Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2011, 2:24 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42
Default Acquired GF2, any reason to keep FZ35?

Hi,

I recently acquired a FZ35 and today purchased a brand new GF2 body with Panasonic 14-45mm lens for $620!

(iPhone Pic)


Anyway, I am a photography noob but was wondering if there is any reason why I should keep the FZ35 I purchased a couple weeks ago? I am always amazed with the amazing shots from the FZ35 and really don't know what I should do.

What are your thoughts?

Last edited by IIGQ4U; Mar 17, 2011 at 2:47 AM.
IIGQ4U is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 17, 2011, 3:04 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

well with your current set up, the gf2 does not do macro really well, where the fz does it much better. Also you do not have the reach with the 14-45, if you need more reach. I would keep the fz for the macro and more reach till you add a long zoom for the gf2.

Now if the FZ is still in a return period, use the return money to add a 45-200 or the 100-300.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2011, 3:04 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 233
Default

I believe that you will probably find these two cameras very complementary as both have inherent strengths and weaknesses. i.e. The GF2 with a bigger sensor is going to perform better in low light, yet will not beat the ease & portability of the FZ35’s superzoom.
I certainly would keep both!
dbnnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2011, 9:19 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
saly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: near Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 4,764
Default

I own both an FZ35 and a GF1. While GF1 produces much better image quality in "most" cases, there are many circumstances where the FZ is more desirable for its versatility and ease of use. In some cases it outperforms the GF. It really depends on what type of photography you like to do. I like macro, and I find the FZ easier for that. I like to use the 70-300mm lens for macro with my GF and the whole thing is quite heavy and bulky. But for scenery and birding, the GF outperforms. In low light conditions, GF is the only way to go. If you can afford to, I recommend you keep both.
saly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2011, 12:08 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42
Default

Thanks for the comments. I just received my EVF from Amazon today and ordered the 45-200mm lens for the GF2.

I am still within the return period for the FZ35, so I will continue to ponder and decide if there is a need by going out and shooting.

Thanks again for the help.

Last edited by IIGQ4U; Mar 23, 2011 at 4:14 AM.
IIGQ4U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2011, 12:12 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you shot macro you can add a canon 500D close lens in 52mm for the 45-200, and you will have a nice marco lens option. Not to expensive at 60 dollars.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2011, 12:14 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42
Default

Thank you for the tip. Does it require a ring or will it screw right in?
IIGQ4U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2011, 12:22 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

no ring if you get the 52mm, it mounts right on the 45-200
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2011, 8:09 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
gjtoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 6,938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
If you shot macro you can add a canon 500D close lens in 52mm for the 45-200, and you will have a nice marco lens option. Not to expensive at 60 dollars.
You may also want to consider the Raynox DCR-150 & DCR-250 as options for a macro filter lens.
__________________
Gary ---- "The best camera is the one you have with you."
<><~~~~~~~~~~~
Pentax K-70 ~ Panasonic FZ1000
My Gallery

--
Hebrews 13:3
gjtoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2011, 1:00 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

They are okay, but with the longer zoom of the 45-200, it makes the 4.8 diopter and 8 diopter raynox very difficult to work with. Much easier to use a 2 diopter lens for most close up hand held. With either raynox, you will really need a tripod, and a f22 may not give enough dof control to get a great shot. Now on the kit lens 14-45 then either raynox will work, but will leave very little working distance.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Mar 23, 2011 at 7:10 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:17 PM.