E-PL2 as sharp as E-5?

Hi all,

I was just checking the review for the E-PL2 and specially pages 7 and 14. Is it me or is this camera as sharp os even sharper than the E-5?

BR
ion

ionpositivo said:

Hi all,

I was just checking the review for the E-PL2 and specially pages 7 and 14. Is it me or is this camera as sharp os even sharper than the E-5?

BR
ion

Click to expand...

The simple answer is:

In the shots you have looked at, the EPL-2 is as sharp (or maybe sharper) as the E-5 (you aren't the only person to notice this).

This does not mean that EPL-2 is a "sharper Camera" than the E-5.

The only thing it proves is that in that case, at that time, with that shot, it got a sharper picture..

If you could prove these kinds of differences with only a couple of shots, then testing cameras would not be a difficult thing to do.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

A camera cannot be sharp unless you mean it has some sharp edges.
Lenses are mostly what makes a sharp image and the sensor can influence detail.

I agree, it seems to be as sharp.

I have both cameras, and I do see very similar sharpness between the two. The sensors are either identical or nearly so, but the E-5's processing engine is said to be more sophisticated. The E-PL2's good sharpness speaks well for the new kit generation 14-42mm zoom lens.
--
Steve in Chapel Hill, NC
Hebrews 11:1

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

if the AA filter is heavy, or NR is heavy...

I would say my E-520 is softer than my 500 (one reason I still have the older model) but images sharpen up sufficiently in PP

If the E-PL2 has the same (light) AA filter as the E-5, then yes, it will produce more detail than previous models w/o added (in camera or post) sharpening.

Of course a camera can produce sharp, but plasticy jpegs by applying lots of NR and sharpening in camera, but that doesn't restore detail that never made it to the sensor.

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

The E5 is very very sharp, and so are the EPL1 and 2. But of course with the E5 I can mount the 50-200 and take very very sharp photos of kids skiing in the rain like I did yesterday without much problem, or use its much better IS to take bird photos at lower shutter speeds. It's a big difference. Still, you can mount Olympus' best lenses on the EPL2 and use a tripod and go out and take some shots that look every bit as good as E5 shots (and that's a route some people have chosen).

The thing about the AA filter being weaker, it actually makes every lens look sharper, from the worst to the best. Really nice. Even my quite soft OM 50 1.4 looks sharper wide open.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

I think it is nearly as sharp exept that the processing engine not has that fine-detail part the E5 has. (truepic5 vs truepic5+)

PL1 sharper than the PL2 if you look at the resolution test images and compare.

My take is that they upped the default noise reduction to reach 6400, and have more slick, consumerist pictures. A weaker AA filter must be compensated somehow, and DPR made the guess that it was done by better denoising algorithms.

I think that Oly goes through cycles. The first iteration, like the 410 in comparison with the 420, is sharper, the second is less sharp but might have better DR and higher ISO.

I regretted selling the 410, so now I stick with the PL1, and I don't fall for the PL2.

For those who diss Micro lenses, I remind that Micro can mount all kinds of lenses, as good as HG or SHG Zuikos, notably Leica, Zeiss, CVT, Schneiders.

So that resolution can be put to good use with very small rangefinder lenses, which work very well with a magnifying EVF.

The E-5 might have better sharpening algorithms, but the PL1 frees me from dinosaur lenses. In a few months native HG stuff will come, so that resolution can be put to excellent use.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

EPL2:

The camera uses a comparatively light anti-aliasing filter and can accurately describe the 9 lines on our test charts up to approximately 2300 LPH. It still shows some detail up to roughly 2800 LPH.

E-5:

As you can see from the moire patterning which muddles the nine lines of our test chart between 2800Lph and 3200Lph, but it aids the impression of resolution in finely textured areas. Even in JPEG mode, all nine lines of our chart are accurately described by the E-5 up to approximately 2600Lph, which represents excellent performance.

You can see that even EPL2 share the similar light AA filter, the E-5 still can get more details. In my opinion, the default setting of EPL2 is a little over sharppen, and I still prefer E-5 than EPL2 in terms of image quality. However, the gap is invisible if you did not review pics 100%.

And 2600 is quite a big jump from 620, E30 and E3 resolution. I actually like it best for landscapes now. For people shots in most cases you don't really need that kind of fine detail, but for nice large prints of landscape detail it helps a lot.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

You are very unlikely to get as many sharp photos from the pens- they balance poorly with HG lenses, have cruder AF, IS etc. But when everything works (as with studio shots using 50M) they are very sharp indeed.

That is the same experience I have from using the E-pl1, and now the E-5, they both can produce very sharp images, but the E-5 have better detail.
--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

Bluephotons said:

That is the same experience I have from using the E-pl1, and now the E-5, they both can produce very sharp images, but the E-5 have better detail.

Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. Just do a comparison between the E-5 and the PL1 here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl2/page13.asp

Ypu get what you pay for is somehow a fuzzy concept in Oly's new world.

PL1 has still more detail than the E-5, at all ISO speeds.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

A Rebel is probably as sharp as a 7D also.

The problem is the lenses you have to mount to it. You can't mount HG and SHG lenses and get the balance or performance you need.

On a tripod with manual focus you can get very similar pictures. In real world situations the answer is very different.

I love my EP2 very much. But it's very limited compared to my E5 and what I can use it for.

Your prejudices against Micro lenses don't change the test results.

Micro can mount over 300 lenses, and among those, the best resolution ones ever, like Leica, thanks to a shorter register.

So don't obfuscate the matter, thank you.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

ionpositivo said:

Hi all,

I was just checking the review for the E-PL2 and specially pages 7 and 14. Is it me or is this camera as sharp os even sharper than the E-5?

BR
ion

Click to expand...

I owned and use both an E-PL1 and E5, and those two are pretty much equal in terms of sharpness, so I'd not be surprised.

I own 3 of them. But their performance and speed is not even really a discussion. The vaunted 20 1.7 is a nice lens but not even close to my 50mm 4/3 lens in image quality for example. 14-42 is not close to my 12-60. etc, etc. It's just the facts.

Sure you can mount 300 lenses, but you'll have to manually focus them, or even worse wait about 2-3 seconds for them to focus. And good luck gripping the camera properly with large lenses mounted.

So as sharp and nice as my E-P2 is, if I need any sort of real performance I have to pull out the E5.

Hopefully in a few years there won't be any difference, but for now 90 % of working pros will want to have a micro and a DSLR in their bag.

I hope that Olympus can prove me wrong and come out with some serious glass for micro 4/3, as I am one of the biggest of Olympus supporters, and not just with my mouth but my wallet.

amalric said:

Bluephotons said:

That is the same experience I have from using the E-pl1, and now the E-5, they both can produce very sharp images, but the E-5 have better detail.

Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. Just do a comparison between the E-5 and the PL1 here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl2/page13.asp

Ypu get what you pay for is somehow a fuzzy concept in Oly's new world.

PL1 has still more detail than the E-5, at all ISO speeds.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Click to expand...

arhh.. he has both cameraes, compare the resolutions pages here at DPR.

You are so oneeyed, to your own investments.....

--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/satyrium_w/
E 620,E 51o 2x kit, EX 25, 35mm, 5omm; EC2o,
7o-3oo, 50-200, panaTz7, E-pl1,VF-2 ,14-42mm m4/3,mf 35mm f 1.7 SLRM.
some old manuel focusing lenses.

"...And good luck gripping the camera properly with large lenses mounted..."

Whenever I hear the 'big lenses won't work on small cameras' argument, I have to wonder how people are holding their cameras (or more importantly, their lenses). If your left hand is under the lens, palm supporting it in a proper hold, then the size of the body is close to irrelevant - except in terms of how much weight IT is contributing to the total that you're having to support. I shot with an OM-1 (which is as near as makes no odds in size to a Pen once you slice the prism housing off) for close to 30 years, and never had a problem using larger lenses - which at times included the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 (which, the web tells me, was 943 grams as compared to the 12-60's 575) and a 600mm mirror. And this was before these heady days of built-in IS.

I'd be worried about whether the Pen's lens MOUNTS could take the weight of a larger lens if they were stressed, ideally I'd use a tripod for ANY sufficiently long lens regardless of body, and I'd RATHER have a smaller lens if it could give the same performance, but if I could hold any specific big barrel lens with an E-510 or an E-5 (or an OM-1), I could hold it with a Pen.