Reading mode: Light Dark

If you were going to have only one camera ...

Go to last post
Barry Stewart said:
If video is something you would use, I'd recommend the E-P2 or something from Panasonic. I have't gone there yet — but a dual-media camera in such a small package is very appealing. And no more video tape!
Click to expand...
What is video tape? Never heard of it. Is it sticky like Scotch Tape or duct tape?

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado
 
I'd have said an E-620 2 lens kit a year ago. But now I would probably look to a Nikon system since I personally don't think there will be a whole lot of regular 4/3rds development coming.

--
Stu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/
Eee Six Two Zero

.
 
Mamiya 645DF, $6,000
Sekor AF 55mm f/2.8 LS D lens, $3500 (34mm equivalent)
Phase One P65+ digital back, $43,000

More down to earth, I'd probably go for an Olympus PEN once the system matures a little more. My ideal lenses would be the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and 7-14 f/4, though i could live with the kit 14-42 (and we'll just have to see if they come out with any PDAF adapters, in which case I would continue using my 4/3 lenses as well).

I have no need to upgrade from my E-520 and Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 yet.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com
 
To me, that is still the most verstile match to date for balance and image quality from Olympus for many subjects not requiring enormous megapixel counts for large prints or camera-performance demanding action, although some here have made that work. And the E-3 with same lens as a back-up when more resolution is needed. Of course, good luck finding an E-1 anymore.

What's with the only one lens scenario? Ever use an 11-22?

I'm still not convinced this EVIL stuff is right for me. It rains in Oregon. A lot. I'm covered.

I guess this isn't the answer you were looking for, oh well. Because I can't afford the Leica, I gotta make do :)

Plus I felt like chatting. Good luck in whatever you decide upon.
--
Regards,

Steve
 
& then I guess I am free to choose whatever lens then, since there is no such thing as a kit lens for the D3s .. well well, the 16-35/4.0 VR DPR just reviewed can be a solid candidate, but I usually prefer to shoot something longer. So I guess I would had to give it to one of those 60 or 105 Macro instead
--
  • Franka -
 
If money were no object and I could have anything it would be a Leica MP LHSA with matching 35 Lux LHSA. Yes, a film camera. It will shoot a lot longer than a digital, IMHO, not to mention holding its value.
--
Cheers,
Snowbird_UT
 
I'd have an E3 and 12-60 (got it, very nice). Or maybe D700 and 24-70 (got the D3, insanely heavy, D700 better).

However, I don't think that is the question you are asking - in YOUR shoes I'd have a G2 and kit lens.

I don't think I could live with the G2 as my only camera (I have a G1) because of the slow AF, however, entry level cameras are like that.

You can probably find a run out G1 cheap. Better lens, much more useful than Oly's cut price thing.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
looks like as jfinite said, IQ is not everything, and this should be the reason G2 score from DPR is higher than E-PL1, since I think IQ is better from E-PL1.

Is it really a better choice, G2 over E-PL1? considering IBIS and better IQ of E-PL1.
 
several days ago. Also have the E-30 and E-500. Still too soon to say I'd keep the E-PL1 but... While the E-30 is able to manage a much broader range of situations, the E-PL1, when placed in the right conditions, seems to be able to deliver stunning pictures. I've been truly amazed to find out that it's on par or better than the E-30 in more than one occasion (with kit lenses !).

Even DR seems better than on the E-30...

So still a little too soon to judge but the E-PL1 is really a little gem... and one that you carry with you very easily all the time. I'm a little bit sad to say that, because the E-30 is a splendid camera, but I'm afraid the E-PL1 is going to be the one I have with me most of the time. The only thing I'd need is the additional EVF since the LCD is sometimes difficult to see in bright light.

--

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good - Samuel Johnson
 
Josegaut said:
several days ago. Also have the E-30 and E-500. Still too soon to say I'd keep the E-PL1 but... While the E-30 is able to manage a much broader range of situations, the E-PL1, when placed in the right conditions, seems to be able to deliver stunning pictures. I've been truly amazed to find out that it's on par or better than the E-30 in more than one occasion (with kit lenses !).

Even DR seems better than on the E-30...

So still a little too soon to judge but the E-PL1 is really a little gem... and one that you carry with you very easily all the time. I'm a little bit sad to say that, because the E-30 is a splendid camera, but I'm afraid the E-PL1 is going to be the one I have with me most of the time. The only thing I'd need is the additional EVF since the LCD is sometimes difficult to see in bright light.
Click to expand...
I purchased the VF-2 after experiencing difficulty seeing the LCD on my E-PL1 in the bright sun around water. It was the first time I ever struggled with the LCD. As a matter of fact the E-PL1 LCD is the best I've ever used. However, since I got the VF-2 I haven't used the LCD because the VF is that good IMO.

I also have the E-620 which I used mostly with my 50mm/f2. I don't think I could give it up to be honest. Nor could I give up the E-PL1. I got the E-620 for $454 and the E-PL1 for $599.....so I could afford both. Of course, I've added a few lenses which brings up the price somewhat! :-)

One camera would be a struggle for me as good as they both are. :-)

Maria
 
Marla said:
Josegaut said:
several days ago. Also have the E-30 and E-500. Still too soon to say I'd keep the E-PL1 but... While the E-30 is able to manage a much broader range of situations, the E-PL1, when placed in the right conditions, seems to be able to deliver stunning pictures. I've been truly amazed to find out that it's on par or better than the E-30 in more than one occasion (with kit lenses !).

Even DR seems better than on the E-30...

So still a little too soon to judge but the E-PL1 is really a little gem... and one that you carry with you very easily all the time. I'm a little bit sad to say that, because the E-30 is a splendid camera, but I'm afraid the E-PL1 is going to be the one I have with me most of the time. The only thing I'd need is the additional EVF since the LCD is sometimes difficult to see in bright light.
Click to expand...
I purchased the VF-2 after experiencing difficulty seeing the LCD on my E-PL1 in the bright sun around water. It was the first time I ever struggled with the LCD. As a matter of fact the E-PL1 LCD is the best I've ever used. However, since I got the VF-2 I haven't used the LCD because the VF is that good IMO.

I also have the E-620 which I used mostly with my 50mm/f2. I don't think I could give it up to be honest. Nor could I give up the E-PL1. I got the E-620 for $454 and the E-PL1 for $599.....so I could afford both. Of course, I've added a few lenses which brings up the price somewhat! :-)

One camera would be a struggle for me as good as they both are. :-)

Maria
Click to expand...
They each have their strong points for sure, and I have nearly sprung for the E-PL1 myself to supplement my E-620. Just seems like this could be a lot of fun.

What lenses do you use with your two cameras and how do you feel about their comparative optics? And given reports on the E-PL1's superior IQ to the E-620, do you find this appreciable and how so?
--
Sailin' Steve
 
I love my E30, for it's fast handling, loads of features, and IQ.
I love my EP1, for it's handy size, it's great jpegs, and it's IQ.

But if I could only have ONE camera, I would select neither one.

The EP1 reminded me about how much I like having a smaller camera, and the E30 features are hard to give up. So I would take an E620 with a 14-54mm lens.

The E620 is pretty much a "mini E30" which is just missing the great OVF of the E30 and is much, much smaller and lighter.

I really loved my 14-42mm lens on my E510, but once I got a 14-54mm lens, there is no going back. This is perhaps the finest kit lens made by anyone. Period.

The 12-60mm is an awesome lens, but I just feel it is too large and heavy for a small camera like the E620.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

 
Marty4650 said:
I love my E30, for it's fast handling, loads of features, and IQ.
I love my EP1, for it's handy size, it's great jpegs, and it's IQ.

But if I could only have ONE camera, I would select neither one.

The EP1 reminded me about how much I like having a smaller camera, and the E30 features are hard to give up. So I would take an E620 with a 14-54mm lens.

The E620 is pretty much a "mini E30" which is just missing the great OVF of the E30 and is much, much smaller and lighter.

I really loved my 14-42mm lens on my E510, but once I got a 14-54mm lens, there is no going back. This is perhaps the finest kit lens made by anyone. Period.

The 12-60mm is an awesome lens, but I just feel it is too large and heavy for a small camera like the E620.
--
Click to expand...
Man, your teasing me, LOL!

I went thru conniptions last December trying to decide between the 14-54 MkII and 12-60 (it was discounted to $690 new then) and finally punted, bridging my 14-42 with the excellent 9-18 and 70-300 instead. I haven't regretted this as I've really enjoyed both.

Was going to spring for the 14-54 MkII again last April when two things happened: my E-510 suddenly became balky and the E-620 bodies were discounted to $454. Grabbed one and glad I did.

Now I'm back to the debate between the 14-54 MkII and E-PL1 as a next step, and just as I'm leaning to the E-PL1 here you come along and crash the party with "once I got a 14-54mm lens, there is no going back" and such.

Oh, sweet torment! Guess I'll just go out and shoot more photos in the meantime. Hey, that's what having this stuff is all about, right?

--
Sailin' Steve
 
Kodak Throw-Away !

Vjim
 
Since it was mentioned that Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 is good lens, I went to amazon to check the price. I also read some of the reviews. Something that I read, really disappoints me, I just paste it here to know your opinions:

"3. Image Quality: Compare with the result coming from LX3, which has a smaller censor (1/1.6" CCD vs E-620's 4/3 LiveMOS), the IQ is marginally better, but cleaner noise level with sufficient natural light. It also has a much better dynamic range (no surprise). The water reflection can look mirror like instead of mushy. In low light condition, LX3's larger aperture will turn into its favor, providing better end result than E-620/Zuiko combination. The image is very sharp corner to corner. "

E620 is only marginally better??? and, in low light, does LX3 give better result, because of Leica f2 lens? Does not sound reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top