Camera/Lens advice please?
 

Sorry mods I know we have a photography section but it's very quiet over there. Could you leave this here for a little while please? (And thanks to the few people who replied to my initial thread)

Anyway, firstly I know nothing about cameras, lenses or photography. I've always just bought simple, compact, point and shoot cameras. This time I've decided to buy something a bit better.

So after much reading I bought one of these. You could buy it with body only, a 20mm standard lens or a 14-42mm lens. The combo with the 20mm lens was the most expensive and this is the one I bought (because the lens was so compact)

http://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-l...-3-lcd/p649581

This is with the 14-42mm lens

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras...53376-pdt.html


The camera arrived yesterday and I've only now realised that the camera/lens seems to have no sort of zoom at all! This would be an issue for me and the kind of pictures I take when on holiday.

So now I'm not quite sure what to do, I have a couple of weeks before I go on holiday and so I could return the camera to JL. So should I

1) Keep the camera and 20mm lens and buy the 14-42mm as well?

2) Return the camera and buy the combo with just the 14-42mm lens? Would the 14-42mm take as good pictures as the 20mm lens in all circumstances?

Thanks for your help

The 'prime' 20mm will almost always take a better photo than a ranged lens. Both lenses you quote are suitable for wide angle, portraits and close up work, but if you want full range I'd go for a 14-140 plus a 100-300 if you want real zoom. I always carry 3 lenses to cope with all situations.

Thanks Dunk, I'm trying to avoid getting into carrying lots of lenses because that might just put me off taking the camera anywhere!

If I went full range ie 14-140 then I'd be better off returning the camera and buying the body only as the lens is close to £500.

However if I decided to keep the 20mm lens then which other lens would you recommend that isn't too bulky but will give me a decent zoom capability?

Many thanks for your help.

D j dunk is right but I can see by the fact you've bought the much more compact lumix you want quality and convenience.

Don't however buy 3 lenses in one go you could make some very expensive mistakes.

get a mid to wide to mid range zoom like this:-

http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer...fs014045e.html

it will work in 95% of situations.

Long lenses are great for twitchers and those with a very steady hand but suffer in low light.

zooms always say something like 28-70 and fixed length will state one measure only ie 20mm (as you discovered to your cost)

"1) Keep the camera and 20mm lens and buy the 14-42mm as well?"

depends how much money you have spare if you become an enthusiast the 20mm will come in handy later

2 2) Return the camera and buy the combo with just the 14-42mm lens? Would the 14-42mm take as good pictures as the 20mm lens in all circumstances?2

this would be the best bet if you can in time don't go for the

all respect to dj but if this is your first slr type camera don't be seduced by wide to long zooms they have far to many optics and a much smaller aperture (less light through lens)

Thanks Matt.

If this is the 14-45mm lens you mentioned it is £229

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-p...-lens/p1032517

I can return the camera to JL and then repurchase the body only and the 14-45 lens you mentioned. Or is there an advantage in me keeping the 20mm lens and buying the 14-45 lens in addition?

Thanks for your help

I'd agree that you shouldn't go out and buy 3 lenses, that was just what I'm comfortable with in my bag :)

It's important to understand what type of pictures you want to take. Landscapes, close portraits, fast moving objects, long distance etc. I'd see if you can try the 14-45mm (Jessops maybe) to see if it gives you the range that you're happy with. A 14-140 would give you lots of scope in a single lens, but as you say, they don't come cheap.

The 20mm will give you great portraits and wide shots, but obviously lacks of zoom.

just spotted your link shows a newer very small version at 14-42 looks amazingly compact
and reviews seem ok

if you had to keep the 20mm it wouldn't be a disaster just depends how you get on with the camera.
The two thirds bridge slrs are very seductive small and highly portable but you do pay the price though (quite literally) though sometimes wish my kit was half the size it is.

Just enjoy the camera you will gets lots of advice from camera bores telling you to buy lots of expensive kit (just like there's strangely enough).


Can't quite work out why the 20mm fixed version is so much more than the mid range zoom kit apart from it having IS (Image Stabilisation) but as far as I know the gx7 already has it on camera.

On the face of it seems currys deal is better

with you there Dj jessops is a great place to try out lenses

Ding

I've been thinking similar, but looking at the Olympus OM -D range - specifically the EM-5. Its to replace all my Canon gear which is too big and bulky for day to day work.

I'd keep the 20mm prime because at f1.7 its fast (great in low light) and it will be sharp too. You'll always lose quality in a zoom.

And I'd buy the 14-140 and stick it in your bag for the times you can't zoom with your feet.

The 14-42 lens on the curries offer is far from the best of the panasonic lenses in that focal length range, hence why the kit is cheaper.

A good prime is always worth having

Thanks guys.

Matt, unfortunately there is no Jessops near by though there is a large Currys and JLewis. Jlewis though don't seem to have half the stuff they sell actually available to play with on the shop floor.

DD, I think you are right and I should keep the prime lens. After all there will be a lot of instances ie kid's birthdays etc when it will be all the lens I need.

So I just need to make up my mind about which second lens to go for ie 14-45 or 14-140 or something else.

I'll pop into Currys and JL and have a look at what they've got. I'm going away in a couple of weeks time and so am under some time pressure to get this sorted.

Thanks for all your help.

Btw, I also noticed when I was taking pictures with the new camera and used the flash everything looked a bit orange/yellow.

Is this because the integral flash is sh7te or something else? The camera has an option to adjust colour, is that what I should be doing?

Yes, check the "white balance" settings.

14-45 will you hardly any decent zoom, I'd go for the 14-140

Ding. I've got a Lumix GF2, looks to be an earlier model. I did buy the 20mm lens and the 14-42 lens deliberately when I brought to body.

I also bought it (a compact system) because I am also not a photographer, but wanted some more options to play with (and it's certainly has that), but in the end with the Intelligent mode on, you don't have to worry too much if you just want to snap away.

With the 20mm lens it fits into a trouser pocket so is like a compact and I can easily take that places. It is possible to change the zoom within the options and I have the P setting setup with a digital zoom on it. But it can be a bit of a faff to change. However I find that with 12MP (mine has) you can usually zoom in a little after and crop the shot anyway without loosing detail.

I also purchased the 14-42mm lens. However it does make the camera rather large, too large to fit in a pocket anyway. However I do use it a lot as well, especially if we are out and I have a small rucksack for carrying it. It takes great photos.

I do now want one of the larger zoom lens. Panny do several in micro 4/3, not had a good look at the differences.

Thanks. Yes I think I'll have to shell out for the 14-140. I set a budget of £500 for the new camera and now I've spent over £800 on it and it'll be another £500 for the additional lens:freak3:

Mini, I did see something about digital zoom in the manual but I couldn't figure it out

Digital zoom tends to be disappointing, causing lots of noise.

Of the two lenses, the 14-42 is only giving a 35mm equivalent of 28-84mm
The 14-140 gives 28-280mm, quite a decent zoom.

The trouble with zoom lenses is you always want more. My Lumix TZ40 does 500mm equivalent, I'd LOVE the TZ60 which is nearly 750mm equivalent.:D

Mmm.
Great camera, you don't have to have huge zooms to make great pictures. It's all about framing and seeing that special image. All those top photographers who went around with the great old Leica's with a single lens.

I would suggest you take the camera back and seriously look at the Sony RX100. It has a large sensor with a high pixel count and a stunning lens.

Having been a professional photographer specialising in motor sport for many years, I don't want to carry all my kit around so when I'm doing personal stuff the RX100 is ideal.

Thanks. :)

r32, as a professional your opinion counts for a lot. I understand what you mean about not needing huge zooms, at home for example it would not be needed at all ie taking pictures of friends and family.

However, for example, on holiday when the kids are in the middle of the pool and I'm on the side or they are in the sea and I'm on the boat I feel a medium zoom would be needed to capture the right picture. Or am I completely missing the point?

Thanks for your help:)

Btw, one of the reasons I didn't want something like the RX100 is that I wanted an EVF. Most of my holidays are somewhere hot and then I can't see what I'm actually photographing because of the reflection on the lcd screen.

great advice from r32 and yes avoid avoid avoid using digital zoom unless its the only way possible of getting that crucial shot of Piers Morgan "in flagrante" with a goat two fields away.

you are absolutely right about a mid zoom and kids in the pool I still have to stand on the terrace 20 feet away to avoid my eos 650 getting soaked a good wide midrange zoom could be the only lens you'll need.
it just seems pointless buying a two thirds slr for convenience then carrying round two or three more lenses

I accept r32's premise about the larger sensor, but don't get caught up in high pixel count. It doesn't necessarily mean better pics, sometimes they can actually be worse.

With the larger sensor, that's not the case.

Perv ;)

:D :D :D

I want it to photograph feathered birds.

Ahh..like this?

Ok, throw a cat among the pigeons time ;)
Do some research on that camera, I would suggest a far better buy for that money is the Nikon D5300, it pretty much stomps on everything the GX7 does day to day, plus you have a far better range of lenses to choose from, if you must buy the GX7 for some reason, see how it fares against the opposition in all the different situations, just dont impulse buy.

Tony:)

The D5300 is, however a DSLR and significantly more bulky than a GX7 or equivalent.

The kit that I took the pic above with weights about 3 kg all in. Body only I'm looking at almost 1.5kg.

Even a D5300, whilst small and light by comparison, is hardly pocket sized, whereas the GX7 and moreso the RX100 that R32 has mentioned both are.

Tony, as DDog has said the GX7 is quite a bit smaller. My thinking (which could be flawed) was that the GX7 with the 20mm lens is just about pocketable. So in lots of circumstances ie at kids birthday's,,out in the evening on holiday etc I'll have a relatively compact camera that could fit in a big pocket or the wifes handbag.

Then when needed for holiday 'touring' during the day I could put on a bigger lens. Perhaps I'm talking nonsense....

I don't think so.

I have a D300, which, on it's day, was practically unbeatable for the money.
I also have a Nikon 17-55 F2.8 lens worth more than the camera body was.

Together they weigh about 1.5kg.

The camera that goes everywhere with me is my TZ40 which weighs in at under 5oz, about 120g.

And for MOST pics, is fine.

Add to that the tricks, like being able to link it to my phone, set it somewhere, and controlling everything except what it points at, with the phone, take pics remotely.

The GX7 weighs in at 402g and the D5300 is 480g, yes the D5300 is larger but then again its just far better for the money, you can just have a camera pouch on your belt and with the 18-55mm vr lense its going to fall right into the correct category the OP wanted :)

GX7 size 122.6 x 70.7 x 43.3 mm
D5300 125 x 98 x 76 mm

Not as small as you think that GX7 :)

I'd never buy new again.

I got my Nikon d7000 from London camera exchange with 2000 actuation and it was 400 quid.

I have a 17-55 2.8 tamron but tbh my Nikon 35mm 1.8 never comes off the camera.

Jake