Reading mode: Light Dark

My take on E-PL2

Go to last post
bbq797 said:
My needs are exactly the same--people/kids. I don't have the GH2, I've heard that's the knock on GH2--dull stills, which is why I went for the PL2. But, now I'm seeing some people post pictures that look just fine to me. Is it just the color, the sharpness? Is it anything that can be corrected w/in camera settings?

Reading this post makes me wonder if my PL2 purchase was a mistake. My kids have been home sick (bad timing), so I haven't gotten a chance to use it in any real life situation other than our play room and couch! lol
Click to expand...
Try to be your own judge... Seriously, there's a lot of hyperbole on the forum about sometimes minor differences and issues.

The controlled tests on this website and many others show that the differences in IQ between the PENs are minimal.

Keep in mind: if someone complains of dull photos, maybe the weather and lighting in this time of year just make for dull pictures. He's looking at his summertime E-PL1 photos and discredits the E-PL2 for not having the same beautiful green of the foliage...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
Short answer: yes

Long answer: there's always a level of gradation in the image, hence the settings being 'normal' and 'Auto'. The latter should be read as 'Automatic enhancement of gradation in the shadows'.

Olympus are fools for making 'Auto' the default setting. The times we get people here complaining about excessive noise in low light + low ISO pictures (or excessive noise in shadows), when it turns out to be that they need to set Gradation to 'Normal'.
jhoff80 said:
panpen said:
No gradation can help get rid of the blotches in dark areas.
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that "Auto" Gradation means that it's artificially boosting shadows to be brighter, and that "Normal" means that it's not doing that, so essentially, Normal is no gradation.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
The problem is, I can't judge...I thought I would be able to buy both cameras, compare and keep one--easy peasy. I had no idea I wouldn't be able to buy the GH2!! So, now I'm kind of stuck...I'd have to return (if I even can) the Oly, buy the GH2 and then either keep it or buy the Oly again. Grr....
 
Ok, so everyone with a pen shoots jpeg.. or should? Why is there Raw then anyway. If you're looking at image quality, you shouldn't just look at jpeg quality.. right?
 
s_grins said:
Kevin, there are several reasons to background to be dark. Imagine, background locates far from your subject, beyond the flash reach...
Click to expand...
Yes, people need to stay awake during physics class....

Light falls off at the rate of the square of the distance from the source.

With low light indoor shooting, that translates to......

Subjects at say 5 feet from camera, nicely flash exposed.

End wall of room say 10 feet from camera, nicely underexposed by 2 stops.

The 1 stop underexposure distance would be at 7 feet from the camera. That's 5 feet multiplied by the square root of 2.

If there's some ambient light, then a slower shutter speed is called for to try and use that to lighten up backgrounds for flash shots. But then of course subject movement and camera shake problems enter into the equation.

As for light falloff, it's just like balancing studio lights, be they flash or floodlights. Light A at x feet from subject, same strength light at 2 times x feet away contributes 2 stops less light. To get 1 stop less light on the subject for not so dark shadows, move the light to 1.4 times the other light distance from the subject. (1.4 being about the square root of 2, and 2 is the difference in light due to 1 stop change). Of course any background light on a backdrop needs to be same strength and in the same range of distance from the backdrop to contribute the desired exposure to the backdrop.

You can learn a huge amount about lighting by using two identical strength bendable desk lamps and use a tabletop setting like an ornament as a subject. Muck about with angles and distances of the lights to see the effects change. Use a third light to illuminate some bland backdrop, like a sheet of cardboard behind the subject. Experiment with spacings of the lights to get an attractive effect. The effect on the exposure is always more severe than the eye sees, shadows get blacker more quickly, so always judge from shots taken, not what looks good to the eye.

Anyway to avoid those dim backgrounds for indoors flash shots, go buy a big 4xAA battery flash and use it in bounce mode off the ceiling. Suddenly you get fantastic flash shots that can look completely non-flash if done carefully. Some possibilities in my flash list here... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/panasonic/11-flash.html#flashlist

Regards.......... Guy
 
I was talking about judging the E-PL2 that you already have on its own merits. You could start a thread here with some pictures (some you like, some you're not sure about) and ask people to comment and critique.

It's a fact that any new system camera is capable of producing great results for most casual photography. There's a learning curve to getting to know how to achieve it, no matter which camera you get.

The GH2 is a different camera that trumps the E-PL2 on many counts: form factor (controls, EVF), features, specs, etc. OTOH it is bigger and more expensive. But in terms of still images, the differences in IQ will be small despite 16MP vs. 12MP.

You can probably get more appealing jpegs out of the GH2 by switching to Vivid colour mode and tuning the Noise Filter, Sharpness, and Contrast settings. The advantage of the Olympus models is that they produce a pleasing jpeg result straight out of the box. Then again, some say it's too punchy and set colour to Natural or Muted.
bbq797 said:
The problem is, I can't judge...I thought I would be able to buy both cameras, compare and keep one--easy peasy. I had no idea I wouldn't be able to buy the GH2!! So, now I'm kind of stuck...I'd have to return (if I even can) the Oly, buy the GH2 and then either keep it or buy the Oly again. Grr....
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
panpen said:
larsbc said:
I shoot in raw mode and process all my images in Lightroom. When they get imported, a "development" preset (that I made) is automatically applied to each image. Dull images are not a problem for me at all.
Click to expand...
Nice pictures but you have to keep in mind that most people have a life and they do not intend to spend it in front of a computer to work on raw files.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the compliment. BTW please notice that some of those photos include activities with my kids. In other words, I do have a life. Shooting in raw doesn't require hours of time spent processing images. The raw conversion process is automated. I just tell Lightroom to import all the images from my memory card and it does the rest. If I shot my images in jpg mode, the workflow would be the same, except that the images would import more quickly. That's the only difference. The common adjustments such as WB and cropping would have to be applied whether the files were raw or jpeg. The only real difference would come when comparing raw files to jpegs that were created using some kind of dynamic range preservation feature (I forget what Panasonic's term for it is). But that's not a big deal. I simply adjust the fill light or recovery slider on one image, and then copy and batch paste that change to all other images that need it.
panpen said:
Besides, the LR costs what? $200-300?
Click to expand...
$225, or $80 for the teacher/student edition.
panpen said:
And that is on top of whatever people pay for the camera. And to print what? 4x6's. nah....too complicated and expensive for just a hobby.
Click to expand...
Many people here are already spending thousands of dollars on "just a hobby." $225 is less than a quality P&S camera. And it's certainly not complicated.

Besides which, it's not just for processing raw files. It can also be used to process jpeg files but more importantly, it is a very easy-to-use method for cataloguing (keywording and indexing), maintaining and backing up images. And once those images are imported into Lightroom, I can easily auto publish them to the major online photo hosts (eg: Flickr, Smugmug, etc). There are other features, such as photo book layout, online album generation, etc, that I don't even use, but which are useful to other photographers.

larsbc
 
panpen said:
Let me start by saying that I would not trade my P2 for any Panasonic micro 4/3 camera including the new GH2 (which I tried, hopping for a better all around camera than my P2. It failed miserably in the stills area).
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate a little on why the GH2 failed as a stills camera?

--
-------------------------------------------------
'Hit Refresh if pix do not appear. Flaky ISP at work.'

 
dmanthree said:
panpen said:
Let me start by saying that I would not trade my P2 for any Panasonic micro 4/3 camera including the new GH2 (which I tried, hopping for a better all around camera than my P2. It failed miserably in the stills area).
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate a little on why the GH2 failed as a stills camera?

--
Click to expand...
Failure is wrong. I had an ep2 and the gh1 trumped it in stills to my eyes. the body of the ep2 is stupidly sexy but that won;t save pics.
 
Panpen,

If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, you have to post these failed photos you have taken as proof of your essay. It will add credibility to your writing
--
MFT in progress
 
jimboyvr said:
dmanthree said:
panpen said:
Let me start by saying that I would not trade my P2 for any Panasonic micro 4/3 camera including the new GH2 (which I tried, hopping for a better all around camera than my P2. It failed miserably in the stills area).
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate a little on why the GH2 failed as a stills camera?

--
Click to expand...
Failure is wrong. I had an ep2 and the gh1 trumped it in stills to my eyes. the body of the ep2 is stupidly sexy but that won;t save pics.
Click to expand...
But I was asking about the GH2. Have you shot one of those?

--
-------------------------------------------------
'Hit Refresh if pix do not appear. Flaky ISP at work.'

 
It is impossible to judge your shots, they lack any information, and heavily re-sized.
Could you, please, upload them in your gallery here at DPR? Original size?
Nevertheless, first impression:

some of your shots where light presents, look more or less OK (800x 500 is not the size to look at details). Some of your shots lack any light, and do not expect to get good quality results from any camera. Photography is all about light
--
MFT in progress
 
Those are 100% crops. I don't see what else I should post other the 100% crops.

As I said they all are ISO 200, 20mm lens, between f1.7 and f2. You can download and read the exif.
s_grins said:
do not expect to get good quality results from any camera. Photography is all about light
Click to expand...
I know and believe me, I'd be the last human being to bash Olympus, but this camera doesn't deliver. I'm sure it might work for other people. As I said I will stick with my Olympus P2 until something better comes along, though I would have loved to have an onboard flash and a better LCD.
 
Yup, even my E-PL1 is riddled with noise at all ISO, but guess what? It doesn't matter.

For normal screen display or for printing up to A2 size (about 23" wide) the noise does not show. When pixel peeping at 100% you are examining closely a print about 33" or so wide. An unrealistic situation.

If for some reason noise annoys, then use a decent post process noise reduction program like Neat Image, it works wonders.

The summary is that 100% pixel peeping and fretting over noise is a totally overdone and useless exercise.

Sorry to sound a bit cross, but this subject increasingly annoys me when in fact it matters so little in the end result.

Regards......... Guy
panpen said:
As I said they all are ISO 200, 20mm lens, between f1.7 and f2. You can download and read the exif.
s_grins said:
do not expect to get good quality results from any camera. Photography is all about light
Click to expand...
I know and believe me, I'd be the last human being to bash Olympus, but this camera doesn't deliver. I'm sure it might work for other people. As I said I will stick with my Olympus P2 until something better comes along, though I would have loved to have an onboard flash and a better LCD.
Click to expand...
 
Honestly, I want to enjoy this hobby without shooting raw, spending extra money on Lightroom or some fancy software, or spending even more on some noise reduction software.

If I pay $600 for a camera in 2011 I expect more. If you pay that much and expect point and shoot results, it's up to you.
Guy Parsons said:
Yup, even my E-PL1 is riddled with noise at all ISO, but guess what? It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Good for you. Not everybody is tailored the same way.

And one more thing. If you get your hands on a pl2 try shooting inside, using the flash and a dark background (nothing out of ordinary), then let us know how you like the noisy/unusable picture?
 
panpen said:
Honestly, I want to enjoy this hobby without shooting raw, spending extra money on Lightroom or some fancy software, or spending even more on some noise reduction software.

If I pay $600 for a camera in 2011 I expect more. If you pay that much and expect point and shoot results, it's up to you.
Click to expand...
Experimenting with tuned jpegs from both the E-PL1 and LX3 each at lowest ISO, they both can produce an excellent A2 print (about 23" wide) and the noise you see on screen is not visible on the print. With careful use of jpegs I don't even have to bother with RAW.

In fact in practical taste tests, my wife and I preferred the tuned in-camera jpeg results that had a little further post processing to the RAW results from about 8 or so RAW converters tried. And just to make your day, Silkypix Pro V4 was the best of the RAW converters, but the jpeg printed result was somehow preferred though very very close to the best RAW result. ACR 6.3 showed some more detail when 100% pixel peeped but that difference was not seen at A2 print size. The ACR 6.3 result yielded slightly weird colours and mid level shadow detail was not as good as Silkypix could do.

Those were printing tests simulating A2 print size detail by printing a small crop of the images at around 170 ppi using Qimage. To get an idea of what we looked at the best idea is to pixel peep at no more than 50%, and even then the noise seen disappears when printed to A2 size.

The in-camera jpeg trick usually is to wind back saturation and contrast, set noise reduction to minimum, and set sharpness to minimum. That gives good jpegs that are clean and easy to quickly post process to suit display or print size required.

It's the people who insist on always using RAW that I think are mostly missing the point. All that effort and storage for what now amounts to a very small difference in the end result for all practical purposes. I do shoot RAW plus jpeg but the RAW goes to storage just in case of jpeg problems or if some future RAW converter manages a distinctly better result than the current crop can manage.

If that's point and shoot use of my cameras then I plead guilty.

Of course 100% pixel peepers should not read this post as they may learn something.

Regards........... Guy
 
Sorry to hear about panpen's bad experience with the new PEN E-PL2 (a camera which I also have). I truly think the poor image quality comes from over exposure (which I said can be easily corrected with a -2/6 EV adjustment to exposure, as I discovered after more than 4 days of use) or perhaps he shot in poor, flat lighting with his test images, because that was the weather or lighting conditions present at the time. And as far as the noise, the E-PL2 has a weaker anti alias filter (and hence, more detailed images) than does the PEN E-P2. That means that whatever sharpening settings he set for the camera's JPEGs, or the default sharpening settings used in a software program for RAW or JPEG editing, the "noise" is really a result of setting sharpening too high.
fermy said:
panpen said:
Triumph Steve said:
And give more time to learning how to use it, and you will realize the other "problem" issues you mention are not really very significant.
Click to expand...
I'm coming from an Olympus P2 not a $50 point and shoot camera. Four days is plenty enough time. No gradation can help get rid of the blotches in dark areas. Besides, read the other answers. It looks like I'm not the only one. Back to Adorama where it came from
Click to expand...
Essentially it's the same camera as E-PL1 with some interface and ergonomics improvement. I have a hard time believing that they've made software changes that screwed up the camera so fundamentally. By all accounts E-PL1 has a small edge over E-P2 in IQ. Certainly no blotches in dark areas on it at least for low ISO. I'd suggest setting noise filter to low, gradation to normal and see if it improves things.
Click to expand...
--
Steve in Chapel Hill, NC
Hebrews 11:1

Personal photo web site: http://triumph.smugmug.com/
 
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