Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   Should I get a Nikon D90 or a Panasonic GH1? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/should-i-get-nikon-d90-panasonic-gh1-172986/)

vsanzbajo Jun 22, 2010 9:13 PM

Should I get a Nikon D90 or a Panasonic GH1?
 
I can not decide, please help?
I am interested in Image quality, build quality and overall performance. I now the Panasonic is smaller but that is not a selling point for me.
Thanks

mtclimber Jun 22, 2010 9:43 PM

i would stay away from m4/3.

Sarah Joyce

vsanzbajo Jun 22, 2010 9:45 PM

How come? Anything I should be aware of Sarah?

shoturtle Jun 22, 2010 9:57 PM

Depends on what you like to shoot, if you need low light or action. A full dslr would be a better tool. I shoot both m4/3 and a dslr. M4/3's big advantage is compact size. As it makes for a good travel companion. The Panny is also a very good tool if HDR if it is something you are interested in. But at the moment lenses are a bit on the expensive size with m4/3. And they do not have as many options yet, though they are growing. The AF system on the panny is good, but not as good as the d90.

mtclimber Jun 22, 2010 9:59 PM

Yes, it is just a personal opinion, but I feel the M4/3 are over priced and under featured. Look carefully, and compare any M4/3 camera against a DSLR like the Canon T1i, and you will see very little difference.

Sarah Joyce

vsanzbajo Jul 24, 2010 11:11 PM

I am leaning towards the Panasonic, cheaper. Please let me know if you think I am making a mistake

shoturtle Jul 24, 2010 11:30 PM

With the GH1, you get a much better camera for HDR and HD video. But if you are into action shooting, it is not as good as a dslr. In low light the DSLR is better as the GH1 is only good to about 800iso. But if compact size is important to you, the GH1 is smaller and easier to travel with.

The GH1 unlike the new G2 and G10 can not use all the 4/3 lenses on the market with and adapter. So that can be a concern. That issue will be resolved in the GH2.

mtclimber Jul 24, 2010 11:41 PM

It really depends on what you want to shoot. The D-90 triumphs in high ISO capability, and as an action shot camera, with the very best flash system in the industry.

Panasonic is very weak, with a very limited selection in external flashes. The GH-1 is ISO limited, does excellent video, but is sure not an action camera. You just have many more features and capabilities available to you with the Nikon D-90.

Sarah Joyce

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 12:05 AM

The GH1 has a heck of a lens, the 14-140mm HD lens is a really good lens. If brought separately it is 800 dollars just for the lens.

vsanzbajo Jul 25, 2010 1:42 AM

But the GH1 takes quality pictures, right?

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 1:43 AM

yes upto 800iso, it takes some fantastic photos

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 1:44 AM

How much dslr shooting experience do you have?

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 1:49 AM

Here are some samples of the GH1 form other members.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pa...moon-over.html

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pa...lking-gh1.html

This one give a very good idea what the lens that comes with the gh1 can do.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pa...-8-hd-ois.html

skylark Jul 25, 2010 2:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1121900)
The GH1 has a heck of a lens, the 14-140mm HD lens is a really good lens. If brought separately it is 800 dollars just for the lens.

That's what I've heard. For folks who want a smaller size and don't want to carry two lenses around and swap them, a single 10x zoom lens that stays permanently on the camera would be a major attraction of the GH1.

Sky

mtclimber Jul 25, 2010 9:27 AM

Sky-

But that limits the reach to just 280mm and the no real ISO capability is still not addressed. For the small size difference I would rather have the Kx or the E-620 and save money.

Sarah Joyce

vsanzbajo Jul 25, 2010 10:18 AM

I have used a Nikon D300 with a 18mm-120mm lens for a couple of years. Unfortunately I was laid off from my job and sold the camera. Now I cannot afford the D300, looking for something cheaper but great quality for travel, sports, and everyday camera use.

TCav Jul 25, 2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsanzbajo (Post 1121995)
I have used a Nikon D300 with a 18mm-120mm lens for a couple of years. Unfortunately I was laid off from my job and sold the camera. Now I cannot afford the D300, looking for something cheaper but great quality for travel, sports, and everyday camera use.

To get more attention for your specific question, I think you'd be better off starting your own topic.

What's your budget? Do you still have any of your Nikon gear?

JimC Jul 25, 2010 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1121996)
To get more attention for your specific question, I think you'd be better off starting your own topic.

vsanzbajo started this thread.

vsanzbajo Jul 25, 2010 11:25 AM

Budget $1200 max. No Nikon gear left.
Thanks

mtclimber Jul 25, 2010 11:52 AM

vsanzbajo-

Well then, the Nikon D-90 makes real sense then, as you are familiar with Nikon equipment, menus and the like. Your camera is your creative tool!

As a creative tool, the D-90 far exceeds, the Panasonic.

Sarah Joyce

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 12:24 PM

You said the magic word sport, that puts the GH1 way behind a dslr. Not a good tool for that.

If you were looking to save some money, take a look at the pentax k-x, canon T1i. They have allot of features, but much less then the d90.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsanzbajo (Post 1121995)
I have used a Nikon D300 with a 18mm-120mm lens for a couple of years. Unfortunately I was laid off from my job and sold the camera. Now I cannot afford the D300, looking for something cheaper but great quality for travel, sports, and everyday camera use.


TCav Jul 25, 2010 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimC (Post 1121998)
vsanzbajo started this thread.

oops

skylark Jul 25, 2010 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtclimber (Post 1121974)
Sky-

But that limits the reach to just 280mm and the no real ISO capability is still not addressed. For the small size difference I would rather have the Kx or the E-620 and save money.

Sarah Joyce

Hi Sarah,

Yes, the KX would be a better camera with its reputation of superior low-light ability. Which 10x+ zoom lens do you think would be sharp throughout its entire range? For folks who don't want to change lenses, that combo sounds pretty sweet.

Sky

mtclimber Jul 25, 2010 3:23 PM

sky-

The Tamron 18-250mm lens was sold under the Tamron brand name and rebadged as the Pentax 18-250mm lens. It works quite well as the Pentax Kx has in body Image Stabilization.

www.keh.com had 3 used copies of the Tamron 18-250mm in stock earlier in the week, so while they are getting a bit rarer, they are still available.

Sarah Joyce

skylark Jul 25, 2010 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtclimber (Post 1122086)
sky-

The Tamron 18-250mm lens was sold under the Tamron brand name and rebadged as the Pentax 18-250mm lens. It works quite well as the Pentax Kx has in body Image Stabilization.

www.keh.com had 3 used copies of the Tamron 18-250mm in stock earlier in the week, so while they are getting a bit rarer, they are still available.

Sarah Joyce

That would be a 13.9x zoom lens on the KX. I agree with you. A KX with that lens would be better than a GH1 for those who want 10x+ zoom as a single lens solution.

Good picks,
Sky

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 5:48 PM

You may not be able to find either the tamron or pentax 18-250mm as it is discontinued. You can also look at the sigma 18-250 as another option.

TCav Jul 25, 2010 6:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark (Post 1122092)
... A KX with that lens would be better than a GH1 for those who want 10x+ zoom as a single lens solution.

If someone were holding a gun to my head, I'd pick the GH1 and the 14-140 before a K-x and an anybody's 18-2x0.

mtclimber Jul 25, 2010 6:29 PM

Well, TCav-

As the song says, "To each their own!"

Sarah Joyce

JimC Jul 25, 2010 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1122141)
If someone were holding a gun to my head, I'd pick the GH1 and the 14-140 before a K-x and an anybody's 18-2x0.

I know you really didn't like the optical problems (distortion, CA, etc.) when you tried a Tamron 18-200mm briefly.

But, the 14-140mm bundled with the GH1 isn't exactly an optical jewel either. You just don't see all of the optical problems with it due to in camera firmware and/or software correction if shooting raw with an editor that knows how to correct for it's problems. See this page and you can see how bad it really is if you look test results for uncorrected images:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...gh1/page17.asp

You could do the same thing for a Tamron 18-2xx lens later with PP (use software correction to help out with optical issues if they bother you, keeping in mind that the newer models are sharper compared to the older Tamron 18-200mm). You just wouldn't have that correction in camera with a K-x. DxO Optics Pro is one solution for that:

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_op...ry_corrections

Newer versions of a number of other editors also have similar correction ability built in now, using lens specific profiles to correct for distortion, CA, vignetting and more (CS5, Bibble Pro 5, etc.)

As time passes, more and more cameras should start doing the same thing with JPEG files (some are just correcting for vignetting and CA now, but more advanced corrections like the GH1 is using will probably start becoming the norm in more newer camera bodies in the future).

TCav Jul 25, 2010 8:06 PM

I know about the automatic correction in the GH1 and all m4/3 cameras. I'm not a big fan of the idea, but if the image quality of the GH1 + 14-140 is better than the K-x and an 18-2x0 lens, and all indications are that it is, then that's what I'd go with. A superzoom lens is a bad idea, and in camera correction of distortion and CA is also a bad idea, but this is a case of picking your poison.

I've seen images from the Tamron 18-200, and I saw the objective test results for the Tamron 18-200. I've also seen the objective test results for the newer superzoom lenses, and while they're better, the flaws I saw in my images are still represented in those test results, although to a lesser degree. I took a lot of photos with that 18-200, and some of them are still among my favorites, but some of them I've been disappointed in and ashamed of. Of all the lenses I've had since then, none has been as bad.

But if someone really wants to go that way, I think the 14-140 is the best of a bad lot.

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 8:10 PM

To each their own, not everyone has your preference. There is a place for a megazoom lens, and they are not going away from the looks of thing.

TCav Jul 25, 2010 8:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1122176)
... and they are not going away from the looks of thing.

They're getting cheaper faster than they're getting better. That sounds like the beginning of the end to me.

shoturtle Jul 25, 2010 8:38 PM

They will be around, especially as they get faster and cheaper and better. :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 AM.