E-PL1 vs Nikon D5000, 2 questions.

I would like to know the following:

1. Of the two cameras E-PL1 with VF-2 and 14-42mm vs Nikon 5000 with 16-85mm which one would have a better and esasier to use view finder (EVF vs OVF). By easier to use I mean clear and large view of the subject.

2. Of the two cameras with the lenses described above which one would produce the best JPEG out of the camera so that a minimum amount of PP is required. The cameras will be adjusted for the best JPEG outcome.

If anybody had the change to use both cameras I would really like your opinion!!!!
--
sergio

Strange comparision as very very different cameras

D5000 has quite a small viewfinder , The Oly has a nice bright 100% EVF great for manual focusing.
Nikon Jpegs are great although a little soft out of camera
Oly Jpegs need no work at all.

Would of thought there is far more to consider between the 2 such as size , autofocus speed etc .
Theses are chalk and cheese cameras

The E-PL1 does not come with the EVF, so you'll have to buy it. However, if you buy it it is around D300 size viewing. In other words it's really nice. You can see what you are going to be shooting through the viewfinder ahead of time.

I'm not familiar with the Nikon viewfinder, but I'm assuming it's not as nice as the D300 viewfinder.

If you don't buy that you'll be shooting with the LCD on the back, which works just fine for a lot of applications. In fact with the smaller lenses it works better. You'll need the viewfinder if you want to attach big heavy lenses to it.

JPG quality to me is a no brainer. The E-PL1 will have one of the best engines on the market, bar none.

The Nikon will focus faster, so if that's an issue then you'll need to get that. But for everything else the E-PL1 is great.

Do a comparison of image quality between the models here. It will enlighten you.(I believe these are jpgs)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

It is very obvious that Nikon D5000 body beats E-PL1 body and the 16-85mm beats the 14-42mm in every aspects except for the size. Plus the nikon package here costs more than Oly package.

sergioalberto said:

I would like to know the following:

1. Of the two cameras E-PL1 with VF-2 and 14-42mm vs Nikon 5000 with 16-85mm which one would have a better and esasier to use view finder (EVF vs OVF). By easier to use I mean clear and large view of the subject.

2. Of the two cameras with the lenses described above which one would produce the best JPEG out of the camera so that a minimum amount of PP is required. The cameras will be adjusted for the best JPEG outcome.

If anybody had the change to use both cameras I would really like your opinion!!!!
--
sergio

Click to expand...

The Nikon 16-85mm is a huge midrange standard zoom lens where as the Olympus 14-42 is a tiny kit lens. Having said that, the quality is not much if at all better than the Olympus. If you want an equivalent lens, you need to buy the regular Olympus 4 3rds 14-54 MKII lens with an adapter.

The image quality of the E-pl1 is undoubtedly better. The dynamic range of the sensor is greater and the noise levels according to tests has caught up with the APS sensors.

Probably the D5000 would be better... especially pixel peeping...

I would still say the EVF is so much better to use than any OVF of any crop sensor camera I have tried out. Mainly because you have all the options of the LCD, like magnification, which is obviously not available in an OVF.

For a day to day camera I would choose the E-P series over any other camera, simply because I can have it with me always...

Landscapephoto99 said:

The Nikon 16-85mm is a huge midrange standard zoom lens where as the Olympus 14-42 is a tiny kit lens. Having said that, the quality is not much if at all better than the Olympus. If you want an equivalent lens, you need to buy the regular Olympus 4 3rds 14-54 MKII lens with an adapter.

The image quality of the E-pl1 is undoubtedly better. The dynamic range of the sensor is greater and the noise levels according to tests has caught up with the APS sensors.

Click to expand...

The Nikon 16-85mm is not huge at all

The IQ of the E-pl1 is far better ? DR better ? lovely camera but sorry the Nikon sensor sets the standard

The E-PL1 really does well in these examples, at ISO 1600. It's resolving more detail, much clearer, and noise levels look great.

Not trying to start a war, but just want people to not make assumptions without knowing the facts.

The E-PL1 is doing some good things.

FYI, D5000 on the left, E-PL1 on the right. ISO 1600. (FYI it's even better at lower isos)

I went to the site and looked at both. And Nikon does look much better in terms of noise(look at the black coffee cup, shows almost no noise where EPL1 shows lots of color and luma noise). Again, this setting was very well lit and it is not a good

way for comparing high iso noise. When you shoot both camera in dim lighting then you will find D5000 has better control in noise dept.

Most APS-C size or even Full size sensor cameras tend to produce soft or less sharp images compared to P&S digital and this does not mean all the big guys are bad or inferior to those small guys. Just because a canon G11's image looks clearer or sharper than a D5000 at base iso at the imaging-resource means G11 a better camera than the D5000 for example!!

stimmer said:

The E-PL1 really does well in these examples, at ISO 1600. It's resolving more detail, much clearer, and noise levels look great.

Not trying to start a war, but just want people to not make assumptions without knowing the facts.

The E-PL1 is doing some good things.

FYI, D5000 on the left, E-PL1 on the right. ISO 1600. (FYI it's even better at lower isos)

Click to expand...

My impressions are that the E-P cameras perform in detail and sharpness the way DSLRs rarely do.

When you suspect DSLR softness they tell you to calibrate.
When your DSLR photo is soft they tell you to double the price of your lens.
When your DSLR is still soft they tell you its the anti-aliasing filter.

When the mirror is removed it can't be used for faulty focus.

I agree with the comparison shots.

When a camera is designed properly calibration is never required because the lens mount and sensor don't move except for dust.

--

Torch

Torch said:

The 14-42 lens I know doesn't test well, but wow outside it
does a pretty marvelous job at producing some great images.

Click to expand...

I've been pondering a E-PL1 + Panasonic 14-45 OIS combo. The Panasonic lens is supposed to be a little sharper, the IQ a little better, and faster to focus (up to twice as fast some have said). Plus you get stabilized video. It's 2cm longer than the Oly lens, but hmmm ...

Landscapephoto99 said:

The Nikon 16-85mm is a huge midrange standard zoom lens where as the Olympus 14-42 is a tiny kit lens. Having said that, the quality is not much if at all better than the Olympus. If you want an equivalent lens, you need to buy the regular Olympus 4 3rds 14-54 MKII lens with an adapter.

The image quality of the E-pl1 is undoubtedly better. The dynamic range of the sensor is greater and the noise levels according to tests has caught up with the APS sensors.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but not true. I had the E-P1 (traded it in for a G1, because I couldn't get used to shooting without a viewfinder) and also have a Nikon D5000. The D5000 has far better image quality then both the E-P1 and the G1. (Note: I only shoot raw.)

Noise control is far better, besides that, there really is no comparison in shooting speed and handling. To me the D5000 tops both on everything, even it's smaller viewfinder is better then the very good evf the G1 has. There's a huge difference in looking at a digital screen and a true optical viewfinder.

However; the E-P1 and the G do give great results and are a lot easier to carry around all the time because of their size and weight. It's a compromise but a good one.

The D5000 I take with me when I'm going out to take pictures. Otherwise it stays home. The G1 is always in my bag with the 17mm on it. It's about the size of my Konica Hexar and that makes it almost perfect for everyday use. (Only the Hexar itself is better)

Now only if someone would make a digital Hexar AF, exact same body, lens, af, and optical viewfinder combo but with a fullframe sensor and swivel screen (heck, i'll take it without a screen. )

bskbo said:

...

Now only if someone would make a digital Hexar AF, exact same body, lens, af, and optical viewfinder combo but with a fullframe sensor and swivel screen (heck, i'll take it without a screen. )

Click to expand...

The Hexar was/is a great camera, nearly perfect, if you can live with the fixed 35mm lens and the 1/250 top shutter speed. A digital version would be a low cost competitor to the Leica M9.

OTOH, as Micro FT evolves, it may play that role as well: small, unobtrusive, quiet, EVFs that match optical viewfinders, high-quality lenses, and good IQ.

--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude

There is more detail in the E-PL1 shot, the Nikon is smudging the image a bit to lower the noise level, but the levels of noise are pretty close.

My point wasn't really about noise(which would not show up on a print anyway). It was about the resolving power of a $600 camera that you can stick in your large pockets.

You can do the same test against a D300, Canon 40D, etc, whatever you want and this little camera does remarkably well against them.

Your post is non sensical because the other cameras you mentioned don't even come close to this performance.

It's really hard for fans of cameras to just give it up where giving it up is due. Olympus deserves some props on this. They've done a great job of making a 4/3 sensor pretty much equal and even better in some ways a much larger sensor.

Of course it won't perform like an SLR, it's not really supposed to though. It's a compliment to an SLR system, something you can actually carry with you when you want to hang low and still get great photos.

I think any photographer would be open to that kind of proposition for $600.

I concur with the others that these are two completely different cameras.

The E-PL1 is a consumer-level camera, essentially a P&S on steroids; highly portable, unobtrusive, not a particularly solid camera. The D5000 is more of a midrange entry-level DSLR; slightly faster, slightly better image and lens quality, has a real grip, but bulkier and heavier.

sergioalberto said:

1. Of the two cameras E-PL1 with VF-2 and 14-42mm vs Nikon 5000 with 16-85mm which one would have a better and esasier to use view finder (EVF vs OVF).

Click to expand...

I expect this is a matter of taste. Some people prefer the EVF's, others find it has too much lag. I recommend you go to a store and compare both.

sergioalberto said:

2. Of the two cameras with the lenses described above which one would produce the best JPEG out of the camera so that a minimum amount of PP is required. The cameras will be adjusted for the best JPEG outcome.

Click to expand...

Nikon JPEGs by default are a bit soft; not a bad plan as it allows you to tweak the sharpening manually in post. Olympus can have really good color rendition, though I've found that depends a bit on getting the right exposure (which I expect is common for most JPEG engines).