Lens for Panasonic G1

A

aces_up1504

Messages
89
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks for all your help so far,

50/50 between a Cannon 20D and Panasonic G1

The Cannon due the supposed better images and G1 the fact due its size it will get used more.

I have found a G1 body for £110 but need advice and pricing for lens.

Need a jack of all trades somthing likes 14-42mm but the G1 lens seem to be quite expensive are there any other opitions?
 
The 14-42 Lumix lens was only £49.99 at SRS a month or so back (with some Cashback). Expect to pay at least £60-70 for one now second hand. When I bought a G2 in the Tesco sale a few months ago I sold my never used 14-42 on eBay for £80 as there wasn't much demand for it on the forums.

Have you considered looking for a 350D or 400D, you get the image quality of the 20D in a smaller lighter body? My 500D fits in the same bag I was using to carry the G2 in and weighs less than 100 grams more. Plenty more cheap lens choice and availability for Canon as well.
 
I have a 14-42mm and as far as I know it's the cheapest of the zooms in that range. It's a pretty average thing (IMVHO) but the in camera magic means there's no visible distortion or CA plus of course it has IS.

I don't use mine much, in fact I think I've only used it a few times but it's there if I want it. Mostly I use primes.

One good thing about these cameras is that you can fit pretty much anything to them via the correct adapter so if you want you could go for an adapter and legacy lens. Just something to think about :D

BTW, I had a 20D for a little over seven years. They're good cameras IMVHO. I have a 5D now but mostly I use a G1 as I find that DSLR's are a bit large, heavy and attention grabbing. I find the G1 much more discrete.
 
Last edited:
Forget the 14-42, the 14-45 is reckoned to be the better 'kit' lens, if you can run to it that is.
 
Dave in Wales said:
Forget the 14-42, the 14-45 is reckoned to be the better 'kit' lens, if you can run to it that is.
Click to expand...

The OP considered the 14-42 to be an expensive lens, don't know what he would think of the price 14-45's tend to sell for.
 
Maybe expensive is not quite the word ;) But when combined with body only appears to offer little value for money say £190 all in all, When a G2 can be had brand new for £250
 
The 14-42 lenses hold their value as they fit all m4/3 cameras, but it is possible to pick up G1 bodies for less than £100. I think I paid around £90 for mine when I had it, but I've seen them go for less than £85 on eBay.
Keep an eye out for good deals on the G2 though as there are a few more to found since Tesco did the £199 deal. They can occasionally be had for not much more than the G1.
As someone else suggested, don't rule out something like the Canon 350D or 400D, there really isn't a huge difference in size and weight between them and the G1.
 
Not my lucky day today! Been outbid a few times lol

Not seen any good deals on the G2, the seem to almost go for the price they are available new. Shame i was not not looking when Tesco had the deal on :(

350D is always an option if nothing turns up.
 
aces_up1504 said:
Not my lucky day today! Been outbid a few times lol

Not seen any good deals on the G2, the seem to almost go for the price they are available new. Shame i was not not looking when Tesco had the deal on :(

350D is always an option if nothing turns up.
Click to expand...

As someone who has owned the Canon 350D and 400D, the Nikon D40, and the Lumix G1 and G2, my first choice if image quality is your main requirement would be the 350D (or 400D if it can be found in budget). The D40 would be a very close second (only let down because of non compatibility to most older Nikon lenses), and another consideration should be the D50 .

I would also suggest having the Canon at the top of the list for ease of availability and cost of additional lenses.

It's a pity you can't get a G1/G2, a 350D/400D and a D40 in your hands for a personal practical test.
 
Last edited:
Cheers Dave1.

We have both used the 350D before as my Dad has one. How much smaller is the G1/G2? I mentioned the camera is for the wife who wants to get into photography.

I just like the idea of G1/G2 being smaller, so lets say more hand bag friendly for more casual shots
 
It's not that much smaller, and weight-wise they are almost alike (body and kit lens), a 500D fits well into a bag I bought for the G2.

If you can still find a G2 instore, it is probably worth your while trying one in the flesh.If you do go instore, remember the G3 (which is more likely to be on display) is a lot more smaller than the G1/G2.
 
aces_up1504 said:
How much smaller is the G1/G2?
Click to expand...

There's a nice little vid comparing sizes here (but not with a 350D)...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/g1-compare.shtml

and you can D.I.Y. here (again, not with a 350D)...

http://camerasize.com/compare/#219,311

For example...

csize.jpg


You should look at the body+lens as a whole though, rather than just the body.
 
Although it does not look much different on paper, when seen on the video, there does appear to be quite a difference in overall size.
 
There really isn't though, not by the time you've put a kit lens on. I went from a 350D to a G1 and the only time the difference was actually noticeable was when I put a pancake lens on the G1. With normal lenses on the difference is non existent in normal use.
I think if cost is a major factor and you're buying for someone who is starting out then the 350D/400D would be the best way to go due to the optical viewfinder and the wide range of cheap lenses available.
 
Mandoo said:
There really isn't though, not by the time you've put a kit lens on. I went from a 350D to a G1 and the only time the difference was actually noticeable was when I put a pancake lens on the G1. With normal lenses on the difference is non existent in normal use.
I think if cost is a major factor and you're buying for someone who is starting out then the 350D/400D would be the best way to go due to the optical viewfinder and the wide range of cheap lenses available.
Click to expand...

I think your probably right given the price of the lens at the moment compared to the Canon.

Just a sucker for new technology :lol:
 
thats true!!

The worry is i dont want to over spend incase its a fad by the wife and end with an expensive camera doing nothing more than a compact can.
 
aces_up1504 said:
thats true!!

The worry is i dont want to over spend incase its a fad by the wife and end with an expensive camera doing nothing more than a compact can.
Click to expand...

If you get into photography, these bodies are at the "peanuts" end of the scale ;)

In image quality terms, the G1 is better than a compact, the 350D/400D is better than the G1.

If you don't intend going bigger than A4/8x10, the G1 might be all you need.

You get into it more seriously and want to start doing A3 /posters, you will be happier with the Canon.
 
I dont seeing it becoming more than a casual hobby and probably nothing will get printed out other than a few keepers lol and dont really see a photo anybigger than 8 x 10 being printed.

Found a bargain of a 350D but typically to good to be true as he will not post and other end of the country lol
 
aces_up1504 said:
Have done but unwilling at the moment. Shame he only wants £115 including lens 28-80mm for it.
Click to expand...

It's reasonable, but not a lens I'd really consider as a starter (you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 to get the equivalent on the 350D).

MPB Photographic have a 350D for £129 with a 6 month warranty.
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...d-canon-digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-350d-1/

A 18-55 non IS kit lens would only cost £25 and be the IQ equivalent of the 28-80.
 
Ok, this is why i thought it best to start posting on here rather than just buy something

Please bear in mind i know very little, well less than very little. why is the 28-80mm lens not very good?

Also what do you think is a good price for a G2?
 
aces_up1504 said:
Ok, this is why i thought it best to start posting on here rather than just buy something

Please bear in mind i know very little, well less than very little. why is the 28-80mm lens not very good?
Click to expand...

As a general use lens, especially when learning you need something from wide angle through the moderate telephoto. Lenses are shown with 35mm focal lengths, (full frame in digital), the APS-C sensor needs to be multiplied by 1.6 to get the equivalent.

For example, the kit lens is 18mm-55mm which equates to around 28mm-90mm.

That 28-80mm lens will have a field of view equivalent to 45mm-128mm.

It will be quite restrictive indoors, or any group style photos.

aces_up1504 said:
Also what do you think is a good price for a G2?
Click to expand...

They were last sold new for £199 with kit lens (actually £189 with the voucher that was available), many sellers bought them in the Tesco sale and some try and profit now. In good condition and boxed, you shouldn't pay more than £180 with lens, around £130 body only.
 
Last edited:
Either a MFT or DSLR may be right for you, of course YMMV, and we all have our own views on what a good print is. Although I often read that the G1 will struggle to produce anything over A4 I personally find it perfectly capable of producing A3 prints. I shoot RAW and process with CS5 and I have few complaints.

At low to middling ISO's it's good and in print I don't think most people would be able to tell a G1 shot from an older generation Canon DSLR shot. I've tried it :) and they couldn't :) On balance my 20D + Siggy 50mm f1.4 produced better prints than my G1 with 14-42mm but it was mostly down to the lens (my 20D+50mm also beat a 5DII+f4 L zoom much to the annoyance of the owner) but I had to look close to nit pick. The G1 did win on some points as it'll give less CA and possibly less distortion than many a DSLR+lens combo due to its built in corrections. Now that I have a (really) good lens on my G1 the gap between it and my 20D (now sold) would need reassessing.

Whatever you get, I hope you don't hobble it with anything like the 28-80mm or even a 18-55mm kit lens. That would be a shame :) and if you do do that, seriously, the G1+14-42mm will be a better bet at low to middle ISO's, IMVHO, if you shoot RAW and process them yourself. If you get a DSLR, get a decent lens and shoot RAW.

PS. If you'd like a G1 and a 20D file (the 20D is a 8mb DSLR of the same generation as the 350D) to scrutinise to see if any difference is significant just PM me an email address and I'll send a couple of full size files over. They'll have been taken with decent lenses and will be JPEG's produced from RAW's.
 
Last edited:
I had 4 M4/3rds bodies, (2 Oly, the G1 and G2) and wasn't happy with any image at A4. That was with the Oly 14-42, Oly 40-150, Oly 45 and Lumix 14-42.

I have A3 prints taken 4 years ago with a 400D still hanging on my wall that can be viewed from a few inches and look good, resolution and noise wise.

With regard the kit lens, it is a pretty underrated lens, capable of clean sharp images.

This was taken on the Canon kit lens (and is quite acceptable IMO and quite capable of A3 enlargement).
7475120088_e3089a7b8f_b.jpg
 
Not that you can tell much from images at these sizes. I've pixel peeped and looked at A3 to see the differences between 20D and MFT and both of them against 5D and IMVHO it's difficult at low to middle ISO's if you've taken the shots well and processed the images to get the best out of them. There may well be clues in noise and DoF and CA and the like etc... but put a good lens on MFT, APS-C or FF and take the shot with well chosen settings and process it well and you should get a good shot :)

It's difficult choosing a camera :D
 
woof woof said:
It's difficult choosing a camera :D
Click to expand...

isn't that the truth, you know, I really tried with m4/3rds, the size of the e-pl2 was something I liked, but try as I could I just couldn't get the same IQ from any of the bodies/lenses I had.

While the 45 f1.8 was undoubtedly sharp the images just didn't hold up to close scrutiny, blue skies were blotchy and fine detail disappeared into mush at high magnification (and I don't mean pixel peeping, just the equivalent of A3).

Printed at A4 was never really satisfactory, I like seeing the fine detail in an image. As an example, one of my photographic tests is to photograph St Mary's lighthouse from the headland and I expect the individual glass panes in the beam room to be sharp and visible in an A3 print.


The Canon models could do it, even the 6MP Nikon D50 could, as could the D80. None of the m4/3rds I had could. I'd still like to get a 16MP sensor m4/3rds and try again, but for the cost (and the burnt fingers from the 12MP bodies) I still might.
 
Just to confuse things further :D Here are 100% crops of pictures taken with MFT, APS-C and FF :D All are ok, IMVHO :D. All via photobucket so will be slightly mangled.

c1c.jpg


c2c.jpg


C3c.jpg


c4c.jpg


c5c.jpg


c6c.jpg
 
Panasonic Lumix G2.

For all the positives of the 350D, it is still a camera that is nearly 10 years old. So went with the newest i could afford
 
aces_up1504 said:
Panasonic Lumix G2.

For all the positives of the 350D, it is still a camera that is nearly 10 years old. So went with the newest i could afford
Click to expand...

For what you want from photography, a good choice to learn with and better than the G1 :thumbs:.
 
Dave1 said:
For what you want from photography, a good choice to learn with and better than the G1 :thumbs:.
Click to expand...

Well, AFAIK it has the same chip, so actual still image IQ should be the same but it does have vid and some control layout changes.
 
Cheers,

It will mainly be my wifes camera, but i might steal it now and again when i play golf as do enjoy taking pictures of the courses that i play.

Think i have a few knocking round of some of the NW links courses from my dads camera that i could put up
 
ive just been reading your thread, im new to photography also and went for a G2. there was just to many cameras to choose from and the technical info got me confused so i opted for the one i thought id use more. i do a lot of cycling so the G2 fits in my backpack well. im pritty happy with it. i know there are better cameras out there but i wouldent appreaciate the diffrence in quality. mabey when i get a bit better i can get a new toy to play with;)
 
lumos2000 said:
ive just been reading your thread, im new to photography also and went for a G2. there was just to many cameras to choose from and the technical info got me confused so i opted for the one i thought id use more. i do a lot of cycling so the G2 fits in my backpack well. im pritty happy with it. i know there are better cameras out there but i wouldent appreaciate the diffrence in quality. mabey when i get a bit better i can get a new toy to play with;)
Click to expand...

Yep sums up my thoughts on why i went for it. Having now seen it, I believe it is quite a lot smaller then say Canon 350D and will get more use as it will be used for casual snaps as well she learns more about photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top