inquiring minds want to know. what has the better iq and i suspect build goes to gf1. what about operation and performance and interface. and then there is noise. is it better than my s90 in terms of low light performance? tell me, please tell me. thks. rude i am in the market for one of them.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
well whats better, gf1 or ep1...?
- Thread starter rude
- Start date
Julian_K
Senior Member
There have been literally hundreds of posts on this, please use the search function to find the answer you are looking for.
Jules
-----------------
http://www.jkaesler.zenfolio.com
Jules
-----------------
http://www.jkaesler.zenfolio.com
Godfrey
Forum Pro
Well again, it depends on your uses.
Out of camera jpegs from Olympus are far far superior to Panasonic, so much so that alot of us think Panasonic G series should only be operated in RAW mode.
IQ of the E-P1 (and E620, E450) and GF1 (G1, GH1) and the NiCannoSony entry level cameras are so equal that no human can tell the difference... If printed, the printers have much more difference and you have no way of telling what came from what.
The technical differences come in IS and AF systems...
If you plan on using legacy lenses (either Zuiko Digital or any of the manual lenses out there) then I would recommend E-P1 because of IBIS that makes a huge difference.
If you are only going for native lenses and are OK with shooting everything in raw and PP everything before use, then the GF1 would be the choice.
If you shoot anything that needs a fast AF and you can't/won't use the techniques used back in the old days, then get a Panasonic G series or a DSLR... And in the case of DSLR, get a good one, like D700, so you can justify the extra size with extra IQ.
Out of camera jpegs from Olympus are far far superior to Panasonic, so much so that alot of us think Panasonic G series should only be operated in RAW mode.
IQ of the E-P1 (and E620, E450) and GF1 (G1, GH1) and the NiCannoSony entry level cameras are so equal that no human can tell the difference... If printed, the printers have much more difference and you have no way of telling what came from what.
The technical differences come in IS and AF systems...
If you plan on using legacy lenses (either Zuiko Digital or any of the manual lenses out there) then I would recommend E-P1 because of IBIS that makes a huge difference.
If you are only going for native lenses and are OK with shooting everything in raw and PP everything before use, then the GF1 would be the choice.
If you shoot anything that needs a fast AF and you can't/won't use the techniques used back in the old days, then get a Panasonic G series or a DSLR... And in the case of DSLR, get a good one, like D700, so you can justify the extra size with extra IQ.
John Knuhtsen
Leading Member
Rumours says that Ricoh will come with something on November 12th. CMOS APS_C sensor with 14 Mpixels and K-mount. Olympus will also come with something by the end of October, probably a new mirrorless superzoom with APS-C.
LeeD
Leading Member
FWIW, I was skeptical of EP-1's Art Filters at first, but later found it to be extremely fun to use. Just wished it had a built-in flash though, but then the in-body sensor shift makes up for it. Hope this helps!
safaridon
Senior Member
-- Your above two statements seem very contradictory and I believe the latter one to be the most correct perspective.
The E-P1 and GF1 use the same Panasonic built sensor so the IQ should be similar. As Erick and others have repeatedly pointed out ISO 1600 on GF1 is equivalent and compared to ISO 2100 on E-P1. DPR acknowledged the discrepancy and included a table comparison but lamely did not change the noise charts continuing to give a distorted impression to most viewers unfavorable to GF1.
So to claim the jpegs from E-P1 are "far far superior" to those from GF1 is a far stretch. While many prefer the Oly colors just as I prefer the Pany "vivid" on my TZs, in some like Pop Photo previous tests on G1 series have shown the Pany default colors to be slightly more accurate than that on most DSLRs. The DPR resolution test shows the JPEG resolution between the two to be very close about 50 lines out of 2250 while in raw resolution the GF1 figures are significantly higher about +6%. In the JPEG processing Pany removes slightly more detail at lower ISOs while Oly from the noise curves applied much greater noise reduction at higher ISOs hence the inevitable loss in resolution and less noise.
While the GF1 raw results are certainly outstanding the JPEGs are still very good. As you rightly point out the performance issues ie auto focus speed, IS are more important to the user depending on their needs.
safaridon
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
Oly doesn't gain very much except a bit of headroom by shooting RAW. All Panny's so far gain far more detail and range by shooting RAW. The Panny JPG is pretty inadequate.
Inadequate at what size if I may ask? You can spot detail differences at 100% in default NR mode, great. What about full screen? Unlike CA which can adversely affect or even ruin even modest sized prints/ screens, the pixel level sharpness is virtually irrelevant for most JPG-snappers. For large prints, most people would shoot RAW anyway.
--
'If you can imagine sharing a waterbed with a baboon that's just been doused in itching powder.' J.C. Reg. the suspension of the Lincoln Town Car '82
baxters
Veteran Member
My criteria goes like this.
-On board flash is important to me. I would misplace a small flash and don't want to carry one anyway.
-AF tracking in video mode is important to me. I do think hand held videos should be zoomed as little as possible though.
-In body IS (IBIS - who coined this great acronym?) is useful, but not a deal breaker.
Gonna wait and see what the prices look like after the New Year.
-On board flash is important to me. I would misplace a small flash and don't want to carry one anyway.
-AF tracking in video mode is important to me. I do think hand held videos should be zoomed as little as possible though.
-In body IS (IBIS - who coined this great acronym?) is useful, but not a deal breaker.
Gonna wait and see what the prices look like after the New Year.
landshark
Senior Member
I have both and it is a toss up for me, I have likes and dislikes with both. Both can shoot great images and both are fun to use.
I really do not see any practical difference in the use of the menus, yes they are different but once learned I do not find one that much better than the other.
The Oly jpegs are nicer, AWB is better, the shutter is quieter, the LCD is better in bright light, the level tool is nice, I like the two dial control better, I like the EXP Compensation control better and of course the IBS is not in the GF1
The GF1 does focus faster but is no more accurate, the LCD has better resolution and is better in non-bright conditions, and the addition of an EVF is helpful with this camera in very bright light. It does have a built-in flash, seems lighter than Oly, AF assist light is helpful at times.
At this point I am keeping both
Bob
http://www.bobdamico.com
I really do not see any practical difference in the use of the menus, yes they are different but once learned I do not find one that much better than the other.
The Oly jpegs are nicer, AWB is better, the shutter is quieter, the LCD is better in bright light, the level tool is nice, I like the two dial control better, I like the EXP Compensation control better and of course the IBS is not in the GF1
The GF1 does focus faster but is no more accurate, the LCD has better resolution and is better in non-bright conditions, and the addition of an EVF is helpful with this camera in very bright light. It does have a built-in flash, seems lighter than Oly, AF assist light is helpful at times.
At this point I am keeping both
Bob
http://www.bobdamico.com
renato
Leading Member
no text
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
On my 30", or heck even my 17" MBP, it's very easy to tell what was RAW and was in camera JPG. I'm not talking about pixel peeping.
landshark
Senior Member
So you are one of the 'many' who view a 30" monitor close up and is more consumed with pixel level detail than CA. Good for you
--
'If you can imagine sharing a waterbed with a baboon that's just been doused in itching powder.' J.C. Reg. the suspension of the Lincoln Town Car '82
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
I didn't say anything about CA but it's a bit ridiculous to try to pretend Panasonic doesn't have a lot of work to do in fixing their JPG engine to be more competitive.
I've never said the Panasonic JPG engine doesn't have some catching up to do, but you did calll the Panasonic JPG engine "inadequate". I say, for modest sized prints, and normal LCD resolutions the pixel level rendering is much less relevant than CA removal, which happens to be a JPG engine issue where Oly has some cathching up to do.
--
'If you can imagine sharing a waterbed with a baboon that's just been doused in itching powder.' J.C. Reg. the suspension of the Lincoln Town Car '82
Mescalamba
Leading Member
Buy GF-1, you won´t regret.. well, if you know how to use RAWs (at least basic RAW-JPEG conversion via some good program).
For JPEG is better EP-1.. but its pretty much worse in everything else.
I would buy GF-1, if I already didn´t have G1.
Tough I´m considering buying that too.
For JPEG is better EP-1.. but its pretty much worse in everything else.
I would buy GF-1, if I already didn´t have G1.
Tough I´m considering buying that too.
landshark
Senior Member
EP-1.. but its pretty much worse in everything else.
I would have to strongly disagree with that statement, it is a much closer decision between the two than many people think
--
Bob
http://www.bobdamico.com
I would have to strongly disagree with that statement, it is a much closer decision between the two than many people think
--
Bob
http://www.bobdamico.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum