07-27-2012, 12:48 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1343083903' post='19574']
Well, at the time you got the G3 there was the 15-85mm IS already
A Sigma 17-50 OS is only a little bit less wide, but weighs about the same as the Canon 15-85, so again only about 50 grams to save.
A Tamron 17-50mm would be the way to go to keep the DSLR kit light.
Obviously though there is a bigger saving to be made with the tele. A Canon 70-300mm IS USM or Tamron 70-300mm VC weight quite a bit less than that Sigma 100-300mm.
Of course, you still will win weight wise with the G3 setup. It is not a really much smaller set up though. I would personally prefer the light DLSR set up with such a relatively small size and weight difference. You still need a similarly big bag and I do value the OVF and bit beefier grip and PD AF.
I do see the attractiveness of a tiny camera with big sensor, but it can only be tine with a specific lens. Which limits its alroundness.[/quote]
The 15-85 is an interesting lens, but ideally I would have f2.8 (or better) and even if Photozone says the build quality is among the better ones, I am not keen on a multicam plastic zoom. I took some pictures with the Tamron 17-50, which were good quality at 17mm, but again, I didn't like the build quality and how easy it was to forget to switch to manual focus and strain the motor. I can live with it on the long zoom I use less, but I am not so keen on it for a standard zoom.
I guess the Canon 70-300 would be a fairer comparison against the Panasonic 100-300, but I picked the metal option at the time (before the price of the Sigma seemed to rocket here). I would argue that the size and weight of the G3 + 14mm tends to average that out a bit, however.
Anyway, no need to argue - I am certain the new APS-C cameras have less noise and significantly more resolution than micro 4/3 (if you can find lenses to resolve it) and while I find the G3 very underrated, I can understand why people prefer APS-C. The G3 just happens to hit just about the best possible balance between price, quality and size/weight from my point of view. I certainly notice the drop in size.
Well, at the time you got the G3 there was the 15-85mm IS already
A Sigma 17-50 OS is only a little bit less wide, but weighs about the same as the Canon 15-85, so again only about 50 grams to save.
A Tamron 17-50mm would be the way to go to keep the DSLR kit light.
Obviously though there is a bigger saving to be made with the tele. A Canon 70-300mm IS USM or Tamron 70-300mm VC weight quite a bit less than that Sigma 100-300mm.
Of course, you still will win weight wise with the G3 setup. It is not a really much smaller set up though. I would personally prefer the light DLSR set up with such a relatively small size and weight difference. You still need a similarly big bag and I do value the OVF and bit beefier grip and PD AF.
I do see the attractiveness of a tiny camera with big sensor, but it can only be tine with a specific lens. Which limits its alroundness.[/quote]
The 15-85 is an interesting lens, but ideally I would have f2.8 (or better) and even if Photozone says the build quality is among the better ones, I am not keen on a multicam plastic zoom. I took some pictures with the Tamron 17-50, which were good quality at 17mm, but again, I didn't like the build quality and how easy it was to forget to switch to manual focus and strain the motor. I can live with it on the long zoom I use less, but I am not so keen on it for a standard zoom.
I guess the Canon 70-300 would be a fairer comparison against the Panasonic 100-300, but I picked the metal option at the time (before the price of the Sigma seemed to rocket here). I would argue that the size and weight of the G3 + 14mm tends to average that out a bit, however.
Anyway, no need to argue - I am certain the new APS-C cameras have less noise and significantly more resolution than micro 4/3 (if you can find lenses to resolve it) and while I find the G3 very underrated, I can understand why people prefer APS-C. The G3 just happens to hit just about the best possible balance between price, quality and size/weight from my point of view. I certainly notice the drop in size.