To Upgrade or Not to Upgrade

[MilesToGo]

I owned two film SLRs (minoltas both, sniff, sniff) and my husband finally pushed me into the digital world by buying me a small P&S and I became hooked! In 2009 I upgraded to a Panasonic DMX LX3 which I have used quite heavily. I love it's portability, but it does have some limitations for the type of pictures I take. For example, the polarizing filter can only be attached with a funky conversion ring which means you can't use the built-in zoom. Since I live in a city with a lot of water (Seattle) the glare on the water is really reduced with a polarizer. I also like to take photos of store window with enticing displays (especially in Europe). I take a lot of landscape pictures and would like to be able to take more bokehs (might be a user problem).

So, do I upgrade and if so to what? My current thoughts are either a Panasonic GH2 or a Nikon D90 (I know, I know....heavier). What's a girl to do? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated!

Thanks,
Kath

[jdepould]

It's sort of hard to tell what you're looking for.

If you don't need the responsiveness or wide range of lens options you get with a traditional SLR, mirrorless is a good way to go.

[LoveDSLR]

Are you a serious amateur or just an owner of two SLR? If you want a digital SLR then the D90 or any other DSLR. Otherwise, the GH2.

As good as the current micro 4/3 system, you aren't going to enjoy all the benefits of a Canon/Nikon AF lenses system unless you plan to use non micro 4/3 lenses manually with the GH2.

However, if you like to shoot with a LX3 than a SLR body then you may want to consider a GF-2 (I have GF-1 and E-PL1) instead. Lenses wise, may be a Panasonic 20 f/1.7, Olympus 9-18mm and Panasonic 14-45/14-140.

[Dodge]

Wort a mention that if you do go the dslr route and still have your minolta lenses, they fit the Sony Alpha series cameras, so could save you a mint.

[MilesToGo]

Thanks for your suggestion! I do still have my Minolta lenses...so the Sony Alpha does appeal from that standpoint.

I would say I am a serioius amatuer. Oh, and another drawback of the LX3 is the smallest fstop is 8.0 which means in bright sunlight things can get overexposed easily.

Thanks again!
Kath

[Dodge]

Well if you already have the lenses, particularly if they're auto-focus a mount, I know what I'd do. Depending on the lenses you have it could give you a very versatile option and save you a bomb.

I don't know what your budget is, but here you can currently pick up a used A700 for around the £400 mark as it's now been discontinued. The price may come down even further once Sony release its replacement. Currently though, the used price seems to have plateaud. It's definately worth reading up on though and I doubt you'll find a bad review on it. The Sony's also have the advantage of Image Stabilization built into the body so all your lenses would take advantage of that.

IMO for a serious amateur it would be a great first dslr, sitting at the top of Sony's mid range models.

Another advantage of buying used is that if you don't like it, as things stand now, you can resell and likely recoup what you spent.

Here is a great site to read up on the Sony's and the minolta lenses you may have. May help you work out if it may be worth your while and wether your lenses are suitable :
Home of the Minolta / Sony a-mount dSLR photographer

[MilesToGo]

Thanks Dodge! I'm definitely checking out the Sonys as I have some nice Minolta lenses.

Thanks so much!
Kath

[inkista]

The one point to remember in this is that the Sony Alpha mount is the Minolta AF mount. If your lenses are manual focus (MC/MD), then they won't fit the Alphas, and cannot easily be adapted to anything but the mirrorless compacts (with the notable exception of the Rokkor 58mm f/1.2).