Beginner Panasonic Lumix G3 + 14-42 mm kit lens

Eltheza

Eltheza

Messages
343
Name
Elizabeth
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All:)!

I've been taking photos for a long time but I've only considered photography to be a hobby since 2010. Before that, it was just something I did and enjoyed; I suppose I was a 'Happy Snapper'!

It's only since 2010 that I've got into semi-manual and manual control(s). I've seen a Panasonic Lumix G3 + kit lens, 14-42 mm for £139 - 'pre-owned/loved', of course - at my local London Camera Exchange. I know that I'm going in the mirrorless/micro 4/3 direction rather than for a DSLR. This is it, but the one on sale at LCE is red (I like red;)!):

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-...1477058975&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+lumix+g3

Why don't I want a DSLR? Well, I don't want the weight. I am small, I don't drive and I want a camera to put in a smallish bag!

I've read reviews. Any opinions, please? All views very welcome!

TIA:ty:
 
Thank you very much, Alan:)! I think I've decided that if it's still in the shop window on Monday morning, then I'm 'avin' it;)! I'll let you know!

Thanks again!
 
Why don't I want a DSLR? Well, I don't want the weight. I am small, I don't drive and I want a camera to put in a smallish bag!

Then you will love the G3! Been shooting with one for almost a year now and its my 'go to' camera when going out.
It is a bit like a small dslr, but light, compact, and with my smallest lens, the Panasonic 14mm Pancake Prime, goes into
the smallest of my bags.
If you want to see my humble attempts with the combo, also with the Panny 45-200 and the Olly 8mm body cap fisheye,
then have a quick butchers HERE
 
Thanks very much, wontolla:)! I've had a butcher's - super pics! They're not humble attempts - they're great! I think I'll go for it. I'm sure I'll be back for advice about lenses;)!
 
I had the G3 back when I first started and I really liked it. My favourite lens was the Olympus 45mm 1.8. Something to look at a little way down the line, maybe? I still think the pictures taken with that lens are some of the best, or at least nicest looking, images I've taken.
 
I've been thinking recently that a kit lens and a wide aperture prime would cover 99% of what I need :D

The original Panasonic 14-42mm is a humble lens but a good performer. I'd add a 17, 25 or 45mm f1.8 depending upon preference. I'd go for the 17 or 25mm. One thing to keep in mind is that you can mix and match. Most of my primes are Olympus although there do seem to be some good deals on the Panasonic 25mm f1.7.
 
wontolla said:
My pleasure Elizabeth, the kit lens is ok, but there are lots of better ones out there for not much money.
Have a look at the Sigma offerings, the Art series don't just look good on camera, but perform well too.
I have the 60mm and the 19mm and like them very much!
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4606181052/field-test-sigma-dn-lenses
Click to expand...

Thanks very much again! As I understand, you're not tied in to a particular brand with lenses:confused:?

@Derek - yes, I'd be very interested in that one:)!

Thanks a lot!
 
Keep in mind that those lenses are f2.8.

With these older cameras keeping the ISO down will help image quality and a wider aperture can help in keeping the ISO down :D The Sigma lenses are no doubt very nice and at a very competitive price too but personally I'd think carefully about f1.8 lenses for lower light use if not for depth of field reasons.
 
woof woof said:
Keep in mind that those lenses are f2.8.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, but still perform well for the price and better than the f3.5 of the kit lens.
Plus, I was trying to show that you can better lenses for little money!
Going from what Elizabeth is showing on her flickr, they would suit her fine.
 
woof woof said:
Keep in mind that those lenses are f2.8.

With these older cameras keeping the ISO down will help image quality and a wider aperture can help in keeping the ISO down :D The Sigma lenses are no doubt very nice and at a very competitive price too but personally I'd think carefully about f1.8 lenses for lower light use if not for depth of field reasons.
Click to expand...

@Alan - thanks! Low-light photography is something I'm interested in, amongst other varieties e.g. birdies, Macro, trees and water. I live near the River Severn. I know summat about aperture/DOF and all that good stuff;)!

Yes, I shall bear it in mind.:ty:
 
wontolla said:
Yes they are, but still perform well for the price and better than the f3.5 of the kit lens.
Plus, I was trying to show that you can better lenses for little money!
Going from what Elizabeth is showing on her flickr, they would suit her fine.
Click to expand...

Hey - thanks for looking:)!

My pics on Flickr were taken with a Canon Ixus 105; an Olympus mju ii and a Panasonic Lumix TZ 55! I have to say that the Canon Ixus did a great job in London on the South Bank! Opinions may differ;)! Thanks, anyway.
Yes, just looking for a step up really. I very much appreciate the advice and support that's on offer here:ty:!
 
wontolla said:
Yes they are, but still perform well for the price and better than the f3.5 of the kit lens.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they are and even more so if with the kit lens you're at f5.6 and ISO 6400 :D

I just think it's worth thinking why we buy lenses and what we want to do with them. An f2.8 prime may well be tickerty boo but in the particular scenario of a two lens set up consisting of a kit zoom and a prime where the zoom is to be used for general purpose good light shooting and the prime is to be used for lower light shooting and possibly for depth of field reasons too I personally would go for a f1.8 prime over a f2.8.

Anyway, the seed that you can mix and match lenses is there for the OP to think about :D

Eltheza said:
@Alan - thanks! Low-light photography is something I'm interested in, amongst other varieties e.g. birdies, Macro, trees and water. I live near the River Severn. I know summat about aperture/DOF and all that good stuff;)!

Yes, I shall bear it in mind.:ty:
Click to expand...

And another thing :D

You may want to think about using old manual lenses via adapters. You could for example get an old film era manual focus macro lens as macro is usually manual focus anyway. I bought an old film era macro lens for about £60 and I use it with an adapter that cost under £10, I must have taken thousands of pictures with that old lens. Another thing you can do is use cheap old manual lenses just for the fun of it or for the look they give, if you have time to manually focus. For example an old manual focus 50mm f1.8 and adapter may cost you under £30 and you could use it for portraits :D I've taken thousands of pictures with old manual lenses :D
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much, Alan! I very much appreciate the advice, support and knowledge that's available here on TP. I have to rush out now for local Camera Club meeting:exit::ty::)
 
woof woof said:
Anyway, the seed that you can mix and match lenses is there for the OP to think about :D



And another thing :D

You may want to think about using old manual lenses via adapters. You could for example get an old film era manual focus macro lens as macro is usually manual focus anyway. I bought an old film era macro lens for about £60 and I use it with an adapter that cost under £10, I must have taken thousands of pictures with that old lens. Another thing you can do is use cheap old manual lenses just for the fun of it or for the look they give, if you have time to manually focus. For example an old manual focus 50mm f1.8 and adapter may cost you under £30 and you could use it for portraits :D I've taken thousands of pictures with old manual lenses :D
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I have an FD 50mm and a OM 50mm that together with apropriate adapters cost very little indeed. Once you get the feel for the manual side of your camera they produce excellent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top