Brooks Lester
Senior Member
(Sam - I'm Superfriend on flickr, believe it or not)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DSLR preachers put to bed? (E-PL1 review)
- Thread starter billzilla2000
- Start date
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
Noisewise the EPL1 and D3000 sensors are about equal, which isn't too surprising as the D3000 sensor is starting to show it's age. The sensor in the Olympus benefits from a much lighter AA filter so it needs less sharpening (adds noise).
billzilla2000
Veteran Member
no text
billzilla2000
Veteran Member
Right, an M43 with a zoom is no longer as compact. The point is, if you want that lens option, it's there (not as wide a native selection as DSLR, of course). So, if the E-PL1 (or GF1) is your only camera, then it's available and it's OK if you lose soem portability, because this is after all a kind of 'mini DSLR' of sorts. The only camera that doesn't get 'big' with a large zoom is a compact superzoom.
But a G1 is larger, so does that mean you only intend to go around with a zoom lens? With prime or kit, the E-PL1 (and GF1) are much smaller.
Street or eBay price of the G1 is lurking around $450-550, marginally less than the E-PL1. I don't see it as better functioning or handling, but that's up to your own preferences.
You're purposely not using the kit lenses but the pricey primes to distort your comparison. Also, prices here are different, in part due to the state of the dollar. With present conversion rates, an E-PL1 body here costs $520, or £360.
Since DSLRs don't have EVF, stacking that on with prime lens and comparing to entry DSLR with kit lens or body is a useless venture. You don't think there are DSLR lenses that run some serious cash?
Then wait it out. Or be happy with your DSLR. The rest of us are getting plenty of mileage out of our non-great M43s, in spite of that.
I've had two Panny TZ P&S compact cameras and they certainly weren't 'fast' compared to my E-PL1.
Shaun Bell
Senior Member
Well I'm still embarrassed I bought a D3x lol! I really need the extra quality but it's not worth the price. Selling all my old Nikon gear to switch up to a H4D and D3s. Along with the Pen, should make for an awesome kit : )
--
http://www.paphotographics.com
--
http://www.paphotographics.com
RJPeter
Forum Enthusiast
I've been keeping an eye on this forum for some time.
Although I don't own an E-PL1 or other 4/3 I like the idea of small, light gear with better quality than P & S, which I can carry most of the time.
Unfortunately there is far too much BS here, a lot of it from 4/3 owners.
Talk is cheap. Can we see some superior photos from these superior cameras?
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://gowerphotos.tripod.com
Although I don't own an E-PL1 or other 4/3 I like the idea of small, light gear with better quality than P & S, which I can carry most of the time.
Unfortunately there is far too much BS here, a lot of it from 4/3 owners.
Talk is cheap. Can we see some superior photos from these superior cameras?
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://gowerphotos.tripod.com
PhillipA
Veteran Member
.. than any other forum I visit - like this load of tosh !
2. How can a DSLR be worse for reviewing shots? Most modern DSLRs have 3" screens - the same size as any of the M4/3 cameras, and most are of higher resolution than any of the M4/3 cameras. My Canon's screens are 921,000 pixels, my G series 430,000.
3. A/F accuracy? Ever tried to take a series of shots of something moving at even a moderate speed with an M4/3 camera? My Canons snap into focus almost instantly, even when changing from far distance to near close-up, the Panasonics wander around for a while before they settle on the subject. I will admit the M4/3 are usually accurate when they do focus, but certainly not to a greater exent than DSLRs as you contend.
4. The only M4/3 camera that does 1080i video is the GH1 (one reason I bought it) whereas most modern DSLRs do (except Nikon for some reason). The high-definition video from my Canons is in a different league from my GH1 - which still looks like a (high-end) videocam.
There has been a long thread going on here started by someone who is "sick of DSLR users coming here to belittle his choice of camera". What I see here are a bunch of people trying to prove to everyone that their choice of M4/3 is better in all respects than any other system - which is patently wrong.
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
1. I have 2 Canon bodies and 2 Panasonic M4/3 (GH1 and G1)- all which I often use legacy OM lenses on. In particular the OM 500 f8 Mirror because it is much smaller and lighter than my long Canon glass and is handy to have in the bag if I have an unexpected need for long glass. The lens is damn near impossible to manually focus on the Panasonics (either through the viewfinder or on the LCD) unless the whole lot is firmly tied down on a substantial tripod and time can be taken to adjust the focus carefully on the (low-resolution) LCD on the back. On either of the Canons, the optical viewfinder is large enough and bright enough to enable you to see where the plane of focus lies and adjust accordingly - even hand-held.
2. How can a DSLR be worse for reviewing shots? Most modern DSLRs have 3" screens - the same size as any of the M4/3 cameras, and most are of higher resolution than any of the M4/3 cameras. My Canon's screens are 921,000 pixels, my G series 430,000.
3. A/F accuracy? Ever tried to take a series of shots of something moving at even a moderate speed with an M4/3 camera? My Canons snap into focus almost instantly, even when changing from far distance to near close-up, the Panasonics wander around for a while before they settle on the subject. I will admit the M4/3 are usually accurate when they do focus, but certainly not to a greater exent than DSLRs as you contend.
4. The only M4/3 camera that does 1080i video is the GH1 (one reason I bought it) whereas most modern DSLRs do (except Nikon for some reason). The high-definition video from my Canons is in a different league from my GH1 - which still looks like a (high-end) videocam.
There has been a long thread going on here started by someone who is "sick of DSLR users coming here to belittle his choice of camera". What I see here are a bunch of people trying to prove to everyone that their choice of M4/3 is better in all respects than any other system - which is patently wrong.
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
PhillipA
Veteran Member
Sorry - double post. :-(
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
Point about 500mm mirror taken.
Because you need to bring the camera down from your face, maybe put reading glasses on and find shelter from the sun?
An EVF can occupy a much larger FOV of your vision, making it something like a 7" or 10" screen in comparison.
And the best µ43 EVFs are 1,400,000 dots.
I'm thinking about back/front focus issues. I've suffered that myself. There are plenty of threads about people buying, returning, rebuying etc. and not getting a good sample of the camera until 4 or 5 tries. People sending in for calibration multiple times until the issue is hopefully resolved.
I've seen estimations that about 5-25% of all DSLRs would improve by calibration and I'd tend to agree with that. Not having to worry about whether your lens will focus as accurately on the next body, or if your next lens will AF accurately on this body is a big relief and this peace of mind is one reason to like EVIL.
Yes, and I did qualify with "the best".
So what? I wrote in "some ways", not "every possible way". If you had bothered before ranting to read my reply to the other poster above you'd have seen me being more specific.
Also note the GH1 review at Luminous Landscapes where he thinks it's the most advanced camera (amongst DSLR and EVILs) for video. And he uses video professionally.
That's not what the OP said, nor anyone in this subthread so you are off topic.
What was claimed at the root of this subthread was that DSLRs were more "competent in all areas". Doesn't "spouting" such a "load of tosh" bother you?
--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
As I wrote, "same tech level". And you have to check all IQ issues. If you go to DxO Mark, the D3000's sensor performs better than any 4:3 sensor, in terms of DR, color and high ISO, in RAW.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/349 |0/%28appareil2%29/331|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28brand2%29/Nikon
Aspect EPL1 D3000
DR 10.1 11.1
Color Depth 21.5 22.3
High Iso cut point 487 563
Overall score 54 62.4
If you read how they measure and score things, the 8.4 difference means about 1/2 stop better perfomance overall.
The differences one is seeing visually in samples come from the fact that conversion engines for the 4+ yo sensor in that camera are not being updated as have been for the new ones. Try to compare the D90's sensor to any 4:3's and you'll see even bigger differences.
But, as I also wrote above, the differences will be noticed only if you use RAW and have a high quality routine.
Yes, you get what you pay for, that law hasn't been violated yet.
Here I disagree strongly, and this is the main reason I'm waiting to go mirrorless. I'm an advanced amateur (check my images in link below) and now and then feel that even with a mid-level APSC, which has pretty good AF, but which may have problems tracking action, I miss some important shots. For example, last year my daughter had her ballet presentation. I got the shot perfectly on a jump, but it missed AF tracking slightly, image is ok, but could be great.
So, I'm wiating for the next FF from Nikon (successor of D700) or the next higher level APSC (successor of D300s) to go for a more able body.
And I'm waiting for the next gen of mirrorless cameras, to have a good carry-on compact. It could be m43, no problems with that, I'm no brandmonger, I have a Nikon dslr and a Canon compact (G9) now.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
strawman_John
Leading Member
The reason I go to the primes is because of the portability issues. And yes the zoom kit costs less (though they still make you pay extra for the EVF). My point was the beauty of m43 to me is the small camera body but it only retains that advantage if the lenses are also very small. At the moments only the primes bring that.
So once you say "I will buy it with a zoom lens" you no longer have a pocket cam so is there a reason to not get the DSLR with the option of optical VF and faster zoom etc.
It is only my assessment. And I would like to say again that I would expect to get perfectly good images from the m43 camera, its just the SLR adds flexibility in how you go about getting the photo's.
So once you say "I will buy it with a zoom lens" you no longer have a pocket cam so is there a reason to not get the DSLR with the option of optical VF and faster zoom etc.
It is only my assessment. And I would like to say again that I would expect to get perfectly good images from the m43 camera, its just the SLR adds flexibility in how you go about getting the photo's.
You won't get a pocketable camera with a decent-sized sensor if you want a zoom, you are going to have to settle for a pancake fixed f.l. lens. Pentax's 40mm f2.8 is the pinnacle of that design right now. You won't get an EVF integrated into a pocketable camera, not yet. Pocketable is a loose term. You can put a small DSLR and pancake lens into a winter coat pocket, but not a pair of pants, usually. Designing lenses that actually work well and afford close sensor proximity is a chore, one that Sony recently failed with their 16mm. I have higher hopes for Nikon. The best images I've seen from a compact (not Canon's G11) P&S at low ISO (they are all bad at high ISO) is from Panasonic's LX3. It isn't as good as a 4/3rds, or other DSLR, but at 80-100 ISO, it is acceptable for reasonably large prints, perhaps even 16" x 20" depending on your taste.
billzilla2000
Veteran Member
That clearly makes you an expert.
So liking the idea of small light gear excuses you from any suspicion regarding your bias.
Talk IS cheap, as you illustrate rather well. No M43 people I know are claiming any sort of superiority. That's the sort of fanboy strawman nonsense the DSLR and APS-C trolls try to get by with in justifying their DSLR sensor-spam and NEX-worship.
Speaking of illustration, might want to look at the many photo threads here submitted by M43 owners. Lots of very good photos, which I'm sure you'll say are inferior to whatever it is you own or prefer.
RJPeter
Forum Enthusiast
Why do you think I am biased towards DSLRs? I've seen lots of rubbish written about them too, and much of it by their owners.
I didn't say anything was wrong with m4/3 cameras, just that there is a lot of BS being written about them, and I believe you are adding to it.
Yes I've seen photos posted in this forum, some very good, some not, just the same as on other forums.
I haven't seen any that couldn't be taken with hundreds of other cameras of various types.
So if there is a m4/3 camera that is better than DSLRs, where are the better photos?
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://gowerphotos.tripod.com
I didn't say anything was wrong with m4/3 cameras, just that there is a lot of BS being written about them, and I believe you are adding to it.
Yes I've seen photos posted in this forum, some very good, some not, just the same as on other forums.
I haven't seen any that couldn't be taken with hundreds of other cameras of various types.
So if there is a m4/3 camera that is better than DSLRs, where are the better photos?
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://gowerphotos.tripod.com
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum