E-PL1 or GF1?

I can get the E-PL1 for less than the GF1, is it worth the extra to get the pana?

To me it was, but you need to go to a store and handle them because the user interface is VERY different between them. In all likelihood, you will love one and hate the other

I know, but still besides ergonomics, i would really love advice!

E-PL1 for out of camera JPEGs or GF1 for handling. You can get great results from both but with the Panasonic you need to shoot raw and learn how to handle it's raw output for the best results.

--
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

Well, if it helps, here are some differentiators:

• E-PL1 has in-body stabilization. GF1 has stabilization in lenses.
• E-PL1's LCD screen is smaller than GF1's.
• E-PL!'s accessory electronic viewfinder is supposed to be much better than the GF1's (although the GF1's is supposed to be decent).
• E-PL1 is supposed to have a sensor that results in slightly sharper images.
• E-PL1 only has one wheel, the rest of the camera's controls (other than the mode dial) are via buttons. The GF1's controls are via wheels and buttons.
• E-PL1 can remotely control off-camera flashes.
• E-PL1 has no remote shutter release-although there is at least one mechanical solution that is known to work.

The general consensus around these parts is that if you want to use legacy glass, the E-PL1 might have an edge, as it has built-in stabilization that works for any lens, and its electronic viewfinder is superior. On the other hand, I think a lot of people feel that the GF1's interface is easier to use if you are coming from a DSLR (whereas the E-PL1's interface seems more designed for people transitioning from a point-and-shoot).

I agree that you should try both out if you can before making a decision. I ended up going with the E-PL1 because it was significantly cheaper than the GF1 at the time I bought it. I am happy with my choice, but I would probably have been happy with the GF1 too, which I had originally intended to buy.

Hope that helps.

working with raw is not an issue, so, your telling me over all the pana gives better results?

They are so close in image quality that it's open to debate. I find the Oly jpegs prettier than the the Panys, but if you work RAW the results are up to you.

kewl4evr said:

working with raw is not an issue, so, your telling me over all the pana gives better results?

Click to expand...

For me a big plus in favor of the Oly is IBIS as I have a whole bunch of excellent Nikkor non-auto primes that match up nicely to the m43 format camera. Without IBIS (like wth the GF1) hand holding some of these lenses would be a challenge.

If legacy lens use is not a concern of yours, you wont go wrong with either camera.
--
Never put off until tomorrow. . .
that which you can avoid doing altogether.

thanks much for the info, I have heard that the pana is is little better on speed , true?

The Olympus has a big edge in out of camera JPG's. With RAW, you can significantly close that gap and some think the Pany can be better. I haven't tried a Pany RAW, so have no idea on that. To me, if you have to shoot RAW to get a great image, then you need a bigger DSLR, because the investment is more a devotion than what these micros offer. I think their small size, design, and such goes hand in hand with simple JPG images that require no work and are very top notch.

The user interface is an issue with the Olympus. It isn't a hair pulling event, but can cost you a couple seconds here and there over the Pany. So bear that in mind. I think people coming "up" to the E-PL1 are less likely to have an issue with it than those coming "down" to the E-PL1.

In body IS is a big plus for the Olympus, even if it is a bit de-tuned form the E-P2. So bear that in mind too.

So what it boiled down to me was, a bit clunkier interface cost me LESS time than it would take to "process" each RAW image to make it as pretty as the out of camera JPG's from the Olympus.
--
Dale

I don't know if the GF1 "body" is any faster (focusing), but I can attest that the EPL1 with the Panny 20/f1.7 is very very fast.

... a must have lens in my opinion.

--
Never put off until tomorrow. . .
that which you can avoid doing altogether.

great advice, now I only have to make a choice

Most testing that I read shows the GF1 to focus faster. Oly did a firmware upgrade and got closer but still not as quick as the GF1. For me this was the deciding factor.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.

Here's what Dpreview has to say about focusing speed vs Panasonic. The difference is all in the lens. Olympus has announced new version of the 14-42 kit lens which is reported very fast.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10042202olypenfirmware.asp

I don't know if it's in the autofocus, but there's a perceptible difference in shutter lag between the GH1 and E-PL1 with the same lens (14-140.)

I didn't notice it until I was recording something in video and taking snaps - so I was doing the sort of pictures I'd normally do on the GH1 (now GH2 :-D) with the E-PL1. It's not huge, but it was enough to throw off my timing (an extra quarter second?)
Walter

f8_accpmpli said:

I don't know if the GF1 "body" is any faster (focusing), but I can attest that the EPL1 with the Panny 20/f1.7 is very very fast.

... a must have lens in my opinion.

--
Never put off until tomorrow. . .
that which you can avoid doing altogether.

Click to expand...

And that is a big issue IMO. That lens costs around $300 by itself (it was $600 once). But it is typically bundles with the GF-1. And the E-PL1's 14-42 lenses is a slow focuser - it is said that a revised version might focus faster, if or when it arrives.

And then there is the 14-45 lens which also can be bundled with the GF-1. Although IMO it makes the camera somewhat large, it is a better lens than any other of the 14-4x zooms.

So ... IMO if you want to use legacy lens, buy the E-PL1 and the $240 EVF. But if you want to stick with micro four thirds lenses, the GF-1 is the best choice IMO, as long as you prefer using an LCD screen to take you shots.

Really ... its an easy choice! If you can find a bundle or dealer to give you a good deal on the 14-45 Pana lens (not the 14-42 version) then you'll have a great kit. If you don't want to stretch it that far, then go for the 20mm kit. The next lens would then be the bargain 40-200 Pana micro lens. Fantastic for outside really. In some ways it makes more sense than getting the 14-45. I suspect in time, many will not buy the 14-4x zooms for the GF-1/2 - rather they'll have one long tele, and two primes: the 20mm F/1.7, and the new coming 14mm F/2.5. With those two primes, IMO the slower zooms may not be so popular.

kewl4evr said:

thanks much for the info, I have heard that the pana is is little better on speed , true?

Click to expand...

In my (pre firmware update) trials, it was definitely noticeable. The EPL1 felt like a fast P&S while the GF1 responded like a DSLR.

Note that the JPG engine in the Panny is quite tunable. Spend some time with it getting it setup how you like, and you can shoot JPG just fine. Most test results actually show the GF1 colors to be more accurate, while the Oly have more "wow factor"

redrunnertc said:

kewl4evr said:

thanks much for the info, I have heard that the pana is is little better on speed , true?

Click to expand...

In my (pre firmware update) trials, it was definitely noticeable. The EPL1 felt like a fast P&S while the GF1 responded like a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Its reported now that with firmware updates, there isn't much in it. But the Oly 14-42 lens is a very slow focusing lens. Its strength is that it folds down to a very compact form when not being used. While the 14-45 Panasonic lens is quite a bit larger when comparing the two cameras with their zoom lenses attached and both are turned off.

IMO the fascination of using old glass is something that will go in time, as more micro Four Thirds lenses come on stream. For instance the 14mm F/2.5 is tiny, and very appealing. Although its not as fast as a Voigtlander, it will auto focus. Others don't. In time, I think only a few users will use the old manual focusing and aperture challenging old glass.

Looking at the B&H prices, wow things are good value now!

The body price of the E-PL1 is $400. But if you buy a blue one, you get the 14-42 lens for an extra $50!!! $450 for the blue camera (which evidently looks close to black but perhaps a bit nicer). OK buy the 20mm Pana for $315, and the whole kit is $765. Tough to go wrong there ...

However, you can buy the GF-1 body only, for $420! Add in the 20mm for $315, and the kit is $735. But you don't have that mid zoom. But ... wait for the 14mm F/2.5, and don't get a zoom! Keep it small and beautiful! I think the 14mm will be around $400??? The zoom though can be bought - the cheap 14-42 Pana for $200, and the better 14-45 Pana for $315. You do the math.

Now to complicate things - you can get a high class and beautifully retro and nice feeling E-P2 with its 17mm F/2.8 lens (which although slow is a lot wider), with its cute retro external flash, for $635!!! That is a very good combo ... its a better camera than the E-PL1 (forget those who talk about sensor anti-alias tuning, the mFT sensors are all much the same except for the GH ones, at the end of the day). The E-P2 has a faster shutter, which is important in daylight ... it has better IBIS too ... and its sexier IMO! I'd bet you could find an Oly 14-42 for around $100 or so for that camera too ...

I'd buy that, but I have Oly FT lenses ... damn shame the proper adapter is so expensive ...

heck ... I've made things more complex again ...

I would get the GF1 with 20mm. Bodies come and go but you will keep that 20mm.... and it's a must have lens.