DSLR preachers put to bed? (E-PL1 review)

BamaPanda · May 19, 2010

One problem in condemning someone nit picking (to coin a phrase) the report and end results is that ...

Many will read the whole review ..and gather all the good & bad points, making an informed decision.

Many others will go to the last page - results only, and go on that basis. For the results page to not carry at least all the high points - such as live view and video - might be considered a real important error.

An easy fix would be for the reviewer to go back and fix a few things - quickly, while the iron is still hot (to coin another phrase).

Face it. Most of us in this country want nothing but instant gratification. Shows up here and in the voting booth.

sean000 · May 19, 2010

I'm finding that for many shots I get results out of the GF1 that equal, and on occasion even better, the output from my Nikon D200 (at least up to ISO 800). It just depends on what I'm photographing though. Of course the D200 has other advantages beyond sensor-related aspects of IQ: Excellent native lens options that have no native m4/3 equivalents, better autofocus, better flash options and controls, a big and bright optical viewfinder, excellent controls via manual switches and dials... The GF1 has its advantages as well though. The fact that it is smaller and lighter to carry is the main one for me.

For most of the photographs I take, m4/3 and APS-C are in the same class when it comes to IQ, and I use the camera I need for that day based on other factors. When I do choose to use my DSLR, I take the GF1 along as well. I end up using both cameras simultaneously with different lenses. That has given me plenty of opportunities to compare how each camera system handles the same subject. If it weren't for the file extensions, I'd have a hard time telling my GF1 RAW files from my Nikon RAW files when it comes to examining the image quality.

Sean

Jogger · May 19, 2010

The 10mp CCD is many years old; how does that EPL1 compare against a current gen APSc sensor such as the NEX3/5.. lol. or even an older design like the D5000 12mp chip, which seems to have been purposely excluded from the comparison to make the EPL1 look good.

As well, given that its 12mp you would think that there would be more resolution than a 10mp chip, how is that surprising?

sensibill said:
As I enter my second month of owning the E-PL1, I have to differ on several points of the new DPR review, but the rather incontrovertible proof in the pudding seems to render much of the DSLR proselytizing here lately somewhat moot:

vs. RAW: "The dramatic difference between the D3000 and the E-PL1 seen in the JPEG comparison have all but disappeared but the Olympus is clearly still capturing the better representation of the scene."

vs. JPEG: "The higher resolution and better JPEG engine of the E-PL1 puts the baby Nikon to shame - with the Olympus trumping the DSLR in every respect."

High ISO JPEG: "The E-PL1 is not only doing a better job here than either of the other Micro Four Thirds cameras, but is also doing a better job of balancing noise and detail than the larger-sensored D3000."

"Most impressive is the E-PL1's ability to produce results comparable with the EOS 500D and Pentax K-x, despite its smaller sensor."

So we have established not all implementations of the APS-C are inherently superior to all implementations of the M43 (and it's not all the Olympus JPEG engine). The D3000 isn't a total POS camera, as I've used my girlfriend's a bit since she bought it. It simply represents the lower end of the APS-C food chain, a good match for the E-PL1, which occupies the bottom of the M43 price range.

Of course, the D3000 was picked for price - and it gives up 720P Video and Live View to the Olympus, the latter of which wasn't mentioned in the comparison section.

So, DSLR preachers - thanks, but we still get to like our M43 cameras, and we don't really need (or want) daily reminders of why you don't like them, or sold yours, or won't buy into the format. You can like your DSLRs. Just be careful where you drop the 'APS-C is always better' bombs, because some of us have E-PL1s.

billzilla2000 · May 19, 2010

Sam Bennett said:
I pay fairly close attention to this forum(...)not seen anyone making that broad of a generalization. If you have, feel free to point them out.

No, I'm not quoting every instance of APS-C being touted as inherently superior. I don't need to, as there are references to that even in this thread. You make them, yourself, claiming the D3000 is the only APS-C camera that the E-PL1 can beat because it's hamstrung by its 'out of date sensor tech'.

Sam Bennett said:
Okay, I'm really sick of this. I'm giving you one last chance to prove that you can engage in discussion without making personal insults.

OK, Sam. I apologize for using the term 'arrogant' although I was indicating your tone , which IMO comes across clipped. You also imply a far greater knowledge of this subject than those who disagree (citing various cameras you own, etc.) and IMHO, that has not always facilitated your point nor bolstered your accuracy.

Sam Bennett said:
I didn't claim it was intentional on DPR's behalf. (...) There are better performers, even in the same price range, whether DPR decided to include them or not.

The D3000 isn't an APS-C camera? It's not representative? The 500D is NOT in this price range. If you want, we can compare 1000D, but at some point don't you agree this is hairsplitting?

Sam Bennett said:
I don't really disagree here. But there are dSLRs around the same price that provide better high ISO performance and DR. (...) would be surprised if the D3000's successor has a CCD sensor.

I'd only contend that the DSLRs in that same price range (street price of under $600) are not significantly better with DR or higher ISO, certainly not OOC JPEG. The article does reference the Pentax and 500D.

Sam Bennett said:
Why does anyone need high ISO performance? Lots of reasons - from shooting in low-light at home to shooting indoors sports, etc.

Strawman again, Sam. Not saying nobody 'needs' ISO performance nor did I solicit a lesson (yes, it feels like you're lecturing) on what situations call for higher ISO.

Sam Bennett said:
If you need good high ISO performance, then MFT probably isn't a good choice for you.

Just because it may not quite equal a T2i at 1600+ ISO doesn't mean the E-PL1 isn't providing "good" high ISO performance, as you put it.

Sam Bennett said:
look up the definition of a "strawman argument", because it's pretty clear you don't get what it is.

There's that tone, again. Please stop with it and I'll stop saying you're being arrogant and/or condescending.

As per the Wiki, 'A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.'

When a DSLR fan starts talking about how ISO and DoF or DR performance is 'poor' as compared to a FF camera, it's a strawman. It's irrelevant and meant to divert attention to a 'shortcoming' that does not exist.

Another definition of 'straw man' is: 'the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument'

And again, it applies. M43 is inferior in overall IQ performance to FF and some APS - yet that is neither the point of M43 nor is it any claim I have seen made by ANY M43 owners in this forum.

So thanks, I don't need a lesson on 'strawman' tactics.

Sam Bennett said:
Well, duh. I also haven't bemoaned how the E-PL1 compares to the D700. I don't really care, ultimately. I don't use my MFT gear for what I use my D700 for.

Great. Some people lack your perspective, and they're the ones I'm talking about with my OP.

Sam Bennett said:
... for people used to FF dSLRs the difference in performance is immense.

The knowledge is already out there and doesn't need expounding as frequently as it has been, here, in this forum, lately.

...They'd suggest I'd take such discussion to the M43 forum.

Sam Bennett said:
As said already, it's actually weak even compared to cameras within the same market segment, such as the Canon 1000D, and a bit further up, the Nikon D5000.

I don't agree that's the 'same market segment' at all. M43 appeals to a different class of buyer, as noted in the review. It's not the same size, weight, control scheme, lens system, etc.

Also, I disagree it's 'weak' by comparison. Maybe marginally less DR and IQ or high ISO, but the disparity is not as significant as you're saying.

Sam Bennett said:
It is also (apparently) weaker than the Sony NEX cameras, which will be an even more direct competitor.

High ISO has been the ONLY facet of performance that the NEX hasn't proven grossly inferior in. IMO, it's another indicator that APS-C is not (yet) matching M43 in this size/price/segment.

Sam Bennett said:
Really, the only dSLR it performs better than is the D3000 which is hamstrung by a sensor design virtually no other APS-C dSLRs are using at this point.

Argue with DPR, then: "Most impressive is the E-PL1's ability to produce results comparable with the EOS 500D and Pentax K-x, despite its smaller sensor."

Sam Bennett said:
I used the 20mm most of the time when I was using the E-PL1, so it definitely was an issue for me.

Lots of things were big, well-expressed/documented issues for you in the 6 days you owned your E-PL1, but honestly Sam, I feel you have blown a few of those out of proportion. Not saying this is one of them, but nevertheless, it bears noting.

billzilla2000 · May 19, 2010

Jogger said:
The 10mp CCD is many years old; how does that EPL1 compare against a current gen APSc sensor such as the NEX3/5.. lol. or even an older design like the D5000 12mp chip, which seems to have been purposely excluded from the comparison to make the EPL1 look good.

Ah, Jogger. Yes, it's all a conspiracy to make Olympus look good. The E-PL1 review was totally glowing and practically a puff piece... With inflated rating of 68%.

Jogger said:
As well, given that its 12mp you would think that there would be more resolution than a 10mp chip, how is that surprising?

Nobody said it would be surprising.

PS: The NEX pics look terrible. 'lol'.

Dennis · May 19, 2010

sensibill said:
billzilla2000 said:

I pay fairly close attention to this forum(...)not seen anyone making that broad of a generalization. If you have, feel free to point them out.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not quoting every instance of APS-C being touted as inherently superior. I don't need to, as there are references to that even in this thread. You make them, yourself, claiming the D3000 is the only APS-C camera that the E-PL1 can beat because it's hamstrung by its 'out of date sensor tech'.

Not only that, the E-PL1 only "beats" the D3000 if you look at jpeg engines; dxomark results say the D3000 (and 500D) still have better sensors. The GH1 sensor gets (very) slightly higher scores. But now you're in a higher price range.

I'm not sure why this should be subject to debate or controversial. Bigger sensors gather more light; sensor technology advances can provide temporary gains to one platform or another.

But ...

I also don't see DSLR "preaching" here to any extent ...

APS-C versus 4/3 isn't the same as DSLR versus EVIL and there are 4/3 DSLRs and APS-C EVILs

Even if every APS-C sensor in existence now & forever were to outperform every 4/3 sensor in existence no & forever, who cares ? That wouldn't invalidate 4/3's existence any more than FF invalidates APS-C's existence.

billzilla2000 said:
I'd only contend that the DSLRs in that same price range (street price of under $600) are not significantly better with DR or higher ISO, certainly not OOC JPEG.

Even if measurably better, not a big deal to most. It may be a big deal to some, but probably not to people who would have bought $600 DSLRs in the first place. There are a couple of markets interested in these cameras. One is the $500-600 camera kit shopper. The other is the enthusiast who wants a compact EVIL kit. They're happy to compare apples to oranges and decide that maybe m43 is or isn't for them based on experience with a 'better' APS-C DSLR. They're also increasingly going to be looking at $600-700 NEX models and despite your comments on the lenses, the 18-55 is turning out pretty good, except maybe in the corners, and the 16/2.8 is back to the drawing board or something like that.

billzilla2000 said:
When a DSLR fan starts talking about how ISO and DoF or DR performance is 'poor' as compared to a FF camera, it's a strawman. It's irrelevant and meant to divert attention to a 'shortcoming' that does not exist.

Why doesn't it exist ? People opt not to buy digicams due to the lack of shallow DOF. Arguing that DOF isn't supposed to be shallow doesn't make it a less valid concern.

billzilla2000 said:
And again, it applies. M43 is inferior in overall IQ performance to FF and some APS - yet that is neither the point of M43 nor is it any claim I have seen made by ANY M43 owners in this forum.

If the point of m43 isn't to be better than APS-C (and I agree with you, but the degree to which it isn't better is surely something potential buyers want to know) then why the thread to point out where it may be better ?

billzilla2000 said:
I don't agree that's the 'same market segment' at all. M43 appeals to a different class of buyer, as noted in the review. It's not the same size, weight, control scheme, lens system, etc.

Someone has to have fairly arbitrary quality requirements to choose an APS-C DSLR over a m43 EVIL due to IQ. In this regard, it's apples

ranges.

But comparisons to NEX (and Samsung NX and any future systems from Nikon & Canon) are inevitable and relevant, so sensor size tradeoffs become much more relevant.

billzilla2000 said:
High ISO has been the ONLY facet of performance that the NEX hasn't proven grossly inferior in. IMO, it's another indicator that APS-C is not (yet) matching M43 in this size/price/segment.

Wow ... you sound kind of like a m43 "preacher" here. The 18-55 lens on the NEX 5 is no bigger than the GF1 & 14-45. The 18-55 lens is testing well, if not super sharp at corners (it's also available at a fantastic price) while the 16 is weak, but the jury is out until we see "production" models. AF is fast, the camera is responsive; it just happens to be designed for dummies, per Sony's marketing strategy.

Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

tinternaut · May 19, 2010

At least for the two excellent cameras mentioned in the emboldened sentence quoted.....

Of course, if all processing software and circuitry were equal then the Pentax KX (APS-C, 12.3 MP) would have the best IQ followed by the 500D (15MP APS-C) and then the E-PL1 (teeny tiny 4/3). As such, that's quite a compliment the reviewer has made towards the E-PL1 and potentially puts Olympus ahead of the curve in terms of getting the best IQ from a given size of photosite (possibly for the first time since the inception of 4/3).....

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com

Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

bskeet · May 19, 2010

In a few years everything will be different and we'll be lusting after new cameras. These models will be fond memories. A short time after that we'll all be dead. haha Enjoy your cameras. Take some pics.

--
bskeet

Sam Bennett · May 19, 2010

sensibill said:
billzilla2000 said:

I pay fairly close attention to this forum(...)not seen anyone making that broad of a generalization. If you have, feel free to point them out.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not quoting every instance of APS-C being touted as inherently superior.

The most prevalent thing I've heard isn't that they're "inherently superior", but that they have an inherent potential advantage over MFT. And that's true, like it or not. APS-C sensors are larger, so they have the potential to have higher DR, lower noise, etc. simply because the pixel density can be lower. These sorts of comparisons assume like-to-like sensor technologies, similar pipelines, etc. so they're just generalizations. As we've seen in the case of the D3000, going APS-C does not always result in better performance. But again, I personally haven't seen many people saying that every APS-C camera is better than every MFT.

billzilla2000 said:
billzilla2000 said:

Okay, I'm really sick of this. I'm giving you one last chance to prove that you can engage in discussion without making personal insults.

Click to expand...

OK, Sam. I apologize for using the term 'arrogant' although I was indicating your tone , which IMO comes across clipped.

You're reading what you want into it, I can't help that.

billzilla2000 said:
The D3000 isn't an APS-C camera? It's not representative? The 500D is NOT in this price range. If you want, we can compare 1000D, but at some point don't you agree this is hairsplitting?

Look, again, ultimately the point you're making is based upon a strawman argument - meaning, you're saying people are making an argument that they're actually not making (at least, not that I can tell). I think having the D3000 comparison in there is fine, but you seem to be trying to make an additional point that the E-PL1 is as good or better as the rest of the APS-C cameras out there, which is clearly, demonstrably false.

billzilla2000 said:
billzilla2000 said:

Why does anyone need high ISO performance? Lots of reasons - from shooting in low-light at home to shooting indoors sports, etc.

Click to expand...

Strawman again, Sam. Not saying nobody 'needs' ISO performance nor did I solicit a lesson (yes, it feels like you're lecturing) on what situations call for higher ISO.

We're just having a discussion, dude. If you feel like you're getting lectured, that's your own insecurities rising to the top. Can we just get past this?

billzilla2000 said:
billzilla2000 said:

If you need good high ISO performance, then MFT probably isn't a good choice for you.

Click to expand...

Just because it may not quite equal a T2i at 1600+ ISO doesn't mean the E-PL1 isn't providing "good" high ISO performance, as you put it.

Fine, whatever - if you need great high ISO performance, MFT probably isn't for you.

billzilla2000 said:
As per the Wiki, 'A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.'

When a DSLR fan starts talking about how ISO and DoF or DR performance is 'poor' as compared to a FF camera, it's a strawman. It's irrelevant and meant to divert attention to a 'shortcoming' that does not exist.

A strawman argument is usually one that is created by the person countering the argument to make their own point. It is an argument that doesn't actually exist. Invoking the benefits of FF are not a strawman - the differences are there and legitimate. Whether those things matter to someone considering buying a camera is another thing. In any case, my invoking them wasn't to say anything specifically about the E-PL1, was just making the point that dSLRs, as a whole, outside of APS-C see similar benefits between APS-C and FF as you see between MFT and APS-C.

billzilla2000 said:
billzilla2000 said:

As said already, it's actually weak even compared to cameras within the same market segment, such as the Canon 1000D, and a bit further up, the Nikon D5000.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that's the 'same market segment' at all. M43 appeals to a different class of buyer, as noted in the review. It's not the same size, weight, control scheme, lens system, etc.

So, it's fair for you to crow that the E-PL1 bests the D3000, but it's not fair to compare it to the 1000D? Like it or not, these are the cameras the E-PL1 is sitting next to if you walk into Best Buy. It certainly is a different class of camera, but there's still going to be overlap with the segment of people thinking of buying a dSLR. Olympus is counting on that, and their marketing reflects it.

billzilla2000 said:
billzilla2000 said:

Really, the only dSLR it performs better than is the D3000 which is hamstrung by a sensor design virtually no other APS-C dSLRs are using at this point.

Click to expand...

Argue with DPR, then: "Most impressive is the E-PL1's ability to produce results comparable with the EOS 500D and Pentax K-x, despite its smaller sensor."

"Comparable with" does not mean "better".

billzilla2000 said:
billzilla2000 said:

I used the 20mm most of the time when I was using the E-PL1, so it definitely was an issue for me.

Click to expand...

Lots of things were big, well-expressed/documented issues for you in the 6 days you owned your E-PL1, but honestly Sam, I feel you have blown a few of those out of proportion. Not saying this is one of them, but nevertheless, it bears noting.

Yes, your personal vendetta regarding my extremely candid user review of the camera is well known on this forum. Despite my attempts at pointing out how the review explicitly acknowledged my own biases as a photographer you seem to be deadset on re-making my point for me whenever you can. It was tiresome a month ago, it's still tiresome.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com

Darrell500 · May 19, 2010

I own the E500, E520, E3 and OM1. I am becoming more convinced that m/43rds will do everything my DSLR's will do except maybe a little bit better. I think the point you are trying to make is m/43rds now gives roughly DSLR quality in a small package.

Darrell

andy mclean · May 19, 2010

Darrell500 said:
I own the E500, E520, E3 and OM1. I am becoming more convinced that m/43rds will do everything my DSLR's will do except maybe a little bit better. I think the point you are trying to make is m/43rds now gives roughly DSLR quality in a small package.

Darrell

No Darrel, I'm afraid that is not it at all. His point is that since he is content with his little, rinky-dink thing, then everybody else should be too. It is inconceivable (to him) that any contrary argument of any value whatsoever can exist... and he will shout that out loud and proud from the tree-tops at sunrise and sunset every single day until he, or the forum, is dead.

;-)
--

http://www.pbase.com/andymclean/cousins_weekend&page=all
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andymclean5/

Tony Collins · May 19, 2010

Arrrgggghh...

Just

Arrrgggghhhhhh

--
Tony Collins

Peter Nelson · May 19, 2010

I think the future of photography is without question with small mirrorless cameras. Eventually they will get every aspect of performance in line with today's best pro gear. It will be a while for the ISO to be as good as FF Nikon D3S but it will be there one day. With IS lens and IBIS there really will be no need for large and heavy cameras to serve as a battledhip gun boat sized stabalizing platform. The huge lenses will become history too.

Anyone not actually seeing this has their head in the sand. The advances in technology we have seen in every aspect of elecronics validates everthing I say. Again, if you do not see the future possibilites of advancement in electronics and the effect on digital photography you have your head in the sand.

u4/3 is one such future system. I have bought into u4/3 and I am so glad I have. I have no real use for any of my Canon and Nikon Pro gear, because I'm no longer a person who works for others in the field of photography. I regret spending all the money on gear that I did not really need because u4/3 is good enough for my photography.

The rest of my photogoraphy is dependent on my skills and inner vision and not my gear. In fact what really drives much of my photography is my love of my wife and daughter and my son. I want to capture moments in our lives and print them out for us to look at and put into photo albums to keep these memories.

If you are different than me, and you need a camera to please some magazine editior or fasion editor...then go ahead and spend the money on pro medium format and or dslr gear. You need it to keep yoor job. If you are an artist then you can get by more on skill and a good eye and u4/3 will be good enough.

Also get real and understand no one can hold back progress and sooner or maybe a little later the smaller format mirrorless cameras will be good enough for allmost every type of photography. There will be areas that it will not be the best in and that is true for all the other camera formats as well. But the majority of photographers will be shooting with small mirrorless cameras in the near future.

The average non photographer is the biggest market and the p&s cameras and dslr's will both loose out to small mirrorless digital camera systems as these people really only want a small HQ camera. In a way I wish they would be more demanding so that the mfr's will provide the avid photographer with more manual controls on the cameras.
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

G1Houston · May 19, 2010

sensibill said:
G1Houston said:

Prices are taken from B&H as of today. (The Nikon price reflects a $50 rebate)

Click to expand...

The E-PL1 was selling for $480 shipped a week or two ago. The price is $560 elsewhere, so suffice it to say they're about the same price for most people looking at either one. The D3000 can also be had for less than $500 if you look

If one were to shop around, better price could be found for the D3000 or D5000. I pick one reputable place to make it fair. If one were to add a fast prime to the kit, the Nikon AFS 35/1.8 is $200, while the Panny 20/1.7 is $400. The cost gap will widen still.

billzilla2000 said:
Strawman. I've not 'led myself' to believe a thing. And again, for the umpteenth time, price is part of the equation but nobody is saying M43 is (or needs to be) cheaper than every DSLR out there.

billzilla2000 said:

I hope you posted this as a joke because it really shows how little you know about dSLRs. It is amusing in fact to watch E-PL1 lovers come out in drone to complain about the rating for EP-L1 to be unfair ...

Click to expand...

Ah, the old 'you don't know anything' argument. Didn't take long.

Had you done some home work on Nikon's dSLRs, you would have been able to help your friend to pick a better camera. Look at this "D3000 vs D5000" thread in the Nikon D90-40/D5000 forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=35333779

Nearly every one recommended the D5000 unless money is a real issue. For $200 more, you get not only better IQ, but also better frame rate (4fps), much better AF performance, swivel screen, and video. D5000 is not that heavy or big a camera when compared to many other dSLRs.

billzilla2000 said:
PS: Sam is excepted because he's owned an E-PL1 and besides, he doesn't make these kinds of 'A is better than B' comparisons to DSLR in the first place, likely because he owns a GF1 and a D700.

I owned a G1 with the 14-45 lens. Sold it and now I have a GH1 with the 14-140 + 20/1.7.. I sold my Nikon 50/1.8 and use an OM50/1.4 on the GH1. I have no brand royalty and use what ever fits my needs. Besides the antiquated D3000, what modern Nikon dSLRs have you used?

For the record, I now own a D90, which uses the same sensor as the D5000. I also have a Canon P&S.

billzilla2000 · May 19, 2010

Dennis said:
Not only that, the E-PL1 only "beats" the D3000 if you look at jpeg engines; dxomark results say the D3000 (and 500D) still have better sensors. The GH1 sensor gets (very) slightly higher scores. But now you're in a higher price range.

What my own eyes tell me is that the E-PL1 may have the inferior sensor, but its RAWs also come out looking better.

Dennis said:
I'm not sure why this should be subject to debate or controversial. Bigger sensors gather more light; sensor technology advances can provide temporary gains to one platform or another.

In other words, 'there's no substitute for cubic inches'. And to an extent, I do agree, but there are many other mitigating factors such as Sam pointed out - CMOS, etc.

Dennis said:
I also don't see DSLR "preaching" here to any extent ...

I do - tons of it. If you don't, cool.

Dennis said:
APS-C versus 4/3 isn't the same as DSLR versus EVIL and there are 4/3 DSLRs and APS-C EVILs

APS-C isn't even the same as DSLR, because not all APS-C cameras are DSLRs.

Dennis said:
Even if every APS-C sensor in existence now & forever were to outperform every 4/3 sensor in existence no & forever, who cares ? That wouldn't invalidate 4/3's existence any more than FF invalidates APS-C's existence.

I agree.

Dennis said:
Why doesn't it exist ? People opt not to buy digicams due to the lack of shallow DOF. Arguing that DOF isn't supposed to be shallow doesn't make it a less valid concern.

I'm not arguing that DoF discrepancies exist (sigh)... I'm saying that it doesn't mean A is 'better' than B. I'm also saying some of these discrepancies are overblown - in SOME cases, IMO.

Dennis said:
If the point of m43 isn't to be better than APS-C (and I agree with you, but the degree to which it isn't better is surely something potential buyers want to know) then why the thread to point out where it may be better ?

I agree some comparison of clearly warranted. It's the 'I don't want to buy M43' or 'My DSLR is safe' or 'Going back to DSLR and here's why' threads - not to mention the many thread hijackings along the lines of 'You may think your camera compares to DSLR, but here's how it doesn't'.

Dennis said:
Someone has to have fairly arbitrary quality requirements to choose an APS-C DSLR over a m43 EVIL due to IQ. In this regard, it's applesranges.

Agreed.

Dennis said:
But comparisons to NEX (and Samsung NX and any future systems from Nikon & Canon) are inevitable and relevant, so sensor size tradeoffs become much more relevant.

I think comparisons to NEX are totally warranted, yes.

Dennis said:
Wow ... you sound kind of like a m43 "preacher" here. The 18-55 lens on the NEX 5 is no bigger than the GF1 & 14-45.

But I didn't say it was.

Dennis said:
The 18-55 lens is testing well, if not super sharp at corners (it's also available at a fantastic price) while the 16 is weak, but the jury is out until we see "production" models.

I think that's Sony spin. I've been a Sony fanboy for MANY of their products (TVs, PSP, CLIE PDA line, etc.) and have been burned almost every single time.

Dennis said:
AF is fast, the camera is responsive; it just happens to be designed for dummies, per Sony's marketing strategy.

I didn't really criticize its control scheme, either. Mainly talking IQ.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply, tho. Looking forward to hearing your input.

Bernard Carns · May 19, 2010

Who started this thread?

Peter Nelson · May 19, 2010

This tread moves to fast. Before I finished this post others had already made replies to the OP and some may think the reply was directed to my post. Please give my post a read. Thanks.
-Peter

Peter Nelson said:
I think the future of photography is without question with small mirrorless cameras. Eventually they will get every aspect of performance in line with today's best pro gear. It will be a while for the ISO to be as good as FF Nikon D3S but it will be there one day. With IS lens and IBIS there really will be no need for large and heavy cameras to serve as a battledhip gun boat sized stabalizing platform. The huge lenses will become history too.

Anyone not actually seeing this has their head in the sand. The advances in technology we have seen in every aspect of elecronics validates everthing I say. Again, if you do not see the future possibilites of advancement in electronics and the effect on digital photography you have your head in the sand.

u4/3 is one such future system. I have bought into u4/3 and I am so glad I have. I have no real use for any of my Canon and Nikon Pro gear, because I'm no longer a person who works for others in the field of photography. I regret spending all the money on gear that I did not really need because u4/3 is good enough for my photography.

The rest of my photogoraphy is dependent on my skills and inner vision and not my gear. In fact what really drives much of my photography is my love of my wife and daughter and my son. I want to capture moments in our lives and print them out for us to look at and put into photo albums to keep these memories.

If you are different than me, and you need a camera to please some magazine editior or fasion editor...then go ahead and spend the money on pro medium format and or dslr gear. You need it to keep yoor job. If you are an artist then you can get by more on skill and a good eye and u4/3 will be good enough.

Also get real and understand no one can hold back progress and sooner or maybe a little later the smaller format mirrorless cameras will be good enough for allmost every type of photography. There will be areas that it will not be the best in and that is true for all the other camera formats as well. But the majority of photographers will be shooting with small mirrorless cameras in the near future.

The average non photographer is the biggest market and the p&s cameras and dslr's will both loose out to small mirrorless digital camera systems as these people really only want a small HQ camera. In a way I wish they would be more demanding so that the mfr's will provide the avid photographer with more manual controls on the cameras.
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Bobo Hodls · May 19, 2010

andy mclean said:
No Darrel, I'm afraid that is not it at all. His point is that since he is content with . . .

A fragile contentment, easily threatened.

--
...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

http://www.bobtullis.com

billzilla2000 · May 19, 2010

Sam Bennett said:
The most prevalent thing I've heard isn't that they're "inherently superior", but that they have an inherent potential advantage over MFT. And that's true, like it or not. APS-C sensors are larger, so they have the potential to have higher DR, lower noise, etc.

You're splitting hairs so finely even a FF sensor couldn't resolve them properly.

People here, in this forum, have said APS-C cameras will turn out superior IQ. You split it down to saying 'inherently potentially superior', which is essentially a non-statement.

In a way, though, you've made my point - so thanks for that.

Sam Bennett said:
But again, I personally haven't seen many people saying that every APS-C camera is better than every MFT.

You're distorting what I said. I don't really care at this point, nor do I care what you personally have seen or not seen.

Sam Bennett said:
You're reading what you want into it, I can't help that.

I'm not the first to take issue with your tone/attitude, either. Make it 'me reading into it' and refuse to accept responsibility for how you talk to others all you want, but I'm telling you that the attitude comes across loud and clear - no mistake.

Sam Bennett said:
Look, again, ultimately the point you're making is based upon a strawman argument - meaning, you're saying people are making an argument that they're actually not making (at least, not that I can tell).

Can you and I agree to stop using the term 'strawman'? It's getting ridiculous.

Just because you haven't seen these arguments being made doesn't mean they haven't been - and others here are as exasperated with the DSLR spamming as I am. Barring a formal poll, I don't know how else to 'prove' that, and I'm not spending my afternoon searching, cutting & pasting examples.

Sam Bennett said:
I think having the D3000 comparison in there is fine, but you seem to be trying to make an additional point that the E-PL1 is as good or better as the rest of the APS-C cameras out there, which is clearly, demonstrably false.

And you talk about STRAWMEN? Please quote where I even remotely implied such a ridiculous thing. You're just being ludicrous, here. Why you insist on attempting to misrepresent my own statements in this very thread is beyond me.

Sam Bennett said:
We're just having a discussion, dude. If you feel like you're getting lectured, that's your own insecurities rising to the top. Can we just get past this?

You're as amiable as can be, right? It's all in my head. OK, Sam.

Sam Bennett said:
Fine, whatever - if you need great high ISO performance, MFT probably isn't for you.

Better. Funny you feel that's a grudging point to concede.

Sam Bennett said:
A strawman argument is usually one that is created by the person countering the argument to make their own point.

Excuse me, but I'll take the definitions offered by Merriam Webster:

1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.

Example:

Person A: 'I own a DSLR and bought a GF1. I love the GF1 and use it more often.'

Person B: 'M43 is not a substitute for DSLR. (insert blather about ISO, DR, etc.)'

Sam Bennett said:
It is an argument that doesn't actually exist. Invoking the benefits of FF are not a strawman - the differences are there and legitimate.

Yes, they're there. Are the 'differences' legitimate? A bit existential of you, but sure, yes. Is bringing them up repeatedly in M43 forum threads to prove an unsolicited and uncontested point legitimate?

NO.

Sam Bennett said:
So, it's fair for you to crow that the E-PL1 bests the D3000,

Not quite. I quoted the DPR review and wondered as to whether that would quell the DSLR noise, because apparently not every APS-C camera has better IQ.

If you think the D3000 is an inferior product to compare to the E-PL1, bring it up with DPR. I personally think they're very close - as I'd expect them to be. JPEG favors the Olympus, obviously, but that's not the end-all, as we both know.

What cracks me up about you isn't that we disagree, or even the lengths you seem to be willing to go to in order to disprove anything - and everything I say. It's that you seem unaware that other people (including me) can, you know, see the other stuff I've written here (and not written) and see what you're saying is fabricated or utterly distorted.

If you can't prove your point without distortion, hyperbole and blowing smoke, you might want to review the point.

Sam Bennett said:
"Comparable with" does not mean "better".

Never said it did.

Sam Bennett said:
Yes, your personal vendetta regarding my extremely candid user review of the camera is well known on this forum.

Not taking your bait, Sam. Nice try, though.

billzilla2000 · May 19, 2010

andy mclean said:
No Darrel, I'm afraid that is not it at all. His point is that since he is content with his little, rinky-dink thing, then everybody else should be too.

Taking notes, Sam?

andy mclean said:
It is inconceivable (to him) that any contrary argument of any value whatsoever can exist... and he will shout that out loud and proud from the tree-tops at sunrise and sunset every single day until he, or the forum, is dead.

Or, perhaps, it's the DSLR people, who don't own or use an M43, doing the 'shouting' and finding it so perplexing that anyone wouldn't want their superior, wonderful, perfect APS or FF cameras.

DSLR preachers put to bed? (E-PL1 review)

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Tony Collins

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts