12 hours ago
|
Re: Olympus E-P3 vs. $500 Compacts
In reply to SammyToronto,
4 months ago
|
SammyToronto wrote:
sigala1 wrote:
SammyToronto wrote:
JoeRadza wrote:
Now that the Oly with kit lens is selling for or close to the same price as compacts such as Canon G15, Olympus XZ-2, Fuji X20, Nikon P7700, Pentax MX-1, and others which are you looking at?
I have the e-pm1 and the e-pl1 and recently bought the LX7 when it was offered for $299 since I was also curious how it'd measure up to my m4/3 cameras. The short answer; it didn't. While good for a point and shoot, the LX7 image quality, especially high ISO (i.e. ISO400+ and even ISO200 sometimes) indoors is simply not acceptable. Low contrast detail (e.g. hair) is a mushy mess at that ISO level in regular indoor light (i.e. not particularly dim) and the sensor/image processor resolving ability is average at best in most light, at least for jpegs, even with the sharp lens on the LX7. I returned it.
But you don't HAVE to shoot higher than ISO 400 because the LX7 has such a faster lens than the kit lens on the m43 camera. In fact, on account of the fast lens, the LX7 is actually a better low-light camera than then E-PM1 with the kit lens.
And you should really shoot RAW if you want to get the best out of your cameras. Default JPEGs are tuned to what the average point-and-shoot consumer wants and not what serious photographers want. The E-PM1 has pretty poor JPEGs because of overdone noise reduction in shadows.
Now as I said before, you CAN get a little better IQ from even an old generation m43 under SOME circumstances, but it's close.
Oh, I HAVE to shoot at/higher than ISO 400 often in normal indoor light, especially when using the full extent of the zoom (to shoot portraits for instance). Plus you misread my comment; image quality sucks AT ISO 400 and higher. Besides, and as I said, even at ISO 200 image quality is sometimes iffy indoors. So the problem is not only at ISO levels higher than 400.
I shoot my m4/3 cameras with primes and I set noise reduction to -1/-2. The jpegs produced by them are orders of magnitude better than those I had from the LX7. It's not even close.
I know RAW gets the best out of any camera, which goes without saying, but the m4/3 cameras produce great jpeg AND RAW pics. With the LX7, shooting RAW is almost mandatory and even then the quality of the results is often merely passable in regular indoor light.
All of that is, of course, imo. If you like the quality you're getting from your LX7, then all the power to you. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Now you are talking about prime lenses and changing the all subject of the conversation.
I presume you are shooting portraits with the 45mm f/1.8 lens, and that costs as much as the entire LX7 camera which includes the zoom lens. You are really comparing apples and oranges here. The original question was about when you spend the same for a compact vs spending the same for a cheap m43 setup, which wouldn't include an expensive prime lens.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 2 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 2 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
