaptors aren't much either.
 
i had a 5Dmk2 & 7D before my GF1 & i love this little camera...it's unobtrusive & easy to carry round...you have to get the 20mm to go with it as they are a fabulous combination
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top