LutherHeggs00
New member
IMO. Take a look.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
E-PL2 beats X100
- Thread starter LutherHeggs00
- Start date
Peter Nelson
Veteran Member
Not only are the cameras close in size, but you can change lenses on the E-PL2.
I have the E-P1 and 17mm f/2.8 with the optical viewfinder V-1. This is very much a retro rangefinder design. I'm thinking the original Leica screw mount cameras or "Barnak Cameras". They had no viewfinder like the newer Leica M cameras. But like the E-P1 and your camera they have the shoe mount that accepts other FL optical viewfinders, for when you do change the lens. Or use the rear LCD.
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
I have the E-P1 and 17mm f/2.8 with the optical viewfinder V-1. This is very much a retro rangefinder design. I'm thinking the original Leica screw mount cameras or "Barnak Cameras". They had no viewfinder like the newer Leica M cameras. But like the E-P1 and your camera they have the shoe mount that accepts other FL optical viewfinders, for when you do change the lens. Or use the rear LCD.
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
Look at RAW 200, X100 wins by far. There's splotchiness and noise in solid color areas (red text area, watch face) even at ISO200 for the E-PL2.
Look at RAW 3200, X100 kicks the E-PL2's teeth in.
Look at RAW 6400, X100 curb stomps the E-PL2.
The Olympus JPG engine and the Olympus 50mm Macro one of the sharpest ever consumer lenses help it a lot.
Look at RAW 3200, X100 kicks the E-PL2's teeth in.
Look at RAW 6400, X100 curb stomps the E-PL2.
The Olympus JPG engine and the Olympus 50mm Macro one of the sharpest ever consumer lenses help it a lot.
Depends on what part of the scene you are viewing. The Fuji X100 looks really bad on that upper left corner for some reason but does much better on other parts of the scene. Either a focus or a lens issue. Some parts of the scene I have to give the win to the Fuji. One thing is for sure the E-PL1 does better than the E-PL2 every where in the scene and goes stride for stride with the E5.
I'm not too sure which camera is the Apple or which one is the Watermelon?
But I think you're observations are a tad overly simplistic.
Firstly is the RAW vs. JPEG comparison. Most really passionate, (and a few who are not passionate at all like myself) will have a tendancy to shoot in RAW.
Here's where you'll find a huge performance difference, in terms of dynamic range, noise, sharpness, chromatic aberratoin, vignetting and lens distortion all in favour of anything with either a APS-C or FF sensor over the 4/3's system.
So if you're going to restrict yourself to shooting in jpeg in bright daylight, then other than when enlarging the photo, I would guess you're ablolutely spot on. If we're comparing the X100 to any other camera with inter-changeable lens, well okay, but they're totally 2 different cameras unless you intend to zoom with your feet and you've figured out how to zoom in over water or thru the air. :0)
But the reality of the situation is that for most, jpeg shooting in daylight is most of the time not an option.
Take a shot indoors with "normal lighting" and the 4/3 sensor unfortunately, cannot handle it well compared to the APSC sensor or FF. I really enjoyed my E-P2 before it was stolen and it took much better jpegs than the G2 I replaced it with.
However, in terms of RAW, which I use more than 90% of the time, there really isn't too much difference between Oly & Panny. That said I prefer the user interface (controls, menus and buttons) much more on the Panny then the Oly and vice versa on the jpegs.
For me I'm happier with the Panny over the Oly, but when it comes to comparing similar FL lens results, there's really nothing to contest here, 4/3's having the advantages of size and weight over the DSLR, has similar disadvantages when compared with the DSLR or X100 in terms of RAW output.
--
Best,
Rob
------------------------------------
R3A M6-9 X100 GXR G2 DP2
But I think you're observations are a tad overly simplistic.
Firstly is the RAW vs. JPEG comparison. Most really passionate, (and a few who are not passionate at all like myself) will have a tendancy to shoot in RAW.
Here's where you'll find a huge performance difference, in terms of dynamic range, noise, sharpness, chromatic aberratoin, vignetting and lens distortion all in favour of anything with either a APS-C or FF sensor over the 4/3's system.
So if you're going to restrict yourself to shooting in jpeg in bright daylight, then other than when enlarging the photo, I would guess you're ablolutely spot on. If we're comparing the X100 to any other camera with inter-changeable lens, well okay, but they're totally 2 different cameras unless you intend to zoom with your feet and you've figured out how to zoom in over water or thru the air. :0)
But the reality of the situation is that for most, jpeg shooting in daylight is most of the time not an option.
Take a shot indoors with "normal lighting" and the 4/3 sensor unfortunately, cannot handle it well compared to the APSC sensor or FF. I really enjoyed my E-P2 before it was stolen and it took much better jpegs than the G2 I replaced it with.
However, in terms of RAW, which I use more than 90% of the time, there really isn't too much difference between Oly & Panny. That said I prefer the user interface (controls, menus and buttons) much more on the Panny then the Oly and vice versa on the jpegs.
For me I'm happier with the Panny over the Oly, but when it comes to comparing similar FL lens results, there's really nothing to contest here, 4/3's having the advantages of size and weight over the DSLR, has similar disadvantages when compared with the DSLR or X100 in terms of RAW output.
--
Best,
Rob
------------------------------------
R3A M6-9 X100 GXR G2 DP2
These days I shot alot of jpeg (time constraints) so I dont really care about raw that much anymore and at low Iso the fuji is a disgrace...
The Oly Jpg engine is probably the best in the market and rips the fujis jpeg engines face off and uses it as toilet paper... to use a colorful comparison you seem to like so much...
PS: I also don't like the fuji colors but I guess thats a matter of preference...
Sphinx_man
Forum Enthusiast
I found the situation similar when I compared the JPEGs from EPL2 vs GH2 (which I would like to buy). JPEGs from EPL2 look far better in color and sharpness compared to those from GH2.
now I am in a quandry......
now I am in a quandry......
papillon_65
Forum Pro
Not forgetting that the EPL1/2 kicks the X100 in the nuts, leaves it writhing on the floor, comes back after a beer, body slams it and then gives it a wedgie...when it comes to lens choicesThese days I shot alot of jpeg (time constraints) so I dont really care about raw that much anymore and at low Iso the fuji is a disgrace...
The Oly Jpg engine is probably the best in the market and rips the fujis jpeg engines face off and uses it as toilet paper... to use a colorful comparison you seem to like so much...
PS: I also don't like the fuji colors but I guess thats a matter of preference...
. --
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
x100 blows out highlights and has purply chromatic aberrations like crazy; epl2 way way cleaner.
likely lens related thought..below crop shot with x100
Just Having Fun
Senior Member
Your comments come across as hypocritical. You might want to change them because they are "a tad overly simplistic".
There is much more more to shooting in "normal lighting" than sensor size. Lens aperture, IS, camera processing (even RAW files are processed), AA filter, bounce or diffused flash, etc.
I would much rather shoot indoors with an E-PL1, the F/1.7 lens, IBIS, and the built-in flash (which can be tilted and used as a bounce flash), than and APS camera with an F/3.5 lens, no IS and no flash.
You better have your eyes checked. The two are essentially identical at ISO200 RAW, with the differences being down to processing choices.
OTOH, the GH2 destroys the X100 at normal ISO settings.
Jogger
Veteran Member
The differences you are seeing are due to the macro lens on the EPL2.. which doesnt even AF properly. The X100 wasnt optimised for macro shooting.
IMO. Take a look.
mpgxsvcd
Veteran Member
I just don't get the appeal of the X100. Sure it appears to be decent @ 35mm and ISO 3200 and above. But that is ALL it can do. It shoots one focal length and a very limited ISO range.
I can buy lenses for m4/3s that can make it match the X100 using a lower ISO and a wider aperture. Think 30mm F1.4 or 25mm F1.4. And those lenses don't cost anymore than the X100. However, with m4/3s I can shoot any focal length I want.
I just don't get it. The X100 is a small camera with a nifty viewfinder. However, it really isn't the great camera that everyone makes it out to be.
--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
I can buy lenses for m4/3s that can make it match the X100 using a lower ISO and a wider aperture. Think 30mm F1.4 or 25mm F1.4. And those lenses don't cost anymore than the X100. However, with m4/3s I can shoot any focal length I want.
I just don't get it. The X100 is a small camera with a nifty viewfinder. However, it really isn't the great camera that everyone makes it out to be.
--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
That shot wouldn't have been useable if taken with a Micro Four Thirds camera, maybe the GH-2 possibly. There is a lot of dynamic range there, just look at the DXO numbers on DR.
I love Olympus cameras but they are seriously handicapped by relying on 2 generations old sensor technology due to Panasonic. At least they're still making great affordable glass.
Oh the CA, it wasn't post processed and shooting that scene with even Leica or Zeiss glass would have led to CA as well.
I love Olympus cameras but they are seriously handicapped by relying on 2 generations old sensor technology due to Panasonic. At least they're still making great affordable glass.
Oh the CA, it wasn't post processed and shooting that scene with even Leica or Zeiss glass would have led to CA as well.
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
If MicroFourThirds was Nanking, the X100 is the Japanese army.
If you're a pixel peeper you don't shoot JPG.
If you're a pixel peeper you don't shoot JPG.
Jogger
Veteran Member
Thats the best part. Its not trying to be the best camera for everyone. For people who get it, its absolutely great for them. The world doesnt need another me-too compact mirrorless system; this makes sense for photographers and business sense for Fuji.
If you dont get it, move on.
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
Maybe you should just go back in time and ask HCB why he only uses one focal length?
After months of waiting I received the X100 on Wed of last week. It's a beautiful camera no doubt and I wish Olympus put this kind of flare into their brand. That being said, the IQ is not as good as the EPL1 and 20 1.7 and here is why:
Resolution/Detail: The EPL1 (as do most micro 4/3rds cameras) has a very weak AA filter, between the AA filter, the 20 1.7 (which outclasses most lenses in terms of resolution) and the JPEG engine I find the EPL1 easily beats the Fuji.
Color: Olympus > Fuji. While Fuji is well known for it's colorimetry, the Olympus does a much better job with blues and greens and overall produces a more balanced 'look' to an image. Olympus nails skin tones, something that very few have accomplished.
I would put the EPL1 + 20 1.7 up against ANY APC sensor (OOC JPEG) on the market right now, at least at lower ISOs.
As for the Fuji, I plan to sell it and makes some money off the deal. It's a wonderful camera, but i really can't justify the price. The hybrid viewfinder, manual controls and high ISO performance are all very nice, but f it leaves something to be desire in terms of focusing and operation and the IQ while as good as if not better than most SLRs on the market right now, still doesn't produce those perfectly 'cooked' JPEGs that Olympus has mastered. While it beats the Olympus at high ISO (above ISO 1600), the Olympus has IBS and IBS + 20 1.7 which is a more versitle combination.
Resolution/Detail: The EPL1 (as do most micro 4/3rds cameras) has a very weak AA filter, between the AA filter, the 20 1.7 (which outclasses most lenses in terms of resolution) and the JPEG engine I find the EPL1 easily beats the Fuji.
Color: Olympus > Fuji. While Fuji is well known for it's colorimetry, the Olympus does a much better job with blues and greens and overall produces a more balanced 'look' to an image. Olympus nails skin tones, something that very few have accomplished.
I would put the EPL1 + 20 1.7 up against ANY APC sensor (OOC JPEG) on the market right now, at least at lower ISOs.
As for the Fuji, I plan to sell it and makes some money off the deal. It's a wonderful camera, but i really can't justify the price. The hybrid viewfinder, manual controls and high ISO performance are all very nice, but f it leaves something to be desire in terms of focusing and operation and the IQ while as good as if not better than most SLRs on the market right now, still doesn't produce those perfectly 'cooked' JPEGs that Olympus has mastered. While it beats the Olympus at high ISO (above ISO 1600), the Olympus has IBS and IBS + 20 1.7 which is a more versitle combination.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum