Panasonic GF3 vs. Sony NEX-5

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
My wife and I have really enjoyed our Panasonic GF3 camera, however we had a friend over last weekend and she brought her Sony NEX-5 and it took noticeably better pictures compared to our camera. We have the stock 14-42mm lens; I'm not sure what she had on hers but it was a prime lens designed to take pictures of kids up close.

What I'm wondering is, if I got a better lens would our camera take comparable pics to the NEX-5?

Another thing to consider is that I have over $600 in Sony points saved up. :D

Anyhow, I would appreciate some advice. I can also get a Sony NEX-3 for about $400 where I live; the NEX-5 costs around $600. If any of you know of a hot deal that would be great also; even if it's a past deal so I know how cheap these can be had for.

Thanks!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
There is a 17mm Panasonic prime lens that costs less than $200 on eBay. You should be able to get comparable quality with that
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
There is a 17mm Panasonic prime lens that costs less than $200 on eBay. You should be able to get comparable quality with that
Thanks for that. I figured that the body of the camera was pretty good. For fun, we both removed our lenses, and the Sony had a slightly bigger sensor but they were both about the same size.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I don't know about the longer focal length prime lenses though because the 17mm f2.8 is all I'm interested in
 

AkumaX

Lifer
Apr 20, 2000
12,643
3
81
Anyhow, I would appreciate some advice. I can also get a Sony NEX-3 for about $400 where I live; the NEX-5 costs around $600. If any of you know of a hot deal that would be great also; even if it's a past deal so I know how cheap these can be had for.

Thanks!

Where do you live? Those are high prices. I saw on SonyRewards you could get an NEX-5R for a decent price.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Is the 17mm lens all I will need for portraits indoors?

Is f2.8 decent? Will a better lens give me more aperture?

17mm is wide angle, almost as wide as your kit lens. You can figure out by experimenting with the kit lens what focal length you want. f 2.8 isn't that good but I don't think there's a wide angle with better aperture
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
24,810
22,949
136
17mm is wide angle, almost as wide as your kit lens. You can figure out by experimenting with the kit lens what focal length you want. f 2.8 isn't that good but I don't think there's a wide angle with better aperture

17mm on MFT is equivalent to 34mm. it's not wide angle, it's a classic standard 35mm FOV.

this shot was taken with a panny 12-35mm on an MFT camera. barely cropped. at 12mm. it's not ultra ultra wide. it's 24mm on FF.

i-8MB8F8G-XL.jpg
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
I believe the NEX sensor is an APS-C sensor size, and the GF3 is a micro 4:3 sensor, and I imagine that fact alone should make a slight different at 800 ISO and above. Aside the the sensor differences, according to the comparison in the link below, Sony colour balance is more balanced than Panasonic that may indicates that it could be lens coating and/or sensor that is affecting the image outcome.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-e-p3-vs-panasonic-gf3-vs-sony-nex-5-vs-samsung-nx11-17084

IMHO, you will rarely need fast aperture with a wide angle, because it is normally use for architecture and landscape shots, and in these instances you want to hit the sweet spot/sharpest lens aperture and long DOF (for most FF lens the compromise between DOF and lens sharpness is between F4.5~F11, and most people tend to shoot between f5.6~f11 for landscape and architecture).
 
Last edited:

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
How is this lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DN.html

B&H actually had that lens bundled with the 19mm lens for $149 last November. I'm thinking I will wait for another deal like that. I also looked around Amazon for a bit and everything was around $200. Ideally I would like to find something used off Kijiji or whatever.

I'm thinking I need more aperture to give me more light for the indoor shots. Does that make sense? 30mm is a good focal length for indoor portraits for me right? Will I notice the difference between my current aperture of 3.5 and the 2.8 of that Sigma lens?

Thanks again for the help, guys.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,378
8,501
126
the nex likely uses a larger and more advanced sensor but to really tell you anything we'd need to know how the cameras were metering, as that's also a likely culprit. got both photos with exif?

17mm on MFT is equivalent to 34mm. it's not wide angle, it's a classic standard 35mm FOV.

this shot was taken with a panny 12-35mm on an MFT camera. barely cropped. at 12mm. it's not ultra ultra wide. it's 24mm on FF.

i-8MB8F8G-XL.jpg

35 mm is considered wide angle :colbert:
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
24,810
22,949
136
the NEX will have the better IQ, it's got a bigger AND better sensor. Sony makes damn good sensors these days. they are putting out some of the best stuff these days sensor wise.not sure about AF though. heard average things about NEX focusing. the big advantage to the panny will be lens selection.

i guess technically 35mm is wide angle, although bordering standard FOV. but his kit lens goes to 14mm aka 28mm. i think the difference from 28 to 35 is more pronounced than 35 to 42. from 28 to 24 is very dramatic, the wider you get. but if he shoots his 14-42 around 16-20 a lot indoors, the 17mm may be his best choice. it's fast enough that's for sure.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
the NEX will have the better IQ, it's got a bigger AND better sensor. Sony makes damn good sensors these days. they are putting out some of the best stuff these days sensor wise.not sure about AF though. heard average things about NEX focusing. the big advantage to the panny will be lens selection.

i guess technically 35mm is wide angle, although bordering standard FOV. but his kit lens goes to 14mm aka 28mm. i think the difference from 28 to 35 is more pronounced than 35 to 42. from 28 to 24 is very dramatic, the wider you get. but if he shoots his 14-42 around 16-20 a lot indoors, the 17mm may be his best choice. it's fast enough that's for sure.
Yes but is it better to the point that I should sell my GF3 and buy one? Will it make a bigger difference to my indoor low light shots compared to just buying a better lens?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
My wife and I have really enjoyed our Panasonic GF3 camera, however we had a friend over last weekend and she brought her Sony NEX-5 and it took noticeably better pictures compared to our camera. We have the stock 14-42mm lens; I'm not sure what she had on hers but it was a prime lens designed to take pictures of kids up close.

What I'm wondering is, if I got a better lens would our camera take comparable pics to the NEX-5?

Another thing to consider is that I have over $600 in Sony points saved up. :D

Anyhow, I would appreciate some advice. I can also get a Sony NEX-3 for about $400 where I live; the NEX-5 costs around $600. If any of you know of a hot deal that would be great also; even if it's a past deal so I know how cheap these can be had for.

Thanks!

Since you have Sony points I assume you know about Sonyrewards.com ? They have a March Madness game that supposedly gives a 30-50% discount on stuff in their store. They have the Nex-5r but I don't know how much it would cost with the discount and sale price it might be $450-500 plus tax.

As far as Nex-5 versus GF3..how were you viewing the pictures to compare them ? I have my doubts that the difference had much to do with the Nex-5's sensor being better, I would bet it was either a faster lens, which would collect more ambient light, a better flash, or just better settings.
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
OP - Can you specify what you mean by your friend's Nex took "better" pictures? There are different ways that a picture could be better that could indicate a camera limitation or just incorrect settings.

If the friend's camera's picture provided a better background blur and offered more subject separation from the background, then this is a lens aperture limitation. Get a prime with a better aperture than your kit lens and you, too, can produce background blur in your pictures.

If your camera's pictures are blurry, not to be confused with grainy, then it's possible your camera is using too long of a shutter speed and letting too much of your handshake into the picture. You might want to go into the camera settings and limit the longest shutter speed that your camera can automatically choose, or you might look into the using the manual modes (if you haven't already) to take more control of this. Getting a prime lens with a larger aperture would allow more light into the camera and allow it to use shorter shutter speeds to attain proper exposures automatically. This should result in less blurry subject photos (at the cost of background blur like in above).

If your pictures are more grainy, then your camera is automatically raising its ISO too high to attain a proper exposure. Higher ISO means higher noise (grain) in your photos. You can again go into the settings and limit the maximum ISO. The camera would then have to use longer shutter speeds to attain the same exposures, which could possibly result in blurry photos as in the above. Larger aperture prime lenses would let more light in and reduce the need for higher ISO's or longer shutter speeds.

A larger sensor or better sensor can use higher ISOs without grain. As already mentioned that could let you use shorter shutter speeds and get less blur from handshake. You probably just need to slap a prime lens on your GF3 though. Plenty of people are perfectly happy with their MFT cameras.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
The NEX-5 has a technically better sensor, but IMO trading a GF3 for a NEX-5 would be a sidegrade in the grand scheme of things. Both cameras are several years old, and sensor technology improves every year. Of course if you're using a kit zoom while your friend was using a fast prime lens, that would give her a huge advantage beyond any sensor difference in the camera itself. Get the 17mm f1.7 prime for your GF3 and you'd be surprised how much of a difference it makes.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
24,810
22,949
136
Yes but is it better to the point that I should sell my GF3 and buy one? Will it make a bigger difference to my indoor low light shots compared to just buying a better lens?

personally i think you are better off buying a better lens. the GF3 is no slouch for a smaller format camera. down the road you can upgrade your body to a more advanced MFT body.

a good fast and sharp piece of glass will make a big f'in difference.

on your 14-42 kit lens, what range do you find yourself shooting your kids at indoors most of the time?
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
OP - Can you specify what you mean by your friend's Nex took "better" pictures? There are different ways that a picture could be better that could indicate a camera limitation or just incorrect settings.

If the friend's camera's picture provided a better background blur and offered more subject separation from the background, then this is a lens aperture limitation. Get a prime with a better aperture than your kit lens and you, too, can produce background blur in your pictures.

If your camera's pictures are blurry, not to be confused with grainy, then it's possible your camera is using too long of a shutter speed and letting too much of your handshake into the picture. You might want to go into the camera settings and limit the longest shutter speed that your camera can automatically choose, or you might look into the using the manual modes (if you haven't already) to take more control of this. Getting a prime lens with a larger aperture would allow more light into the camera and allow it to use shorter shutter speeds to attain proper exposures automatically. This should result in less blurry subject photos (at the cost of background blur like in above).

If your pictures are more grainy, then your camera is automatically raising its ISO too high to attain a proper exposure. Higher ISO means higher noise (grain) in your photos. You can again go into the settings and limit the maximum ISO. The camera would then have to use longer shutter speeds to attain the same exposures, which could possibly result in blurry photos as in the above. Larger aperture prime lenses would let more light in and reduce the need for higher ISO's or longer shutter speeds.

A larger sensor or better sensor can use higher ISOs without grain. As already mentioned that could let you use shorter shutter speeds and get less blur from handshake. You probably just need to slap a prime lens on your GF3 though. Plenty of people are perfectly happy with their MFT cameras.
Her camera had some sort of special prime lens on it that she paid quite a bit of money for. Her pictures came out brighter with more vibrant colors. They were also sharper with more detail. Ours looked dark, blurry, and washed out by comparison.

We we shooting indoors. I compared the photos on the computer after I had copied them all off the memory card.

Thanks to everyone for the responses. I'm going to wait for a deal on a prime lens with good aperture.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
personally i think you are better off buying a better lens. the GF3 is no slouch for a smaller format camera. down the road you can upgrade your body to a more advanced MFT body.

a good fast and sharp piece of glass will make a big f'in difference.

on your 14-42 kit lens, what range do you find yourself shooting your kids at indoors most of the time?
We usually use it zoomed all the way out or else halfway, so I'm guessing that's 14mm-30mm or so. I think a 25-30mm lens would be best. I know there is a Panasonic lens that has an F1.8 aperture but it's quite pricey. I will look for one used or else a sale.

Do you guys think that a 2.8 aperture would be good enough? Because the Sigma ones on B&H are cheap and sometimes you can get a pair of them for $150 shipped. The only thing is they don't have the built in stabilization that the Panasonic lenses have. Is the stabilization a big deal? Keep in mind I'll be using these lenses for indoor portraits.

As an aside, I hacked my GF3's firmware last night and it shoots incredible video now. It was already very good before the update but with the hack it's spectacular.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
The NEX-5 has a technically better sensor, but IMO trading a GF3 for a NEX-5 would be a sidegrade in the grand scheme of things. Both cameras are several years old, and sensor technology improves every year. Of course if you're using a kit zoom while your friend was using a fast prime lens, that would give her a huge advantage beyond any sensor difference in the camera itself. Get the 17mm f1.7 prime for your GF3 and you'd be surprised how much of a difference it makes.
Thank-you for that. My only concern is that 17mm is too "zoomed out". I like the f1.7 though. I will look for something similar to that.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,378
8,501
126
Thank-you for that. My only concern is that 17mm is too "zoomed out". I like the f1.7 though. I will look for something similar to that.

for indoor i wouldn't think so. for indoor i'd be going as wide as i can.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
for indoor i wouldn't think so. for indoor i'd be going as wide as i can.
Actually I have found the lens I want:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Asph...ur+thirds+lens

$350 though; that's as much as I paid for the GF3 with my current lens.

Locally people are selling them for $350 used which I find insane.

Do these things ever go on sale for cheap?

*edit* Now I found it for $282 here:

http://www.zorocameras.com/panasonic-lumix-g-20mm-f17-asph-lens?currency_code=USD

Should I jump on it at that price?
 
Last edited:

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
24,810
22,949
136
Actually I have found the lens I want:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Asph...ur+thirds+lens

$350 though; that's as much as I paid for the GF3 with my current lens.

Locally people are selling them for $350 used which I find insane.

Do these things ever go on sale for cheap?

*edit* Now I found it for $282 here:

http://www.zorocameras.com/panasonic-lumix-g-20mm-f17-asph-lens?currency_code=USD

Should I jump on it at that price?

don't worry about the price of glass vs the body. lenses are a far longer investment than bodies. bodies come and go but good lenses stay. there are many people who have a lens equal to or far greater than the value of their body. great lenses are rarely updated by the manufacturer, while bodies come and go and come and go and so on and so on.

i once bought a refurb 40d for like 500 bucks. but i was sticking on it a $950 17-55EFS 2.8IS lens.

the 20 1.7 should be good, that's a good price. i wouldn't worry much about IS for your needs. since the subjects you will be shooting are mostly going to be moving, IS won't help stop their motion blur. you are going to have to shoot faster most of the time than what IS will help with at that focal length. If you go down the route of a longer zoom, yes IS can help you even if your subjects are moving.

of course IS can be used to get artistic motion blur handheld. dont think this is what you are targeting.

plus down the road if you stick with this format, you can simply stick the lens on a stabilized oly body later.