Newbie Question Panasonic vs Oly

Hi,

I've been lurking a while trying to soak up the vast knowledge around here. I was a serious B&W film photographer about 25-30 years ago, including all of the long nights in the darkroom, etc, etc, etc. But life and kids intervened and I got pretty far out of it and the SLRs gathered dust and the P&S got all of the miles as we transitioned into digital. Now I'm looking to get back into it to a degree and have settled on MFT as a good mid-point to glom onto.

I'm thinking about the E-PL1 or either the G-1 (more likely) or GF-1 (less likely - I'd want a decent EVF at least some of the time). I'll probably stick with a kit zoom lens for a while but will no doubt add a real wide angle at some point and maybe a long telephoto also. I've stopped in a couple of shops and played around with both the G-1 and E-PL1 and would be happy enough with either in terms of handling and operation, but only if I got the optional EVF with the Olympus - there are times I'd really want that. I took some shots on each on my SD card and brought them home and played around with them. Fast AF isn't a huge deal - my kids are grown and I don't shoot sports. Video isn't really an issue. I probably wouldn't get a pancake that's within the range of the kit lens, but never say never.

As I understand the pros and cons, if I get a Panasonic, I'm pretty well limited to Pany lenses as well if I want the anti-shake features since that's built into the lens rather than the body. If I go with Oly, I know I can use the Oly lenses, but can I also use the Pany lenses? How does the anti-shake in the lens interact with the anti-shake in the camera body - or do you just turn one of them off?

I also very much agree that the Oly produces nicer JPEGs, based on my own shots and the comparison shots I've seen all over the web. So that may be an issue - I have no idea if I'm going to get back into this enough to want to shoot everything RAW and manipulate the hell out of the files later. And frankly, even using as limited a tool as iphoto, I'm really impressed with how much I can do to "fix" the JPEGs I'm getting out of my latest P&S.

All of that has me leaning somewhat toward the Oly, but G-1s are just about as inexpensive these days AND the kit lens with that sounds like a much nicer lens than the one on the Olympus. And I wouldn't have to pay another $200+ for the EVF. So that sort of sends me back toward the G-1. I sort of like the look of the E-PL1, but it really didn't feel any smaller or lighter in my hand, so that's not really an issue between the two. And the grip and articulating screen on the G-1 wouldn't be BAD things to have.

Have I identified the key tradeoffs? Am I missing anything I should really be thinking about. I appreciate any thoughts from you folks as I go forward with this.

To me Panasonic has the better system philosophy overall. It has better (more ergonomic) bodies and a better lens line-up with a much more promising lens roadmap. The Olympus strategy with relying on a retro style mythos (the PEN mythos) and with a strange body release policy (one body correcting major ommission from the predecessor, instead of doing things right from the beginning) never convinced me.

As a enthusiastic photographer, I think you would be happier with a G1-style body. If you are not inclined into full HD video the new G2 body would probably the best for you. Otherwise the more expensive GH1 body, which has the best m4/3 sensor (with multi aspect feature) so far, could be the way to go.

Regarding JPEG quality, for the default adjustments, you are probably rigth that Olympus has the edge, but you can adjust the internal camera settings of the Panasonic models to an extent that matches the Olympus JPEGs closely. However, as you were a "darkroomer" I suggest that you shoot raw, so that in-body JPEG conversion does not matter.

The G1/GH1/G2 style bodies have the following advantages:

• very good (and large!!) build-in EVF
• automatic switch between LCD and EVF (the attachable EVFs do not have this - a dealbreaker!)
• tiltable LCD
• high-res LCD
• hot shoe always usable (i.e. when using an EVF - the attachable EVFs takes the place of the hot shoe)
• faster AF
• the grip (you can hold the body with one hand, even if a larger lens is attached)
• more robust body design (build-in EVF)
• larger, better reachable external controls (i.e. the large mode dial, which is better to use with gloves)

The Panasonic lens line-up has some nice gems: the 7-14mm, the 20mm pancake, and the very versatile 14-140mm with its silent AF

Best regards

Thomas

--
Thomas

I think you have sized up the major differences as I saw them, when I was making the same sorts of decisions. Although I've never actually used one of the Olympus models, I do have the Gf1 as well as the G1, however, and have an EVF for the Gf1.

For $624, delivered, from Amazon, you can get a Blue G1 along with the very nice 14-45mm OIS kit lens. The lens itself is worth around $400, so the body is almost given away. Even if you decide later that you made a mistake on the G1, the lens is a keeper and with it you won't need to rush out and buy another lens right away. If you decide later you don't like the G1, or if you want to change over to something else in the micro 4/3rds system, you could always ebay the G1 body and get back a large proportion of its incremental cost.

IMO the differences between the current crop of m4/3 cameras is so slight as to barely matter. I seriously doubt there is even a single shot you can get with one camera that you can't get with another.

As such, I'd go with Olympus if you want IBIS and top-notch JPEGs. Otherwise, any Panasonic is fine.

That G-1 deal is kind of what I was thinking about. The GH-1 is more than I want to spend, especially since I don't want that big a lens and don't care one way or the other about video. But you're right, the G-1 kit lens is a good beginning and I can replace the body as the electronics and sensors evolve over time. And it'll save me enough to possibly buy a wide angle at some point.

But that's where the dilemma starts. I'm kind of intrigued by the Oly 9-18 that's coming out as a lens I could keep on a lot of the time. The Pany 7-14 is a little wider than I'd want for anything except real specialty situations and more money than I want to spend. But if I buy Oly lenses, no anti-shake, right? Not that anti-shake is all that critical with wide angle, but once you get used to using it, you get a bit lazy and sort of rely on it.

Speaking of which, does anyone know how the Oly body would interact with a Pany lens where you'd have two separate anti-shake systems at work? Again, do you just turn one of them off?

-Ray

tgutgu said:

To me Panasonic has the better system philosophy overall. It has better (more ergonomic) bodies and a better lens line-up with a much more promising lens roadmap....

Click to expand...

It isn't better or worse, it's just different.

Olympus is a bit more oriented towards consumer-level and light/compact lenses right now with m4/3, because they can nudge users to 4/3 when it's time to step up. Panasonic, on the other hand, does not have a pro DSLR system and has never aimed for that kind of space, which Olympus has for years.

Panasonic makes better lenses, but they are also larger and substantially more expensive. Of course, any m4/3 lens can go on any m4/3 camera, so the question of who has better lenses or a more promising roadmap is essentially moot.

tgutgu said:

As a enthusiastic photographer, I think you would be happier with a G1-style body....

Click to expand...

Maybe, I kind of like the ergonomics of the G1. But considering the size and bulk, you almost might as well pick up an entry-level DSLR.

Ray Sachs said:

I also very much agree that the Oly produces nicer JPEGs, based on my own shots and the comparison shots I've seen all over the web. So that may be an issue - I have no idea if I'm going to get back into this enough to want to shoot everything RAW and manipulate the hell out of the files later. And frankly, even using as limited a tool as iphoto, I'm really impressed with how much I can do to "fix" the JPEGs I'm getting out of my latest P&S.

Click to expand...

Olympus Master 2 that comes with the E-P1 (and presumably with the E-PL1) emulates Olympus camera JPG. You can shoot raw, or raw plus JPG, open the raw in OM2, see how it looks in any camera JPG mode, then save any mode as a JPG. Or you can save as a TIF for input to another post-processing program when you want to tweak an image.

tgutgu said:

To me Panasonic has the better system philosophy overall. It has better (more ergonomic) bodies and a better lens line-up with a much more promising lens roadmap. The Olympus strategy with relying on a retro style mythos (the PEN mythos) and with a strange body release policy (one body correcting major ommission from the predecessor, instead of doing things right from the beginning) never convinced me.

As a enthusiastic photographer, I think you would be happier with a G1-style body. If you are not inclined into full HD video the new G2 body would probably the best for you. Otherwise the more expensive GH1 body, which has the best m4/3 sensor (with multi aspect feature) so far, could be the way to go.

Regarding JPEG quality, for the default adjustments, you are probably rigth that Olympus has the edge, but you can adjust the internal camera settings of the Panasonic models to an extent that matches the Olympus JPEGs closely. However, as you were a "darkroomer" I suggest that you shoot raw, so that in-body JPEG conversion does not matter.

The G1/GH1/G2 style bodies have the following advantages:

• very good (and large!!) build-in EVF
• automatic switch between LCD and EVF (the attachable EVFs do not have this - a dealbreaker!)
• tiltable LCD
• high-res LCD
• hot shoe always usable (i.e. when using an EVF - the attachable EVFs takes the place of the hot shoe)
• faster AF
• the grip (you can hold the body with one hand, even if a larger lens is attached)
• more robust body design (build-in EVF)
• larger, better reachable external controls (i.e. the large mode dial, which is better to use with gloves)

The Panasonic lens line-up has some nice gems: the 7-14mm, the 20mm pancake, and the very versatile 14-140mm with its silent AF

Best regards

Thomas

--
Thomas

Click to expand...

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

• http://aleo-photo.org

• http://blog.aleo-photo.org

SpinOne said:

tgutgu said:

To me Panasonic has the better system philosophy overall. It has better (more ergonomic) bodies and a better lens line-up with a much more promising lens roadmap....

Click to expand...

It isn't better or worse, it's just different.

Click to expand...

• Yes, different and Better

SpinOne said:

Olympus is a bit more oriented towards consumer-level and light/compact lenses right now with m4/3, because they can nudge users to 4/3 when it's time to step up. Panasonic, on the other hand, does not have a pro DSLR system and has never aimed for that kind of space, which Olympus has for years.

Panasonic makes better lenses, but they are also larger and substantially more expensive. Of course, any m4/3 lens can go on any m4/3 camera, so the question of who has better lenses or a more promising roadmap is essentially moot.

SpinOne said:

As a enthusiastic photographer, I think you would be happier with a G1-style body....

Click to expand...

Maybe, I kind of like the ergonomics of the G1. But considering the size and bulk, you almost might as well pick up an entry-level DSLR.

Click to expand...

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

• http://aleo-photo.org

• http://blog.aleo-photo.org

• I think the essential is said, you must think, I came up from very good SLR and now I am happy with a Panasonic micro 4/3 system, have the G1 and GF1 with 4 lenses, from 7 do 200 focal lengths

• Any you buy you will be fine, but I advice you to buy Panasonic Lumix, not because I am a fan boy or something like that, Panasonic Lumix are fast, very intuitive to use, superb build for this price, I prefer OIS to IBIS, is more effective and the lens that need IS have the OIS, other side is the optics, I prefer the Panasonic Lumix lenses, but on this matter you can use both on any micro 4/3 camera and a lot more of old lenses from every brand

Think well and good luck, The G system is good the EP system is good, choose the one for you

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

• http://aleo-photo.org

• http://blog.aleo-photo.org

Since you are an ex-SLR photographer, why not consider the Olympus 620 or even 520 with fine 14~54mm lens?

Ray Sachs said:

That G-1 deal is kind of what I was thinking about. The GH-1 is more than I want to spend, especially since I don't want that big a lens and don't care one way or the other about video. But you're right, the G-1 kit lens is a good beginning and I can replace the body as the electronics and sensors evolve over time. And it'll save me enough to possibly buy a wide angle at some point.

But that's where the dilemma starts. I'm kind of intrigued by the Oly 9-18 that's coming out as a lens I could keep on a lot of the time. The Pany 7-14 is a little wider than I'd want for anything except real specialty situations and more money than I want to spend. But if I buy Oly lenses, no anti-shake, right? Not that anti-shake is all that critical with wide angle, but once you get used to using it, you get a bit lazy and sort of rely on it.

Speaking of which, does anyone know how the Oly body would interact with a Pany lens where you'd have two separate anti-shake systems at work? Again, do you just turn one of them off?

-Ray

Click to expand...

If I was taking a serious wide angle photo where I was concerned about camera shake, I'd bring along some sort of device to hold the camera steady. Even if you are out in the middle of nowhere, there are small tripods and monopods designed for hiking that weigh almost nothing and that can stabilize your camera, making image stabilization totally unnecessary. I have taken some very nice wide angle shots that were handheld, but I don't think that any of the lenses I used had image stabilization built in. Most good landscape photos I've taken were not taken in such a low light situation that this was an issue.

I have personally never taken a great picture that I believe was great because either my camera or attached lens had image stabilization built in. But then, maybe I am missing something.

Ray Sachs said:

That G-1 deal is kind of what I was thinking about. The GH-1 is more than I > Speaking of which, does anyone know how the Oly body would interact with a Pany lens where you'd have two separate anti-shake systems at work? Again, do you just turn one of them off?

-Ray

Click to expand...

Turn one or the other off. If you use lens-based IS, then the viewfinder is stabilized.

For me, I like the E-P1, but either choice is valid. I didn't choose the E-P1 as my only system. I still have and used frequently my Pentax dSLR. If I was going with just one system (and it wasn't a dSLR), then I'd look more seriously at the Panny offerings. To me, they just don't float my boat, in a purely subjective way. Either system is nice and can take wonderful (or terrible) shots.

--
Russ
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rfortson/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/russfortson
Even bad photography can be fun

Ray Sachs said:

I also very much agree that the Oly produces nicer JPEGs, based on my own shots and the comparison shots I've seen all over the web. So that may be an issue - I have no idea if I'm going to get back into this enough to want to shoot everything RAW and manipulate the hell out of the files later. And frankly, even using as limited a tool as iphoto, I'm really impressed with how much I can do to "fix" the JPEGs I'm getting out of my latest P&S.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Just wanted to point out that e-pl1 raws are also better than anything panasonic.

Yeah, I know, feature addiction is a funny thing. All of the time I was "serious", mostly in the late '70s and early '80s, I was shooting with a Pentax SLR with 50 mm and 28mm lenses. NOTHING was automated on that camera, although it did have onboard light metering, which wasn't a given on some of the higher end slightly older cameras that a lot of folks were using. Then when I was working in a camera shop in the mid-80s, auto-focus was BRAND spanking new (we had the first Minolta Maxims at the time), but nobody quite trusted it. I bought a Nikon with automatic exposure and it seemed revolutionary that you could set aperture priority or shutter priority on it. And I got a Tamron 28-85 zoom and thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

The quality of the image is never determined by the camera - just look at some of the shots taken with compacts in the current challenge. Although it makes a difference in some of the fine details. But now that anti-shake is out there, it would seem silly to buy a camera and lens combination that didn't have it just because the camera (Pany) relies on the lenses for anti-shake and the lens-maker (Oly) depends on the body for anti-shake. One thing in the Oly's favor is I could use any lenses since the body already has it covered.

I'm actually reasonably happy with the stuff I can do with my Pany super-zoom compact (ZS3). I do a lot of bicycling and bike touring and having a P&S that fits in my pocket or handlebar bag is critical. But I'm heading back to Europe this summer with a lot of time just walking around and it seemed like a good time for a nicer camera again.

Here's a bike shot from my area taken with the P&S that I pulled out of a sweaty jersey pocket.

ulfie said:

Since you are an ex-SLR photographer, why not consider the Olympus 620 or even 520 with fine 14~54mm lens?

Click to expand...

Good question, if I consider one it will be the e-620, but these days prefer micro 4/3, the quality is enough for what I do now as a pro, if I need quality now I prefer the Leica M9 to the D700 or a D3

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

• http://aleo-photo.org

• http://blog.aleo-photo.org

Ray Sachs said:

Yeah, I know, feature addiction is a funny thing. All of the time I was "serious", mostly in the late '70s and early '80s, I was shooting with a Pentax SLR with 50 mm and 28mm lenses. NOTHING was automated on that camera, although it did have onboard light metering, which wasn't a given on some of the higher end slightly older cameras that a lot of folks were using. Then when I was working in a camera shop in the mid-80s, auto-focus was BRAND spanking new (we had the first Minolta Maxims at the time), but nobody quite trusted it. I bought a Nikon with automatic exposure and it seemed revolutionary that you could set aperture priority or shutter priority on it. And I got a Tamron 28-85 zoom and thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

Click to expand...

Just read this thread and was going to say exactly this. I used an M3 from 1965 to 1997, but like you ended up taking more photos with a little Olympus 35RC - because it would go in my pocket.

I now have a G1 with a 20mm f/1.7, which fits in my jacket pocket, and I have the 14-45 and 45-200mm lenses (bought the latter 2 with the G1 in the special launch offer). I'm getting better quality than I did with my beloved Leica. But not because of the AF and IS, though that helps, but just because I can take more shots.

Ray Sachs said:

The quality of the image is never determined by the camera - just look at some of the shots taken with compacts in the current challenge. Although it makes a difference in some of the fine details. But now that anti-shake is out there, it would seem silly to buy a camera and lens combination that didn't have it just because the camera (Pany) relies on the lenses for anti-shake and the lens-maker (Oly) depends on the body for anti-shake. One thing in the Oly's favor is I could use any lenses since the body already has it covered.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it isn't an overriding factor.

Ray Sachs said:

I'm actually reasonably happy with the stuff I can do with my Pany super-zoom compact (ZS3). I do a lot of bicycling and bike touring and having a P&S that fits in my pocket or handlebar bag is critical. But I'm heading back to Europe this summer with a lot of time just walking around and it seemed like a good time for a nicer camera again.

Click to expand...

I went through the Panny superzooms, but still can imaging using a camera I couldn't put to my eye. You won't regret the G1, and it does take the Oly lenses - even at the expense of IS.

Lastly, don't judge the photos on the default jpgs - they can be adjusted to your taste, and in any case the RAW is there to be used.

Ray Sachs said:

Here's a bike shot from my area taken with the P&S that I pulled out of a sweaty jersey pocket.

Click to expand...

I like it!

Mike
--
Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 50 years
http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I think I'd identified most of the key differences, but you gave me a few more things to think about. You've confirmed that there are some compelling reasons to go with the G-1, but I have to confess my gut still pulls somewhat toward the E-PL1. I think part of it is less need for post processing, the ability to use Oly OR Pany lenses and still have the anti-shake. And the slightly smaller size / form factor still plays some role, although I doubt it wold make much practical difference after owning either for a little while. The biggest downside seems to be the kit lens, but if i figure I'd be upgrading lenses in time with either setup, that's not hugely compelling. And I do like the small size of the kit lens on the Oly when collapsed.

Anyway, I appreciate your patience with a newbie. I hang out on a couple of cycling forums and espresso forums and it gets mildly frustrating when new folks show up with the basic questions you've already been through about a thousand times. But I try to remember to be patient and helpful because we've all been there. I appreciate that you all have taken the same helpful attitude with me.

-Ray

I wouldn't worry too much about the 14-42. It's a solid performer that will give you what is to be expected from a slow kit zoom (just like the Panasonic 14-45 will). I'd like to suggest that you get a cheap Pentax to m4/3 adapter and try your old lenses. Of course, they won't support auto focus and you will lose the ability to use shutter priority, but they may give you more DOF control and "different" results. As you rightly said, the equipment you use has nothing to do with the photographs you make. I like that.
Cheers.
--
Gallery: http://weatherloony.fruitsens.com/snphoto.html

Ray Sachs said:

As I understand the pros and cons, if I get a Panasonic, I'm pretty well limited to Pany lenses as well if I want the anti-shake features since that's built into the lens rather than the body.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think that's a big issue. For the kit lens you'd have it in the 14-45, for tele lenses lens-based IS is more effective anyway and for wide-angles IS isn't that important. For legacy MF lenses and the 20mm pancake body-IS would be useful though.

Ray Sachs said:

If I go with Oly, I know I can use the Oly lenses, but can I also use the Pany lenses?

Click to expand...

Yes, you could and you should. At the moment Pany lenses are better.

Note that Pany bodies correct both distortion and CA while Oly bodies/lenses only do distortion. So if you use a Pany lens on an Oly body then you lose CA correction (a minor thing).

Ray Sachs said:

I have no idea if I'm going to get back into this enough to want to shoot everything RAW and manipulate the hell out of the files later.

Click to expand...

RAW processing is easy and fun, especially if you've developed actual film before. I think you will like it, especially given your comment regarding iphone and fixing JPEGs.

Ray Sachs said:

Have I identified the key tradeoffs? Am I missing anything I should really be thinking about. I appreciate any thoughts from you folks as I go forward with this.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the lenses will stay with me longer so I need to buy the better lenses. Since the Pany kit 14-45 is widely regarded as better than Oly kit 14-42, and like-wise for the 20mm vs. 17mm, I got a Pany body. You can always buy a body-only Oly at some later date to get IBIS.

But obviously pricing and Oly charging a higher premium for living in the UK played a huge role, so your situation might be different. Good luck.