Lumix G1 or Canon 60d?

Messages
959
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
Yes
Would love some advice please. I have a Lumix G1 and whilst I do love it (it is small and produces sharp pics) I just wonder whether there isn't something better out there - the eternal question! I am going to enrol on level 2 city and guilds and am determined to take level 3 next year, and to see where it takes me. I have been browsing a lot of online reviews etc and whilst I would love a 5d mk II it is on the tad expensive side. Just wondering what the thoughts of others are on the 60d and whether it would be an upgrade. I generally shoot portraiture, macro (but only using my Raynox), architecture and I am starting to look into food photography. I am also interested in the number of lenses available to Canon and whether that would help me make my mind up in comparison to the micro four thirds range. Any help would be great, thanks Sarah
 
How about a used 5d mk I?about the same price as a 60d but better image quality. I had an Olympus e-pl1 and I know its not as good as the g1 but the novelty soon wore off and I decided that I much preferred my canon gear but each to their own. I think you get better value for money particularly on used equipment so personally if the size/weight of a dslr is not an issue I would change. Whilst m4/3 is good I think the technology has not evolved enough to be a direct competitor but others may disagree.
 
Micro four thirds is all about size. If you don't need/want a smaller camera system, then there is little reason to choose it over Canon/Nikon.
 
I'm a Canon and Panny user but if starting from scratch and looking to start a course I think I'd look at Sony or Nikon as if the review and test sites are to be believed the Sony sensor, used by Nikon too, is far superior to Canon's current technology. I think I'd be very tempted by Sony with their in body IS.

I'm a bit of a fan of MFT but for someone just starting out maybe a DSLR and the options available would be better but maybe the balance would tip back to MFT a little if video has a high priority.
 
I have a G1, I sometimes ask myself would I take better pictures if I had a full dslr, the answer is always no, so I still have a G1.
:)
 
Video has no priority to me at all! Just want options without having to spend £400 on a lens for a body that I personally don't think deserves £400 being spent on it. Would spend that money and more if I believed camera would def benefit from those lenses.

Hmmm, gotta disagree with you about the camera not being worth a good lens but apart from that I see MFT as being for people who don't want the bulk of a DSLR system and who either don't know or care about the possible limitations of the MFT system or see them as actual advantages but for generally getting into photography maybe a DSLR would be the better choice for you.
 
I had a G1, I now have a 500D, the difference in image quality was noticeable to say the least.

The main issues for me though where low light performance and lenses, the low light performance of the G1 was abysmal and I found the focusing slow, but the lens choice and the price of lenses was terrible, there where no cheap fast lenses, little if no third party support lens wise and you had to spend at least £600 to get an F2.8 lens!!

The canon was a revelation, the 500D coupled with a 50mm F1.8 worked a treat for me and the lens cost peanuts!! Adding an 85mm F1.8 & a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 later, but each lens cost less than £300 new with a bit of shopping around.

Size wise the canon is about 1/3 larger than the G1 but not much heavier.

I would heartily recommend going for the DSLR over the G1, remember your buying into a system and to put it simply the DSLR system is cheaper in the long run when you want more and faster lenses.
 
I had a G1, I now have a 500D, the difference in image quality was noticeable to say the least.

The main issues for me though where low light performance and lenses, the low light performance of the G1 was abysmal and I found the focusing slow, but the lens choice and the price of lenses was terrible, there where no cheap fast lenses, little if no third party support lens wise and you had to spend at least £600 to get an F2.8 lens!!

The canon was a revelation, the 500D coupled with a 50mm F1.8 worked a treat for me and the lens cost peanuts!! Adding an 85mm F1.8 & a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 later, but each lens cost less than £300 new with a bit of shopping around.

Size wise the canon is about 1/3 larger than the G1 but not much heavier.

I would heartily recommend going for the DSLR over the G1, remember your buying into a system and to put it simply the DSLR system is cheaper in the long run when you want more and faster lenses.

b****r, when you put it like that ....
 
I don't find the high ISO to be abysmal. All you have to do is ensure you get a good exposure and run basic noise reduction, but hey ho, each to his own :)
 
b****r, when you put it like that ....

Like I said.....it's all about size. The G1 with a 20mm on is small, light, and extremely capable, I used that setup for night-time available light street photography, and while the X100 is a big step forwards, the G1 still performs!

The G1 and pancake lens you can just sling on a shoulder, or throw in a rucksack, and not even know it's there most of the time. SLR + a decent prime or zoom is a whole different proposition. It's the difference between occasionally going out to take pictures, and always having a camera with you, in my experience.
 
I don't find the high ISO to be abysmal. All you have to do is ensure you get a good exposure and run basic noise reduction, but hey ho, each to his own :)

A lot of the low light problems where not so much noise or crap IQ as it was focus hunting and the EVF not wanting to display things clearly.

The 500D knocked it for six and in a straight shoot out with my old canon G11, the G11 won on IQ for indoor portraits. (That actually shocked me!)
 
Back
Top