|
|
|
|
 #2137 18 Feb 2014 at 8.25am | |   |
|
In reply to Post #2136
Where do u live mate?
|
|
|
|
|
#2136 18 Feb 2014 at 8.20am | | |
|
In reply to Post #2135
I've also got young kids and getting quality pictures of them was a big factor in getting a decent camera, I'm also looking at better performance in low light so the zoom isn't really in my thinking, there is a f2.8 zoom but out of my budget unfortunately.
I might get the sigma 30 for now then see how I get on with it. But the small size of the Panasonic 20 does appeal to me....
Eenie meeny miney mo.......
|
|
|
|
|
#2135 18 Feb 2014 at 5.13am | | |
|
In reply to Post #2132
hi Duggs. Ive been using the lumix G series for about 3 years. I started with the g3 and the 14-42 kit zoom. mine was also a dissapointment. Apparently the 14-45 older kit lens was much better. I also had the 45-200 but I was given that.
I joined the Lumix forum and loved the look of the photos taken with the primes. As I have a young child I wanted good indoor photos. And liked the idea of a compact setup, So I bought the 20mm pancake for £220. As I was on a limited budget this was all i had for the first year or so.
I used it for indoor and outdoor even as a walk around on holiday. its true you do just move around more. but the photos blew the kit lens away. Yes the lenses cost a lot but I could now sell my 20mm second hand for nearly the same as I paid for it. as the price has risen. as opposed to my G3 body and kit lens that I just sold for £100.00.
So they are more of an investment than the bodies. the new 14-140 that panny recently launched is a great lens and images are near on as sharp as the 20mm and the olympus 45mm ( which i now also own). Just not as fast.
I got a deal at christmas with amazon and panasonic cashback where i paid 379.00 for G6 with 14-140. the lens sells for 400+ on its own. I mention this as you may may find them cheaper as people split the package and keep the part they want.
|
|
|
|
|
#2134 17 Feb 2014 at 5.29pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2133
Might be the same as mine
|
|
|
|
|
#2133 17 Feb 2014 at 5.10pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2131
It is a Panasonic 14-42mm f3.5-5.6. I think both lenses are now on version 2.
|
|
|
|
|
#2132 17 Feb 2014 at 4.59pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2131
Which zoom did you get?
I was going to wait a while for a prime but I bought a 45-150 Panasonic and the image quality seems miles better than the kit lens I've got.
I doubt I'd be carting two primes about tbh, I'm just not sure the Panasonic is worth double the price of the sigma....
|
|
|
|
|
#2131 17 Feb 2014 at 3.02pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2130
I've got the 20mm f1.7 and i think it is very good for the money. I bought a zoom as well but thought it was cack so the 20mm hasn't been off the camera since. If you think you will use both the Sigmas then it might be worth going for it but maybe try the shorter one first and see if you need another. I always prefer travelling light with the minimum of kit and sticking to one focal length can really help you get better at composition, you actively move and seek out better viewpoints instead of just zooming or changing lenses all the time. I'm probably going to be replacing my MFT stuff with a Fuji X100s soon though as it is closer to what I want from a pocket camera.
Take your camera body to a shop and fire off some tests, see what feels best. If the shop is funny about it then go elsewhere but do try them all out.
|
|
|
|
|
#2130 17 Feb 2014 at 7.55am | | |
|
Hi guys
Right then, I bought a new camera a while back, I'm now looking at getting a decent prime but in MFT format they're rather pricey.
There's a 20mm 1.7 or a 45mm 1.8 (double them for 35mm equiv) both well over 200 quid, and a Leica 25mm @over 400
The 45 is too long, the 25 too expensive
Sigma also do a 19mm 2.8 and a 30mm 2.8, I can get both for the price of the Panasonic 20.
I can't decide whether to get the more expensive 20 or the 2 sigmas??
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
#2129 12 Feb 2014 at 9.30pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2128
sparrow hawk. lovely. You will get it eventually
its all about lucky timing really.
The one thing I do to help myself out is i have the camera with the long zoom attached
loosely sitting in its bag by the kitchen back door. as thats where im most likey to look out
and see something.
of course, it sometimes has to be quickly run up the stairs to a bedroom window for a shot. then usually left up there
for the next time, when it has to be quickly retrieved. all thw time with me swearing and cursing , maybe fumbling to change a lens. only to find the chosen bird has long gone.
|
|
|
|
|
#2128 11 Feb 2014 at 9.10pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2127
Nice Paul i'v got a sparrow hawk visit my apple tree about half an hour before dusk, can I get a snap can I heck.
|
|
|
|
|
#2127 11 Feb 2014 at 6.44pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2126
Cheers Dave. Tho it was shot in raw. Pp in Lightroom and I used a long tele lens. So some might say
I cheated lol.
|
|
|
|
|
#2126 10 Feb 2014 at 9.03pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #2125
Nice Shot Paul
I would love to get a shot of one
|
|
|
|
|
#2125 10 Feb 2014 at 1.16pm | | |
|
Got ya!
well happy. even if it was through my sons bedroom window. luckily the glass was clean. he flew off when i opened
it as gently as I could. So i think i made the right decision to take a shot first. ive seen him a few times and allways on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
#2124 3 Feb 2014 at 8.49pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1000
Anyone else having trouble viewing exif data with flickr, Is this something to do with the recent yahoo hack.
I've checked and double checked too no avail.
Sorted it, found uploading pics through my ipad was problem.
|
|
|
|
|
#2123 1 Feb 2014 at 4.22pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1000
hi just got myself a cannon g3 with a remote and tripod from fleabay at a bargain price i couldnt refuse the punt.......ive constructed a small box with a spring ect to work the remote with my knee...hate seeing remotes in pics.
qustion for the camera techs on here......how can i get the sexy blurred background ...fish in focus shots with this set up?
read somewhere about no being too close to the tress behind but being quite close to the camera, plus changing settiings in portrait?
|
|
