Support NeoGAF

[darkwing]

The 60D was gimped from what it should have been because of the 7D. The 60D has a bigger, sturdier body as one of its big differences from the 600D. After holding the smaller body, I would buy the 60D in a heartbeat. My hands aren't even that big, but the 600D is way too small and light, especially with quality glass sitting in front of it.

Be aware that's about as far as my knowledge goes in that regard, I upgraded directly from the ancient 300D to the 7D.

If none of the above concerns you, grab the 600D body only and a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC).

I agree with this

 

[sneaky77]

The 60D was gimped from what it should have been because of the 7D. The 60D has a bigger, sturdier body as one of its big differences from the 600D. After holding the smaller body, I would buy the 60D in a heartbeat. My hands aren't even that big, but the 600D is way too small and light, especially with quality glass sitting in front of it.

Be aware that's about as far as my knowledge goes in that regard, I upgraded directly from the ancient 300D to the 7D.

If none of the above concerns you, grab the 600D body only and a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC).

I had the same issue las year trying to choose between the T2i and the 50D and went with the 50D for those same reasons, and the T2i felt too plastic to me as well.
I haven't had any issues with the 50D and I am very happy with the purchase so far. I did buy it used so maybe you can find a good deal that way.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

The 60D was gimped from what it should have been because of the 7D. The 60D has a bigger, sturdier body as one of its big differences from the 600D. After holding the smaller body, I would buy the 60D in a heartbeat. My hands aren't even that big, but the 600D is way too small and light, especially with quality glass sitting in front of it.

Be aware that's about as far as my knowledge goes in that regard, I upgraded directly from the ancient 300D to the 7D.

If none of the above concerns you, grab the 600D body only and a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC).

yup, 7D is a beast compared to the 60D and honestly I'd rather get the 600D to save money than get a 60D.

 

[Mistle]

I've got a 600D. My hands I guess are a bit smaller than average, so it feels great. The plastic is very sturdy and strong, it doesn't feel like you're holding a toy or anything. Honestly I prefer the slightly lighter/smaller body- it makes it just a bit more portable for me, without any noticeable lack in picture quality or features.

All I'm saying is, don't pass up the 600D over the 60D because of the construction/materials. The 600D is extremely capable, and after your purchase you'll either have some spare cash in your pocket or an extra lens.

 

[tino]

yup, 7D is a beast compared to the 60D and honestly I'd rather get the 600D to save money than get a 60D.

Or get a 50D.

 

[mrkgoo]

Or get a 50D.

This is not a bad idea.

I like the idea of a swivel screen, though.


My history was this:

350D -> 40D -> 7D


I made the jump when I felt I got a lot out of the upgrade. My personal preference was also to jump 'up' in model tier. I always felt that moving to a better version of the same tier wasn't really moving forward as much, as you're mostly getting incremental upgrades, as opposed to something that will give you new challenges and open up new avenues.

For example, my transition to the XXD series was probably the more important leap, if not only for the control dial on the back, as I was a predominantly Manual exposure shooter. The more robust body and increased FPS opened up new types of photography. Also the new processor inside allowed much easier manipulation of my settings.

My move to the 7D was pretty big also, mostly for the jump in MP. I was always of the opinion that better quality pixels vs. number was important, and that's more or less true, but the 7D represented a leap in quality AND number. It really has changed my photography.

That said, the move to a 600D from a 350D is huge - all the advantages spec-wise that you'd get from a 60D you'd be getting in a 600D too. I still think the non "spec-related" improvements such as body, viewfinder, and extra dial are very important advancements.

Don't be fooled into getting the latest and greatest, though, as they may not represent the best bang for your buck. Get something you have enough room to grow as a photographer, but not something that you're going to pay more for, but only use the extra features when you're going to feel like upgrading at that time anyway. Something like a new 50D would be worth looking into, assuming they are considerably cheaper now that the 60D is out.

 

[Borman]

Just ordered a 5d2

 

[Radec]

Anyone tried this ?

http://www.slrmagic.com/products.php

 

[mrklaw]

flip out screen sounds useful but isn't that great for stills due to the shockingly bad live view AF speed on canons. Good for macro/landscape.I guess, and video. I'm thinking of a G3 as it has a swivel screen and can AF quickly when using it.

Just the lack of lenses holding me back. I know canon has lenses I want, but micro 4/3 doesn't have equivalent ones (85mm 1.8, 60mm 2.8 macro, 24-105 f4, 100-400). Well they have a 100-300 but i'm amazed they don't have decent portrait primes, they seem obsessed with pancake lenses. Some of us want to take photos, not just go around pointing out how compact our camera is

For a canon DSLR you need to handle them. You might find the size of the 600D completely fine, or not. You might find you really like the twin dial controls of the 60D over the single dial of the 600D (that's what has kept me away from the xxxD line so far). If you find you can manage with the size/controls of the smaller camera, then figure out if you need a 600D or perhaps a 550D is enough, they are both very close in specs, other than the flip screen. If you shoot a lot of video go for the 600D. If not then a cheaper 550D would be tempting

 

[Instigator]

Anyone tried this ?

http://www.slrmagic.com/products.php

No, but at 50mm, no optical stabilization and in low light, it'd be best to have an Olympus body for this lens.

 

[Radec]

No, but at 50mm, no optical stabilization and in low light, it'd be best to have an Olympus body for this lens.

why do you need an OS on an f/.95 ?

Fast primes doesn't need OS.

Anyway, that lens apparently is only for m4/3 and E-mount.

No word yet for DSLR mounts. :/

 

[olbareun]

why do you need an OS on an f/.95 ?

Fast primes doesn't need OS.

Anyway, that lens apparently is only for m4/3 and E-mount.

No word yet for DSLR mounts. :/

I thought this lens is why Noktor bankrupted and was sold to slrmagic. I am not sure if they will make that for other mounts given its lack of popularity.

 

[ChryZ]

Anyone tried this ?

http://www.slrmagic.com/products.php

I had an eye on it, it's way too soft wide open and many reviews came to the conclusion that it's hardly worth the price they ask for. It's just a modified CCTV lens. Noktor already went under once, but then got bought by slrmagic. Here is a nice rundown: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/noktor/index.htm

If you're in the market for a m43 ultra fast lens and willing to spend a 1000 bucks, then check out the Voigtländer Nokton 25mm F0.95 (native m43) or the Voigtländer Nokton 50mm F1.1 (m lens, would need m43 adapter).

 

[Instigator]

Fast primes doesn't need OS.

lol

 

[Radec]

Enlighten me good sir

 

[ChryZ]

Enlighten me good sir

Challenge #1, 50mm on m4/3 behaves like 100mm thanks to the crop factor (small sensor). You'll need a steady hand for exposures below 1/100

Challenge #2, the depth of focus is razor thin @ F0.95 which leads into #3

Challenge #3, it's a manual focus lens, move just a little bit and you'll lose focus

It's possible to get results without IBIS, but it requires skills and your yield will still be ~50% or below

 

[Unlimited4s]

canon 85mm 1.8. Great value for money and great quality/speed. 24-70 is still a lot slower and isn't it really expensive too?

Only you know how far you usually are from the stage, and whether you need a zoom or can zoom with your feet.

Didn't think of the canon 85mm1.8 instead of the sigma 85mm1.4. Seems to be an amazing lens for its price, I think I will go for that one then! Thanks for the advice!

Zooming with my feet is most of the time impossible due to not having separate photo pits at most of the venues I go to, but most of the time it's not a big problem, just a small annoyance.

 

[mrkgoo]

Didn't think of the canon 85mm1.8 instead of the sigma 85mm1.4. Seems to be an amazing lens for its price, I think I will go for that one then! Thanks for the advice!

Zooming with my feet is most of the time impossible due to not having separate photo pits at most of the venues I go to, but most of the time it's not a big problem, just a small annoyance.

I had a canon ef 85mm f1.8. An awesome lens in nearly every regard. The only weak point was purple fringing at wide apertures, if I recall up until 2.8, but it wasn't that big an issue.

Too bad mine was stolen by the TSA!

 

[mrkgoo]

Challenge #1, 50mm on m4/3 behaves like 100mm thanks to the crop factor (small sensor). You'll need a steady hand for exposures below 1/100

Challenge #2, the depth of focus is razor thin @ F0.95 which leads into #3

Challenge #3, it's a manual focus lens, move just a little bit and you'll lose focus

It's possible to get results without IBIS, but it requires skills and your yield will still be ~50% or below

Still doesn't NEED IS. I love IS, don't get me wrong - it's fantastic, but that doesn't mean it's an absolute must.

 

[ChryZ]

Still doesn't NEED IS. I love IS, don't get me wrong - it's fantastic, but that doesn't mean it's an absolute must.

It's not an absolute must for you and me, but I can totally understand how it could be a show stopper for others.

 

[sneaky77]

So I have a weird Lightroom issue/question, lately the photos are being imported with +50 added on contrast and +25 added on brightness or the other way around, even though I don't have any import default settings selected. Any suggestions?

 

[Combichristoffersen]

Reposting my question which I erroneously posted in the photo thread

PhotoGAF, plz halp. I'm out to get a new camera (since my other camera is an old 3 MP digital camera that was a bit poo even back when I bought it like 6 years ago, and even my current cell phone has a better camera), and I've been looking at two reasonably priced SLR cameras aimed at the amateur/beginner market segment, but I'm a bit undecided on which one to get. The cameras I've been looking at are the Nikon D3100 and the Sony DSLR A390, and going by the online reviews I've read, the Nikon seems to fare slightly better than the Sony one, so I'm leaning towards the D3100. But which one would photoGAF recommend as the best option for a beginner?

 

[tino]

How serious are you going to invest in photography in 5 years? If you think you are a moderately serious person, then Nikon. If not, then buy the cheapest kit.

If you are the kind of person who gets serious very fast, don't buy entry level Nikons, they are all crippled.

 

[Radec]

The D90 is a great entry level if you're going to go to the Nikon camp.

Don't know about Canon though.

 

[arnoldocastillo2003]

Reposting my question which I erroneously posted in the photo thread

DUDE no question needed to ask NIKON D3100 FTW! look at this comparison: http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A390
It is better, I would have loved to bought the D3100 if I had the money but instead I got a Nikon D5000 and to tell you the truth I love it, just so you know my Nikon D5000 is cheaper than the Nikon D3100 that you will buy and yours is even better than mine, so go for it, i Know that I don´t even can be called an amateur photographer because I don´t even have that kind of skill, but you can see on my flickr account the types of pictures that my Nikon D5000 has taken and you can clearly see that the NIKON D3100 that you will buy its even better than mine, so yeah buy it, i recommend it a lot, and another point there are a lot more lenses for the Nikon than for Sony.

Here is my flickr account if you want to see some photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnoldocastillo2003/

 

[Combichristoffersen]

How serious are you going to invest in photography in 5 years? If you think you are a moderately serious person, then Nikon. If not, then buy the cheapest kit.

If you are the kind of person who gets serious very fast, don't buy entry level Nikons, they are all crippled.

Not very seriously I'd say, I just want an entry level camera to learn the basics and get something that's better than a 7-8 year old 3 MP digital camera or a cellphone camera :lol:

DUDE no question needed to ask NIKON D3100 FTW! look at this comparison: http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A390
It is better, I would have loved to bought the D3100 if I had the money but instead I got a Nikon D5000 and to tell you the truth I love it, just so you know my Nikon D5000 is cheaper than the Nikon D3100 that you will buy and yours is even better than my, so go for it, i Know that I don´t even can be called an amateur photographer because I don´t even have that kind of skill, but you can see on my flickr accounts the types of pictures that my Nikon D5000 has taken and you can clearly see that the NIKON D3100 that you will buy its even better than mine, so yeah buy it, i recommend it a lot, and another point there are a lot more lenses for the Nikon than for Sony.

Here is my flickr account if you want to see some photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnoldocastillo2003/

So the Nikon it is then

 

[BlueTsunami]

No word yet for DSLR mounts. :/

I believe these lenses are retrofitted C-mount lenses. The image circle would be too small for even APS-C sized sensors. Now 4/3rd cameras are fine for this.

With that said, you can easily get a Nikkor 50/1.2 AI(S) for $650 (which is also a Manual Focus lens). Whether on Nikon's system or Canon the lens can be used for both (adapted to the EF mount via an adapter). I believe its only 1/3rd of a stop difference too.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

So, I went to the electronics store, and talked to the guy in the camera department. He told me a bit about the Nikon D3100 I planned to get, and showed me a Sony Alpha SLT-A33, and told me a bit about it too. I ended up getting the Sony camera, even though it cost me a bit more, as it had some functions that the Nikon camera lacked. Did I do the right thing, GAF?

 

[radios shipping overview]

So, I went to the electronics store, and talked to the guy in the camera department. He told me a bit about the Nikon D3100 I planned to get, and showed me a Sony Alpha SLT-A33, and told me a bit about it too. I ended up getting the Sony camera, even though it cost me a bit more, as it had some functions that the Nikon camera lacked. Did I do the right thing, GAF?

You'll notice the difference when you start buying additional lenses. There are simply many more (and more specialized) lenses available for Nikon. But you may not notice the difference, depending on what kind of photography you do and when you add more. (Use your kit lens for as long as you can, until you find something you absolutely cannot do with it.)

 

[tino]

It really doesn't matter nowadays. As long as you don't buy Pentax now. Most of Nikon sensors are made by Sony anyway.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

You'll notice the difference when you start buying additional lenses. There are simply many more (and more specialized) lenses available for Nikon. But you may not notice the difference, depending on what kind of photography you do and when you add more. (Use your kit lens for as long as you can, until you find something you absolutely cannot do with it.)

I know there are a lot more lenses for Nikon (I think Sony had something like 55 lenses while Nikon had well over a hundred), but I don't think I'll be buying a lot of lenses, at least not in the near future.

It really doesn't matter nowadays. As long as you don't buy Pentax now. Most of Nikon sensors are made by Sony anyway.

Really? I thought Pentax was supposed to be great. Huh, the more you know.

 

[Radec]

So, I went to the electronics store, and talked to the guy in the camera department. He told me a bit about the Nikon D3100 I planned to get, and showed me a Sony Alpha SLT-A33, and told me a bit about it too. I ended up getting the Sony camera, even though it cost me a bit more, as it had some functions that the Nikon camera lacked. Did I do the right thing, GAF?

You'll be fine. Buy a 50mm and enjoy shooting with it.

 

[arnoldocastillo2003]

So, I went to the electronics store, and talked to the guy in the camera department. He told me a bit about the Nikon D3100 I planned to get, and showed me a Sony Alpha SLT-A33, and told me a bit about it too. I ended up getting the Sony camera, even though it cost me a bit more, as it had some functions that the Nikon camera lacked. Did I do the right thing, GAF?

Congrats on your new Camera, take pictures and post it on the 2011 Q3 Photography Thread

Oh! and GAF can you please help me, Wel I finally have saved $500 to buy me a lens for my NIKON D5000, I initially wanted to buy a 50mm Nikor Prime Lens but then I reallly had a change of heart and decided that I really love my 18-55mm Kit lens, and why not to better try to buy a replacement for my kit lens, and for $500 I think that i can find one, the thing is that is harder than I thought so I want GAF expert opinion, do you guys recommend me any of these:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon Digital SLR
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00156OZ68/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) with Built-In AF Motor for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001955P8W/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Nikon Mount Digital SLR Cameras
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002ZNJB2S/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[Zyzyxxz]

the tamrons are really good but they won't autofocus without the built in focus motor, unfortunately I hear that is slow though.

I was planning on getting the 28-75 without the built in motor since my D90 has its own. Kind of lame that Nikon gimps the entry level models that makes them unable to autofocus with older lenses.

 

[tokkun]

You'll notice the difference when you start buying additional lenses. There are simply many more (and more specialized) lenses available for Nikon. But you may not notice the difference, depending on what kind of photography you do and when you add more. (Use your kit lens for as long as you can, until you find something you absolutely cannot do with it.)

I think the range of lenses available for A-Mount is just fine.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

What "kind of photography" is not possible with this lens selection?

In my view, where there is some advantage to Canikon is that there are a lot more used lenses in circulation and it is easier to purchase or rent lenses locally.

 

[arnoldocastillo2003]

the tamrons are really good but they won't autofocus without the built in focus motor, unfortunately I hear that is slow though.

I was planning on getting the 28-75 without the built in motor since my D90 has its own. Kind of lame that Nikon gimps the entry level models that makes them unable to autofocus with older lenses.

What! So even though that the tamron clearly says it has a built in motor for nikon dslr, they don't work? WTF for real? Man fuck that I will not spend $500 bucks on a lens that don't work, so any other type of lens that you can recommend me that is at a $500 range, is the sigma any good?

 

[Fireye]

What! So even though that the tamron clearly says it has a built in motor for nikon dslr, they don't work? WTF for real? Man fuck that I will not spend $500 bucks on a lens that don't work, so any other type of lens that you can recommend me that is at a $500 range, is the sigma any good?

the tamrons are really good but they won't autofocus without the built in focus motor, unfortunately I hear that is slow though.

You're fine with the lenses you listed. I had the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for canon, and while focusing wasn't as fast as USM, it also wasn't horribly slow as long as you were relatively close to the right focus. If you went from macro distance to tele focus, it'd take a few seconds.

I loved the 28-75mm, until the damn thing got stolen. Great little lens, and it's a full frame compatible lens. It's certainly a great choice if you're not sold on the 17-50 with VC (you listed yours without VC), and depending on your copy will perform better.

The sigma 17-70 is... ok. I wouldn't recommend picking it up. The only advantage it has over the 28-75 in my mind is the HSM should mean faster focusing.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I've got a 600D. My hands I guess are a bit smaller than average, so it feels great. The plastic is very sturdy and strong, it doesn't feel like you're holding a toy or anything. Honestly I prefer the slightly lighter/smaller body- it makes it just a bit more portable for me, without any noticeable lack in picture quality or features.

All I'm saying is, don't pass up the 600D over the 60D because of the construction/materials. The 600D is extremely capable, and after your purchase you'll either have some spare cash in your pocket or an extra lens.

The Rebel line overall is a good line for beginner photographers, I love my 450D to death. It has over 30,000 shots and it is still working like a champ.

With that said, the 60D is a wonderful camera if you are willing to spend an extra $200. It has much better weather sealing (the diagrams even show that the weather sealing is even better than the 7D), the bright viewfinder is incredible, the extra grip just feels good, the battery is incredible (You can shoot close to 1,400 on a single charge), it has a more reliable shutter, the top LCD is amazing, I will never go back to a camera without a top LCD.

 

[tino]

I think the range of lenses available for A-Mount is just fine.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

What "kind of photography" is not possible with this lens selection?

In my view, where there is some advantage to Canikon is that there are a lot more used lenses in circulation and it is easier to purchase or rent lenses locally.

And you can rent CN lens and flash very easily. That is the reason even though CN SLR cost $100-200 more than a comparible non-CN SLR, I sill recommand them to my friends.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I know there are a lot more lenses for Nikon (I think Sony had something like 55 lenses while Nikon had well over a hundred), but I don't think I'll be buying a lot of lenses, at least not in the near future.



Really? I thought Pentax was supposed to be great. Huh, the more you know.

Sonys line of lenses is good but Nikon and Canon provided better entry level and mid-tier lenses (so they're more robust in that regard). But Sony has the luxury of providing the only autofocus Zeiss lenses but this is the same as throwing down money for an L or the high end Nikon lenses. If you plan to spend money on the best of lenses, Sony is as good a choice as the other two (though probably not the Zeiss lenses for fast moving photography since some are still screw driven).

 

[Danoss]

What! So even though that the tamron clearly says it has a built in motor for nikon dslr, they don't work? WTF for real? Man fuck that I will not spend $500 bucks on a lens that don't work, so any other type of lens that you can recommend me that is at a $500 range, is the sigma any good?

If the other dude is right and the AF works on your body, grab the Tamron 17-50/2.8. It's a great lens and I wouldn't call the AF slow, loud maybe, but definitely not slow.

 

[arnoldocastillo2003]

@Fireye; @Danoss and @Zyzyxxz: Thanks very much for the help but doing a little google search and reading on other forums, i have concluded that i will wait 1 more month to save a little more money and but 1 of these 2 lens, and there is the help from NEOGAF that I need.

Which of these two lenses do you recommend me:

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003A6NU3U/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC (Vibration Compensation) Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002LVUIXU/?tag=neogaf0e-20

I would be forever grateful if any of you takes the time and helps me out on deciding, thanks.

 

[345triangle]

Sonys line of lenses is good but Nikon and Canon provided better entry level and mid-tier lenses (so they're more robust in that regard). But Sony has the luxury of providing the only autofocus Zeiss lenses but this is the same as throwing down money for an L or the high end Nikon lenses. If you plan to spend money on the best of lenses, Sony is as good a choice as the other two (though probably not the Zeiss lenses for fast moving photography since some are still screw driven).

sony's entry level lens lineup (especially the primes) is actually one of the main reasons i went with them. nikon's catalogue is unbeatable, yeah, but i still can't quite believe that there's nothing like the recent sony or nikon 35mm 1.8 lenses for canon. chances are that there's a bunch of awesome canon lenses that canon users can't imagine others doing without, though, so it's best to consider first what you'll want to use the most - just so happens that having a good quality inexpensive 50mmish equivalent fast prime is the most important thing to me.

of course, most people won't know this until they've bought their camera...

 

[asa]

Bought this (Carl Zeiss 1.4/50mm, Used 190€) yesterday + Canon adapter. I'm using it on my canon 550d (t2i).

Loving it so far, really nice image quality, focus wheel is smooth and has long turning range, nice bokeh and aperture 1.4
Build quality is something else: it's around 20 years old but still in near perfect condition.

 

[arnoldocastillo2003]

So uhm anyone? anyone can help me? pretty please....

 

[BlueTsunami]

https://sites.google.com/site/dsfvxc/home/PIC_20110704_14594_planar.jpg[IMG]

Bought this (Carl Zeiss 1.4/50mm, Used 190€) yesterday + Canon adapter. I'm using it on my canon 550d (t2i).

Loving it so far, really nice image quality, focus wheel is smooth and has long turning range, nice bokeh and aperture 1.4 :)
Build quality is something else: it's around 20 years old but still in near perfect condition.[/QUOTE]

:bow

I've been using the slightly inferior 50/1.7 for a year now. Stop it down to f/5.6 and marvel at the IQ of the thing. The boke of the 1.4 version is also supposed to be quite wild at times when wide open but I find that makes for something more interesting.

 

[mrklaw]

had a bit of a buying frenzy this weekend. Although I have a NEX-5, I really missed having a viewfinder. So I went out and bought a G3 with 14-42.

Then I was a little worried that it was too small - the new finger grip is really small. So I bought a GH2 with 14-140. The deeper grip is lovely and much more comfortable to hold but overall I found the body just a little too big. Plus the G3, although its missing a lot of the dials on the GH2, still has direct buttons to most of the main functions.

So now I'm selling on the GH2 and NEX-5. Keeping the 14-140 though. Heavy but lovely.

Even if Sony bring out their NEX-7 with an EVF I'm not confident enough in their lens range and bringing out enough variety quickly enough. looking forward to the 45 1.8

 

[ChryZ]

Then I was a little worried that it was too small - the new finger grip is really small. So I bought a GH2 with 14-140. The deeper grip is lovely and much more comfortable to hold but overall I found the body just a little too big. Plus the G3, although its missing a lot of the dials on the GH2, still has direct buttons to most of the main functions.

You can also use the custom setups. Switch between them with the top nob. It's great to change a whole bunch of presets with one little turn. The Fn buttons can also be assigned freely and there is a fully customizable quick menu on the touch screen.

The battery of the G3 is its weakest link. It's good for 200-300 shots, not super bad. The official batteries are pretty expensive, so I got spares off ebay for 14eur shipped (each). I already recharged them a few times, so far they perform as good as the official one.

 

[Danoss]

So uhm anyone? anyone can help me? pretty please....

I haven't used either lens that you listed there. I recommend the 17-50/2.8 (non-VC) because I use it and love it, as do many others. There are many reports out there that the model with VC is not as sharp. I believe for that focal range, VC is not necessary unless you have very shaky hands, more money in your pocket too.

 

[tino]

So uhm anyone? anyone can help me? pretty please....

I would recommend the non-Sigma version just on the accounts of Sigma lens coating has weird green color and my experience of used Sigma was not satisfactory. I had a Sigma 28-70 f2.8, neither the build quality nor exterior material were very good.