want to buy a new camera

[Former_Member]

Hello,

I am thinking of buying a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 16.05 MP.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks

[Former_Member]

I do not own one personally, but i have heard good things about the panasonic lumix brand. And the fold out screen is really nice. I recently bought a canon with the same feature and at first didn't think i would like it, but it is one of my favorite features.

Hope this helps :)

[Former_Member]

Personally I prefer Nikon products. Nikon and Canon are the two most popular, and consequently there will likely be a wider selection of accessories available.
When moving to a dslr you are getting a photography "system" that you will be adding to and upgrading in the future, rather than just a camera.
I use as D300s and a D80 at present, and really appreciate the 51 point focus/metering system of the d300.
Nikon has a new upper end consumer model out, the D7000. Its a 16 megapixel cam with 39 point auto focus that works in video mode as well.
It has a 1.5 crp sensor,at 16 mp.
MIght not hurt to take a close look at it. Url below
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/

[BannerArts]

Depends on what you are using it for. But, I recommend Canon PowerShot cameras. Small, inexpensive, awesome flash, on and on....

[ViviennesPastries]

I'm quite partial to Pentax products myself, Nikon is top of the line as far as optics are concerned but with that noteriety comes a very large price tag. You have to pay for the name, but at least you do get the quality as opposed to a Canon where I feel you pay purely for the name. Canons are ok but I feel they are too expensive for what they do, and personally I do not like the color quality of their images. I haven't ventured into the DSLR world yet so I cannot speak for those, but as far as point and shoot goes with Pentax you get a lot of bang for your buck. The optical quality of their cameras is excellent, colors are true and crisp, they are simple and user friendly and very inexpensive especially for what they can do. I have an RS1000 (14mpx $85 on amazon) for snap shots and simple photography where I want a small camera more than an ultra high resolution image and an X70 (12 mpx $300 on amazon) for my more professional and artistic works. I've shot with almost every brand of camera over the years and keep returning to Pentax. I would stay away from Sony cybershot entirely, images turn out grey and their anti shake technology isn't very good. Casio also has a problem with their anti shake technology and images will blur on a cloudy day (flash needed for all photos not taken in ideal light), over all poor performance. Kodaks are riddled with technical difficulty, I'm not sure about their image quality, but they have strange little problems like not turning on, turning off suddenly, not taking a photo when shutter is pressed etc etc, but that may just be the particular models I've come into contact with, so I wouldn't rule them out without further research.
Sorry if that was a bit long, I suppose in summary I would suggest Nikon if price isn't a big concern, but if you are bargain hunting I reccomend Pentax for excellence at a fair price.

[Former_Member]

Point and shoot cameras are very limited in capabilities.
If you want to develop photography skills and explore new possibilties get a dslr. If all you want to do is take snapshots, maybe you can get by with a point and shoot.
When buying a camera another thing to take into consideration is the crop factor of the sensor. If you want to do wide angle work a full frame would be the best, but full frame dslr cameras are spendy.
I believe the Lumix sensor has a 2.0 crop factor. This means the sensor is smaller than the Nikon, Canon, and I think the Pentax. A 2.0 crop sensor means 100mm = 200mm full frame equivelant, and also means your wide angle (say 14mm) isnt all that wide since it would = 28mm full frame. Basically multiply the focal length of any lens X2.
I think the Lumix is a 4/3m camera...four thirds. This is means it will shoot a more "square" photo than most other dslr's ( I think Olympus is also 4/3). Imo the 2/3 aspect ratio of the Nikons, Canons,and others is better for landscape etc.
The Nikons small sensor dslr's have a 1.5 crop factor, meaning to get the full frame equivelant focal length multiply lens focal length by 1.5 (still MUCH larger than point and shoot sensors as is the Lumix 2.0).
So 100mm would get the equivelant of a 150mm full frame.
On the wide end you can buy down to 10mm lens's so you could get as wide as an 15mm equivelant on a 1.5 sensor camera. I think the widest angle Ive seen for full frame cameras is a 14mm, which would = 14mm on a full frame, and 21mm on a camera with a 1.5 sensor, or 28mm on a 2.0.
Nikons have a 1.5, Canon has a 1.6, Olympus is 2.0, and I think Pentax may be 1.5, Lumix 2.0 (double check my numbers to make sure as Im typing off the top of my head). They all sell full frames also, but unless you are really making money you probably wont want to shell out $2600-8000 for a full frame Nikon or Canon.
DSLR's are a completely different animal than point and shoot cameras, and pixel count isnt everything. For example, Nikons D3 at $5000 is 12mp and is probably the best low light camera on the market among other things.
Anyway, you are looking at the $1000 lumix so I figured you could afford to look at the $1500 Nikon d7000.
Theres more lens's and accessories to available for the nikons.
I like the control layout of the Nikons, as the shutter and aperture dials are strategically places at the thumb and forefinger. On my D300s I dont have to take my eye from the viewfinder as basic info is in the viewfinder and the controls are easy to access once you remember which finger goes to which button.
myself.

[Former_Member]

sorry bout the typos..its hard to proof read my long winded comments in the tiny screen.
Sounds like a good excuse ....yea Im goin with that.

Ok...I just cant type worth a D***

[Former_Member]

Thanks for all the info...
You are right saying that you are buying into a system. A long term thing. I heard that the lumix is not as good in terms of quality in less bright light.
I also have my eye on the Canon EOS Rebel T3 12.2 MP. What do you think about this camera? And is 12..2 megapixels enough?

Thanks for your help!

[Former_Member]

I just wanted to add...
I currently use a Canon Powershot 8 megapixel. I really like the quality, but i don't think it is enough pursuing a career as a photographer.

Thanks

[Former_Member]

I dont know the Canons well since I use Nikon.
Personally I would go for something a little higher end though. Canons are very popular, but you will have to do some research.
With the dslr's you have a much better viewfinder than the point and shoots. You will be looking directly through the lens, and will be using that to compose your images, although some dslr's have live view (my d300s has it but I never use it).
Since I use a Nikon, I know the Nikons better and will refer to them again. There are other good brands as well.
I use a d300s most of the time and also own a d80.
The D300s, and I believe the D7000 I mentioned earlier has live view and "virtual horizon", which makes it easier to level the camera.
Pixel count isnt the end all, and in some conditions with some cameras a higher pixel count can work against you in some situations such as low light, since when more pixels are crammed on sensor, the pixels are smaller and dont deal with lower light as well resulting in more noise especially at higher iso.
For example Nikons D3 is 12mp ($5000) and is probably one of the best, if not THE best for low light photography, and better than the 24mp Nikon D3x ($8000) in low light situations.
I think the 16 mpD7000 (around $1500 with kit lens) is supposed to be pretty good and I still think that one would be a good choice if its in the budget.
I use a D300s a 12mp camera that is fairly good in low light most of the time, and a D80 at 10mp,
A lot of cameras now days advertise ridiculously hi iso capabilities. Personally I have never gotten a image that meets my personal specs at anything higher than iso 1600 with my d300s, although it goes much higher. I inspect images at 100%+ or actual pixels or larger.
I only know well the equipment I use personally but in general some things are true for most.
A higher pixel count camera will allow more cropping without loss of detail in most cases, but its better to compose the image in the viewfinder rather than with the crop tool.
Best thing to do would be to narrow down ones you want to look at, google some independent online comparisons and reviews, then go to a camera store and look at and a few and play with them a bit.
I do like the buttons and control layout on the Nikons from the D80 up.
With the Nikons if you get anything higher than the D7000, you lose the presets. I like that since it places more control buttons where the preset dial was in the consumer models, and I never use presets anyway.

[Former_Member]

One more thing. Frames per second. Personally I like something on the faster side for wildlife...flying birds etc.
The D7000 will do 6fps according to what I read. 6 photos in one second is pretty fast. I think it will also shoot either 12 or 14 bit raw. 14 bit will most likely be a much slower frame rate though. Use that for landscapes and things that arent running away:)
Anyway...do your homework before buying