Lohnt sich diese Kamera mit Objektiv für 479€?
Hallo!
Seit kurzem bin ich auf die Idee gekommen, mir eine Kamera zu kaufen. Nach mehreren Überlegungen, habe ich mich für die Panasonic Lumix DMC-G70 Kamera mit diesen Objektiv entschieden. Ich bin noch ein Anfänger und habe ehrlich gesagt keine Ahnung über Fotografie bzw. Videografie. Ich würde vor allem Landschafts Fotos bzw. Natur Fotos mit ihr machen, dennoch ist mir auch wichtig, dass sie imstande ist halbwegs gute Videos zu machen. Letztlich habe mich dazu entschieden diese Frage zu stellen, um noch sicher zu gehen, ob es eine Kamera ist, welche sich für mich lohnt und ob schon alles dabei ist, was man braucht.
Und was sagt ihr, ist sie für 479€ lohnenswert?
(1 votes)
Loading...
Hello
the G70 has been the price/performance of the GX80 in the “Eierlegende Wollmilchsau” (video hybrid). The Lumix G81 prices now fall below G70 levels.
current prices housing;
There are in principle 5 kitzooms to bangle
G 12-32/3.5-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Kitup price by 100€
G 14-42/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS II Kitup price by 100€
G 12-60/3.5-5.6 ASPH Power OIS Kitup price of 200€
G 14-140/3.5-5.6 ASPH Power OIS II Kitup price of 300€
G X 12-35/2.8 ASPH Power OIS II Kitup price by 500€
So to make it short, the G81 “rewards” itself because its technical package and bandwidth is more complete than G70 and GX80.
G81 and GX80 are in principle the same technology generation with IBIS and sensor without low-pass filter. The GX80 is designed as a “travel camera”, smaller, lighter, only flip-flop, no audio input/outputs, small battery, small flash, smaller searcher.
http://www.dkamera.de/news/panasonic-lumix-g81-und-lumix-gx80-im-vergleich-part-1/
http://www.dkamera.de/news/panasonic-lumix-g81-und-lumix-g70-im-duell-teil-1/
https://afterexposed.com/das-is-the-best camera-the-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-
At the Kit Zooms, the 12-32 as a pancake is a special optics for small/light travel equipment for GX types, with the super-small 35-100 telezoom.
The 12-60/3.5-5.6 OIS is the “snap” normal zoom at mFT, although part of the image quality is generated by EBV. The optics leave enough distance for the “Profi” zooms. The 12-60 is in the range 12-35 for aperture 5.6 at the power level of the 12-35/2.8 or the Leica Elmar 12-60/2.8-4. Trendiel recalls the 12-60/3.5-5.6 of the interpretation of the Nikkor AFS 24-120.
“Loss…?” is always such a non-speaking question.
If you’re making money, I’m gonna be worth something because you get the purchase price out of it again. Otherwise, something can only be personally rewarded for you because you have fun in the hobby. Whether this will be the case with you and the camera will not land in 2-3 months in the drawer can only judge yourself and no one else.
Nowadays you do something wrong with the fewest cameras, it’s at most the question, you can get something better for the money. The Lumix is ne ok camera without particularly great autofocus but with 4K video. You get them already for 430€: Panasonic Lumix DMC-G70 from € 429,00 (2023) | Price Comparison Geizhals Germany
For the price new you don’t find much better. But if you look for used cameras, you’ll get a Sony A6100 or Canon EOS M50/M200 at the same fare. They provide a larger sensor and better autofocus. Larger sensors offer more resolution and less in bad light conditions:
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Found a Canon EOS 2000D for the same price. Should I buy these?
For God’s sake. A camera can’t be much worse.
No, it’s definitely worse about video and autofocus.
Look at the Fuji X-T10 with normal lens.
There are videos on Youtube.
Got it and use it today.
Hm, tja, that’s 14-42mm… for landscape, that’s quite good, but if you want to get a bit of a ride, 42mm are still very wide-angled.
With the “Micro Four Thirds” sensor, I would not be so sure that it is quite small, compared to, for example, APS-C. And since the lens is not particularly strong, the image tends to be sharp everywhere, i.e. there are little possibilities to shape the image by means of deep-sharp.
Addendum:
Ah, sorry, just see that the specified focal length is the real focal length and thus corresponds to this here:
“Equivalent focal length for small image 28-84 mm”
Of course that’s different. This then covers a good area you need. However, the depths remain.
Should I get the camera with the H-FS14042 lens for 600€?
I think I would rather invest the money in an APS-C camera with 24 megapixels (compared to the 16 MP of the Lumix), and later “upgrade” lenses. For example, Canon EOS R100 with 18-45mm, you can shoot for 599.
whether something “pays”, you can only answer yourself, because everyone else has a different opinion or completely different interest.
you don’t even ask an internet community whether it’s “paid” to marry the nice/hunty daughter.
At 14-42, the thing is that you can forget animals (or whatever you understand under nature) and the 14mm (28mm KB) would not be far-angled enough or it’s better.
The problem is for reasonable lenses you have to spend a lot….or you give little for a bridge, but you don’t have a very great camera in your hand.
Or you can get the camera without lens and buy a soup zoom for the start. At APS-C, for example, there is something like 16-300 and so much. With this you have covered a lot even if the BQ does not play up (at least better than Bridge) . I think I would do it if I didn’t want to spend much.