# Camera Suggestions Please



## egremont

Currently I have a Nikon D80 with kit lens and Sigma 70-300 lens which give me good quality images. 

I wish to purchase a more easily carried camera for birds, trees, flowers, lakeshore, old barns and buildings. 

Problems with tendons/arthritis is restricting carrying/holding the D80 for any length of time. I have moved to an area that has lots of bush and trails to explore. Too awkward to bring along a tripod.

Since Todd introduced many of us to Camera Canada, I have been looking at the features and pricing of Nikon P520 on their site. Recently Sony has introduced Cyber Shot DSC-HX300 that appears to be a good choice.

I have been following MacDoc and iMatt's very educational discussions about middle lens for GX1 camera. This is another world of cameras to investigate.

It just happens to be my birthday today. I need to treat myself to a camera and thought some of you might like to offer some suggestions.

pretty please.....


----------



## iMatt

If you want to look into Micro Four Thirds, I'd suggest the Panasonic G5 or G6 (just announced, not sure about availability) paired with the new Panasonic 14-140 lens for a more versatile, single-lens option (make sure it's the new model; the old is a big, heavy beast). For a long zoom, the Panasonic PZ 45-175 lens will give you almost as much reach as your Sigma, and it's incredibly small and light.

As a bonus, the G5 and G6 have a full electronic shutter mode (completely silent), though I can't vouch for the image quality being identical to what you get when using the traditional curtain shutter.

Given the age of the D80, I think you'll find these options will give you better image quality than you're accustomed to, despite the smaller sensor.

The all-in-one superzooms might be worth a look, but note that they all use tiny sensors that still won't match what the D80 produced seven years ago, except maybe in ideal light. Even then, you'll notice shortcomings in dynamic range.


----------



## MacDoc

There was an incredible deal on the gx1 with the 14 mm wide angle prime lens for $450 or so. I'm very pleased with mine.

I love the versatility of the MFT. If there are new ones about then there may be Gx1 deals.

Here is a body only for $340 asking
Panasonic GX1 Body - City of Toronto Cameras For Sale - Kijiji City of Toronto Canada.

Happy to let you use my stock 14-42 lens 

Here is another for $400 asking with the 14-42
Panasonic 20mm f1.7 ASPH lens, micro-4/3rds, MINT - Oakville / Halton Region Cameras For Sale - Kijiji Oakville / Halton Region Canada.

I might be interested in the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens he is selling separately - - He is offering $100 of on the package.

Matt any thoughts on those prices.


----------



## Kami

If you want to stay with Nikon have a look at the Nikon V1 (or V2 if you want to spend more $$).

I always use this site (www.photoprice.ca) to compare equipment prices in Canada

Here is the direct link to the Nikon mirrorless page
Nikon Mirrorless Cameras - Canadian and Cross-Border Price Comparison - photoprice.ca

If you live in Western Canada check the pricing on the V1 at London Drugs which has the V1 + 10-30 or the V1 + 10mm for $369. Its been as low as $329. Henry's got the V1 + 10mm + 10-30mm for $399 > great pricing 

The V1 has interchangeable lenses which are extremely small and light. The sensor is bigger than the one in the P520 but smaller than the in the micro 4/3 cameras. It has a built-in electronic viewfinder that is quite sharp.

If you are thinking of shooting birds in flight (BIF) then you'll find the V1 a great camera. Its autofocus uses phase detect which is what dSLRs use so its fast in good light conditions. It has a silent electronic shutter plus a mechanical shutter. You can shoot 10/30/60 frames per second with the electronic shutter.

If you do a lot of flash photography then the V1 and V2 can be a bit annoying since then don't use the standard Nikon hotshoe.

If you want to do more reading then I highly recommend this site for info on mirrorless cameras.

Mirrorless Central – My reviews of all Mirrorless Cameras | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

When I want to go somewhere with a small and light kit then its either the V1 or the Panasonic G2 that get the call.


----------



## iMatt

I would not buy a used GX1 at this point, or almost any used body -- there are plenty of good deals on brand new gear, especially when it comes to last year's models. 

Both those Kijiji deals can be beaten by B&H right now: $275 + S/H + HST for the body only, $419 with the old version of the 14-42 kit (there is a new, more compact one now, as well as the more expensive power-zoom version). The only advantage to the used ones is that *if* they were bought in Canada less than a year ago you'll get whatever's left of the warranty. That wouldn't be enough to sway me, personally. The big benefit to ordering new: they will take a return if you don't like it, as long as the shutter count is under 200 (if memory serves). You can probably also get warranty service by shipping it back to B&H. Never had any issues, so not entirely sure about that. Granted, those Kijiji prices are OK if you're comparing to new stock at Henrys or Vistek and don't want to order cross-border.

And while I like the compact form-factor Panasonic bodies, I don't think there's any question the SLR-style bodies are almost always a better value. You trade off metal for plastic, but gain a built-in EVF and fully articulated screen. 

The Nikon 1 system could definitely be worth a look. Some pretty cool features there.


----------



## MacDoc

Happy to sell the OP my Lx7 - I'm not finding the two camera solution useful and finding the 100-300 as a macro lens useful.
It is incredibly light.

I think Matt can tell you more about the features benefits but you hardly know it's in your pocket.

Here is a review
Panasonic LX7 review | Cameralabs

And that it takes an EVF for $160 is a real bonus and notches it well above other compacts in my view.



















and it reaaaallly is small


----------



## iMatt

Since birding is one of the OP's interests, the LX7 is probably not a great idea. The tilting add-on EVF is nice, though. I assume you're keeping yours for your GX1.

The new LF1 could be interesting... longer zoom than LX7, built-in evf, same sensor as the LX7 (i.e. small but significantly bigger than in the typical superzoom). Still not sure the lens is long enough for birding, though.


----------



## egremont

IMatt and others, I really appreciate all the suggestions.

I looked at the Nikon 1V2 on line, like the dpreview sample images. That is the type of images I wish to take. CameraStore in Calgary has the Nikon 1 V2 with 10-30mm and 30-110mm for 1100.00 to my door. They also have the Lumix DMC GF5 with 14-42 mm lens for 727.45. Henry's has a used condition 8+, DMC -Gx1 body only for 400.00. I am spending a fair amount of time looking - making notes etc.

So many options - I will keep searching. This will likely be my last camera so I am willing to spend up to the Nikon 1 V2 above. Less is also good and gives me more money for gas. I now have the time to spend and willing to pay for decent camera and learn to take the quality images that I see in my mind's eye. Open to more suggestions.


----------



## MacDoc

With that budget you have a lot of options open.

I missed the birding aspect - you really must have a long lens for it.



> CameraStore in Calgary has the The with 10-30mm and 30-110mm for 1100.00 to my door. They also have the Lumix DMC GF5 with 14-42 mm lens for 727.45


Either of these sound fine - the GF5 gives you enough for the 100-300mm Lumix lens in your budget which I'm very pleased with. 
If you could look around and find either just the body or a kit with the 14 mm pancake lens even better as that is a superb pocketable combination tho that new 14-42 is pretty slim










One tip may be useful - I wear a fishing shirt with large pockets and the camera with a smaller lens easily fits in one pocket and the long lens in the other taking weight off the neck strap.

If it's like the Panasonic Lumix range - then the controls and software on the Nikon might be more familiar but certainly looks bulkier.










Really depends on how small you want to go and still have the option to bulk up. I like the transformer style design from minimal point and shoot to bulked up with a long lens and EVF that the Lumix offer.

This is a good idea of the range










with the smallest SLR on the right. I find I always have the Gx1 in my pocket with the pancake lens on - you might find the same with that new 14-42 which gives you versatility and then when birding or oddly some limited macro - the long lens easy enough to switch to.

If you start with just a body then you can put together an assortment of lenses to fit your needs but go long on the birding so figure $500 for that alone.

All the cameras in your budget will do a wonderful job - it's the learning curve to get the best out of them that is daunting.

This is where the bigger sensor and lens of the larger cameras would be useful. Took this just now at sundown



In the kind of foliage for birding it has to be manual focus and this was at 200 mm ( 400 equiv ) about 10 meters away from my window. Birding is frustrating in low light

In bright light all the cameras are superb - in marginal light the smaller camera's suffer a bit.

I'm hoping the Tamron might do a better job under these conditions. The image is "okay" given the conditions - but he was lovely in the late sun and it did not quite catch that vibrancy.


----------



## egremont

Stopped by local independent camera shop to "get the feel" of some of the cameras I have been viewing on line. Selection very limited. No Panasonics, no Sonys and no Nikon 1.

Interesting occurrence: I had my hand/wrist/thumb braces on and the camera that felt the best, that held most comfortably and securely was the Nikon 3200. Overall felt plastic... but gives the lighter weight and good grip.

Read the reviews and most refer to it as an entry level camera it still has a reasonable number of features that I can use. Nice light weight telephoto lens. Could use my existing lenses. On line and local Future Shop have them on sale with extras. Suggests to me that maybe an upgrade or change coming soon.

I will have to drive further afield to larger or more well stocked camera stores to try some others.

Good price allowing for optional lens purchases.....thinking. Anyone have a more personal experience with this one or one similar?


----------



## iMatt

I have no comments on recent Nikon SLRs, except to advise to be careful about compatibility with your existing lenses -- focus motor in lens vs. in body is the main thing to watch for, but I haven't kept up so can't say anything aside from pointing out it's an aspect you need to research.

When it comes to the Panasonics, I really don't think $400 is a good price for a used GX1. I'd also avoid the GF series, as the last three iterations have no EVF option -- virtually unusable with a long lens except on a tripod. The GF6 does look great for wide-angle/normal work, though. $727 for a GF5 kit also seems really steep to me, even if the lens is the more expensive 14-42 power zoom/pancake.

I'll repeat my advocacy of the G series -- G5 or G6, or even G3. Built-in EVF, fully articulated screen, still very compact, well-built despite using plastics rather than metal.

Comparing the G series to the D3200 at camerasize.com, I was impressed with how small the 3200 is. I don't have time dig up all the specs right now, but I'll bet the Panasonics are still much lighter, especially with lenses. 

If weight is a concern, you have to consider the whole system, not just the bulk of the body. What I love about the Micro Four Thirds system is that I can fit two bodies (G3 + GF2), four lenses (including the 45-200, quite bulky for an m43 lens), a couple of filters, a battery charger and miscellaneous small accessories in a very small bag designed for one DSLR with one lens:

Medium Holster For DSLR NG A2210 - Africa | National Geographic


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah - I can fit the Gx1 with the 100-300 on as well as the EVF - so it lifts out vertically which is nice.
The Lx7, the stock 14-42 zoom ( soon to be upgraded ) , the 14 mm pancake, my binocs and spare batteries, hat and wallet in a 5 million dollar home bag with room to spare.

For street shooting I just leave the 14mm on and in my shirt pocket.










The Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home Bag Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
There is a newer one that loses the noisy velcro if you want.
Was not thrilled initially - like it now and very tough bag and while bright does not yell steal me.


----------



## MacDoc

> When it comes to the Panasonics, I really don't think $400 is a good price for a used GX1.


The deal my friend got in Australia was amazing and she's very happy....don't know if they ship to Canada $444 tax in shipped in Australia



> *Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 16MP Twin Kit *
> 14mm
> and 14-42mm lens












Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 16MP Twin Kit 14mm and 14-42mm lens Digital SLR Cameras - Techrific Australia -


----------



## iMatt

That's what I mean about $400 being a lot for a used body at this point. Might have been a good price a few months ago, but now it's a model that will soon be discontinued and is being heavily discounted if not in Canada, then at US retailers that ship here (I'd be surprised if that Aussie deal worked here...). $259 brand new body-only @ B&H today... don't know about anyone else, but I'm not patriotic enough to pay Henrys an extra $140 for used goods.

I do shop at my local camera store whenever I can, but I refuse to do so when it means paying an outrageous Canadian premium. Whether it's the store or the manufacturer that's to blame, I will avoid it when I can.


----------



## MacDoc

Those were just examples - I would not either but he needs to decide on a strategy.
$249 is pretty decent 
What lenses would you add to that? ( have a similar thread going on elsewhere )


----------



## iMatt

Well, I probably would not opt for the GX1 (even though it's one of those cameras that people really seem to love)...

If buying the GX1, I would get the add-on EVF, and possibly just the new Panny 14-140 to start. Again, being careful to get the new not the old version. Nice all-purpose lens. Or, I'd get the 45-175 for an ultra-light long tele, and a 20/1.7 as a general-purpose lens. 

My personal inclination would be to go for the G6, but it might be necessary to wait a few weeks for it to ship. If wanting to save a few bucks and/or needing the camera right away, the G5. If on a tight budget, the G3. Same lenses as above.

It also sounds like the Nikon 1 system is still in the running. In that case, I'd seriously consider the V2 kit. Assuming B&H is a good benchmark (950 + S&H), $1100 to the customer's door looks like a very fair price to me. 

I would avoid the D3200 not because of features or quality (both excellent I'm sure) but because I'm pretty sure that weight will continue to be an issue.


----------



## MacDoc

How come not the Gx1?
I suspect it's the size that appeals. Stripped down with the 1.4 pancake it's very small.


----------



## iMatt

Nothing against the GX1. I like the form factor -- don't have one but do have a GF2, same idea but older model.

On the whole, I think the G series offers better bang-for-the-buck and superior usability. They're not as compact, not quite as solidly built and to most people not as aesthetically appealing, but the built-in finder and articulated LCD make them better in a purely utilitarian sense IMO. The articulating LCD advantage will probably disappear soon, if the GF6 is a sign, and that will make the GX2, whenever it arrives, far more appealing to me.


----------



## MacDoc

Not quite understanding "G series" - is the Gx1 not G series.


----------



## iMatt

No, the G series is the SLR-style w/ built-in EVF, grip, and fully articulated LCD. The other series are GX (compact, enthusiast), GF (compact, consumer grade) and GH (SLR-style, prosumer, high-end video).


----------



## Niteshooter

Birding to landscapes, hmmm.

In the SLR world that would be a lot of glass to pack and since the OP needs to downsize I would say Superzoom camera. I don't suspect he's going to be blowing things up a lot and with one of these cameras I shoot and crop in camera so blowing up images and discovering the shortcomings of a small sensor are not as big a problem. 

My personal recommendation is the Panasonic FZ200 because of it's very fast f2.8 lens and optical stabilization. It's small and light, has a flip out viewfinder which is handy for some shooting situations and produces some very good quality pix for a P&S camera. I have shot with the Canon but the slower lens on that camera was a bit of a problem and realistically it's very hard to get steady shots at full zoom. 600mm to me is just about the limit I think for decent hand holding of pix. Both cameras have also got pretty decent wide angle abilities. Optically I find the Leica lens on the Panasonic a bit sharper then the Canon. 

Here are some sample pix I shot with the FZ200, FZ200 - a set on Flickr

I own a Panasonic Micro 4/3 camera and also a Nikon V1 with two lenses but for birding 300mm isn't always enough in a lot of cases and if you are factoring in a smaller sensor then blowing up your pix is not always possible. 300mm or close to that focal length are the longest zooms you can find currently for either of these systems if I recall.


----------



## MacDoc

Yes - I've found the 300 mm on the MFT adequate for birding - it's a 600 equivalent.

For longer a photoscope rig extends that out nicely.
The World's Best Photos of photoscoping - Flickr Hive Mind

Really depends on how small the OP wants to go . I was pleased with a Pannie super zoom I borrowed as well - even distant photos were crisp but there are limits to them all and I did find it less convenient to carry than the MFT


----------



## Niteshooter

Good point I forgot that the 100-300 is a 200-600mm but at f5.6 so it's a full 2 stops slower which can make a big difference in shadows. Still worth noting if you have good lighting and they do go on sale from time to time.


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah mine was $399 I think on sale.

Two items for the OP - same guy I got the 45-150 lens from has a G5 for sale










LNIB Beautiful Panasonic G5 + 14-42 Lens

•••

also - I confirmed with the Aussie company you can get the Gx1 deal with two lens shipped to Canada.










$444 Aus

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 16MP Twin Kit 14mm and 14-42mm lens Digital SLR Cameras - Techrific Australia -


----------



## MacDoc

> 100-300 is a 200-600mm but at f5.6 so it's a full 2 stops slower which can make a big difference in shadows. Still worth noting if you have good lighting and they do go on sale from time to time.


sometimes even in poor lighting as this one was that lens will give a treat.

This was just inside the shortest focal range



and low light levels - he basically swung around into focus - his tail is still out of focus - more luck than planning as they are flighty birds and I had no time to react.

OP here is commentary on the MFT from a pro shooter.

Testing Panasonic’s Newest Micro Four Thirds Camera: The GH3 « Equipment Reviews « Natural Exposures – Corkboard

This made me laugh












> *The Canon 600mm F/4 with photographer attached is on the left*. On the right is me shooting the Lumix GH3 with a 100-300mm F/4-5.6 lens. In the Micro Four thirds world all lenses are multiplied 2x so the Lumix 100-300 is actually equivalent to a 200-600mm lens. The same long magnification as the massive Canon lens.





> For my time in Kenya I specifically went out and bought the Lumix 100-300mm zoom. As many of you might know, in the Micro Four Thirds cameras, you have to multiply all lenses X2. So in this case the 100-300 was actually a 200-600mm lens with a variable aperture of F/4-5.6.* This lens surprised me like nothing I can recently recall in the testing of any camera gear. It was a lot sharper than I anticipated.*
> 
> This inexpensive zoom retails for $499.00. It’s smaller and much lighter than my Nikkor 70-200. It has a reach equal to my $12,000.00 600mm F/4 Nikkor. And, it’s sharp. Not as sharp as my Nikkor but for what it is I was pleasantly surprised. *I’m still having a hard time believing what it helped me produce*.


That I can shirt pocket the rig is simply superb and if I want more I can always jump into Photoscoping.


----------



## iMatt

The guy may have given you a good price on his 45-150, but his G5 is outrageous at $675. Same kit is $498 brand new from B&H (about $580 with tax, shipping, etc.).

Let us know how the 45-150 works out for you. I don't see it as a substitute for any 14-140, but could be an interesting alternative to the much bigger 45-200. Except that I often find myself using that lens zoomed all the way out... though I guess the loss of the long end is not a big deal if you have the 100-300 for the longer reach.


----------



## Niteshooter

That 600 looks kind of small, we have these lenses at work and I would not shoot with one handheld. 

No disputing that a M4/3 with that lens is a nice little rig.


----------



## MacDoc

DId not shoot much with it but noticed it is very fast for AF- some random shots over in the Interesting places thread.
It's extremely light unlike the 100-300.
Have some filters B+W haze filters on order for it and the 100-300 which has a few light marks on the front of the lens ;( will that affect much?
Don't know why I got the filter for the 200 I sold and not the 300


----------



## iMatt

I'd skip the UV filters. You're just putting a low-grade lens element (of sorts) in front of the lens, and it will degrade the image quality. (Do some before/after tests if you don't believe me; it's most obvious in more challenging light, e.g. backlighting.) For protection, use the lens hood.

A few light marks on the front element shouldn't have much effect. Should be able to lift them off with an appropriate cloth.


----------



## Niteshooter

If it were some no name filters I might agree but I also shoot with B+W filters on all my Leica M lenses and have not seen any performance issues using them. Replacing the front element on my Noctilux isn't a great option.....

But putting a filter on a lens with scratches might be something to consider since light hitting the front of the filter might be directed in such a way that the scratches cause flare though a quick google didn't pop up anything to support this theory.....


----------



## iMatt

Well, OK, I might be persuaded to make an exception for a $10,000 lens (if I had one).

No doubt quality makes a difference... is a $30+ UV filter the way to go here, when the hood included with the lens will keep most hazards clear of the front element? 

I would say no *unless* MacDoc is spending a lot of time in places where blowing sand is likely to be a problem. For normal conditions & hazards, I think religious use of the hood is good enough.


----------



## MacDoc

I'm in varied conditions included planted in the mud on occasion and it goes from sand to water to very humid rain forest and it has taken it's toll on the 100-300 already.
I bought the B+W MRC F-Pro - easy to clean and a fall back when I put the lens in my shirt pocket or the bag and the cap comes off etc ( which is where the marks have come from ).
I've been pleased with the ease of care on the 14 mm lens and how well it cleans off with the micro-fibre cloth. No fiddling with the lens cap.

I keep the hood on most times with the long lens but my shooting conditions are very erratic.










I took a hard tumble on green moss and the camera was in the top case. ( shoulder is still sore 5 weeks later ).

But it was worth it just to see this tree that came down a couple days earlier

Ken is almost lost against it ( off to the right ) and he's 6'1"










and the root base is the size of a small house










huge sucker perhaps 400 years old or more










Then we can be out in the savannah all in the same trip - very dusty
so filters for me


----------



## Niteshooter

iMatt said:


> Well, OK, I might be persuaded to make an exception for a $10,000 lens (if I had one).
> 
> No doubt quality makes a difference... is a $30+ UV filter the way to go here, when the hood included with the lens will keep most hazards clear of the front element?
> 
> I would say no *unless* MacDoc is spending a lot of time in places where blowing sand is likely to be a problem. For normal conditions & hazards, I think religious use of the hood is good enough.


Fine grit is a funny thing, er well not so funny when you wipe it across your lens and create fine scratches that you don't see until you happen to be shooting in bright conditions and these turn into funky flares in your pix. 

I religiously use lens hoods, the ones from the lens manufacturer because they do provide excellent side and for some situations frontal impact protection. However they also act as a funnel/trap for any blowing grit headed towards your lens. There may even be some question as to whether fogging your lens with your breath can cause damage to it's coatings granted you have to wonder about the effect of acid rain as well or any airbourn moisture that might contain chemicals....

Nikon had posted a warning about fogging our lens however it appears to have been retracted, still a good reason to use a filter...

Nikon support: do not breathe on your lens to clean it, your breath contains harmful acids that could damage the lens coating | Nikon Rumors

At work we have had to replace the front element on a couple of our f2.8 400mm telephotos. You can't put a filter on these lenses.... and it cost about as much as
most folks entire camera kits. 

I've had frontal impacts on lenses that have shattered the hood and filter so although a hood is good protection it is not enough IMHO.


----------



## MacDoc

I'm using the B+W filters as their glass is good but mainly the construction allows easy on and off if needed and easy to keep clean with a microfibre.
My 14mm never sees a lens cap, rattles around in my pocket and camera bag and yet shows less wear on the filter than the 100-300 does on it's ( I thought ) coddled front element. I nearly always shoot with the hood on and even leave the hood forward when in the camera bag with the lens cap on ( love the size of the Gx1 that allows me to do that ).
I think the filters can be hardened differently perhaps and are super flat so can be brittle for hardness instead of needing to curve.

B+W Filters


----------



## iMatt

Looks like the GX2 is on the horizon... the GX1 is now being very deeply discounted: $239 body-only, give or take a buck or two, from various online retailers (none of them Canadian, AFAIK). 

On the UV filter question, I'll defer to you guys. You know best what works for you; personally I've never had a problem forgoing them.


----------



## Oakbridge

Niteshooter said:


> Fine grit is a funny thing, er well not so funny when you wipe it across your lens and create fine scratches that you don't see until you happen to be shooting in bright conditions and these turn into funky flares in your pix.
> 
> I religiously use lens hoods, the ones from the lens manufacturer because they do provide excellent side and for some situations frontal impact protection. However they also act as a funnel/trap for any blowing grit headed towards your lens. There may even be some question as to whether fogging your lens with your breath can cause damage to it's coatings granted you have to wonder about the effect of acid rain as well or any airbourn moisture that might contain chemicals....
> 
> Nikon had posted a warning about fogging our lens however it appears to have been retracted, still a good reason to use a filter...
> 
> Nikon support: do not breathe on your lens to clean it, your breath contains harmful acids that could damage the lens coating | Nikon Rumors
> 
> At work we have had to replace the front element on a couple of our f2.8 400mm telephotos. You can't put a filter on these lenses.... and it cost about as much as
> most folks entire camera kits.
> 
> I've had frontal impacts on lenses that have shattered the hood and filter so although a hood is good protection it is not enough IMHO.


I miss some of my old manual focus Nikkor lenses. It was at the Nikon school back in the early 80's that they suggested using Tupperware drinking cup lids as lens covers by attaching them to the lens hoods. Sure enough they fit nicely and you didn't have to 'burb' them. They were softer than the plastic caps and much much cheaper too if you lost one. 

And my Mom just happened to be a Tupperware Lady at the time!


----------

