Is it just the EPL1 or are all 4/3 cameras not very user friendly?

453C · Jan 9, 2012

happyden said:
The camera was quickly returned.

Smart move.

Whenever possible, I think it's best to lay hands on tools before purchase, be it a circular saw, a pistol, or a camera. Words and picture can only do so much, and if the saw's too heavy, a safety is too much of a reach, or adjusting aperture is too much of a bother, those tools aren't for you. At that point, it doesn't really matter how well they work for anyone else, does it?
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

453C · Jan 9, 2012

Ray Sachs said:
I've always thought (and recommended) that most folks are better off with a good compact with a fast lens than with an m43 camera if they're only planning to use the kit lens . It's when you start getting into other lenses for low light, wide angle, telephoto, etc, that the m43 can really reach its potential. At which point it's a whole lot nicer than just about any compact. But assuming you're staying within the capability of the camera, you can print very well at 12x18 with any good compact.

Very true, Ray.

Being able to shoot in relatively low light with a small system was one of the reasons I chose MFT over a compact or superzoom, and I don't regret the decision. I don't use the kit lens much any more. In fact, shortly after buying my E-PL1+kit lens, I added a Panasonic 20mm because I knew it'd work better in lower light than the 14-42.

I'm not sure why we see some complaints about MFT when compared to either a compact or DSLR. Different tools for different jobs, and they each excel in different areas. It's up to the buyer to decide what's most important, as it always has been. Only now, there are more options.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

453C · Jan 9, 2012

tinternaut said:
That said, the basic photographic controls of the S95 (i.e. the control ring around the lens) are inherently better than all but the best of the Micro Four Thirds cameras. Still, it helps to learn how to use the camera.

What are you talking about?
My lowly E-PL1 has a control ring around the lens.

Well, this lens (thanks to WT21 for the photo):

Works great!

Seriously, it's a shame the MFT spec doesn't include an aperture ring. Aperture-by-wire seems like it would be very easy to accomplish, and having such easy access would be preferable to any body based control scheme.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

453C · Jan 9, 2012

tedolf said:
happyden said:

Terdoff, (sp.?)

Me thinks you are a fool!

D

Click to expand...

Sorry, cameras from the 19th century don't count.

Tedolph,

Defender of the U 4/3 Faith

I'll let you and Grandmaster T continue as you wish, but I have two questions about that photo.

Why did you change the date?
What lens did you use?

--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

deleted12 · Jan 9, 2012

As I wrote about 15 posts again, I have no desire to continue communication with Terdoff, and I haven't since then. I changed the date just for fun (what's the difference, photo obviously wasn't taken in 1899, but January 5, 2012 when I received the camera.) And the lens was the 14-42 kit lens that came with the camera.

D

453C · Jan 9, 2012

happyden said:
As I wrote about 15 posts again, I have no desire to continue communication with Terdoff, and I haven't since then. I changed the date just for fun (what's the difference, photo obviously wasn't taken in 1899, but January 5, 2012 when I received the camera.) And the lens was the 14-42 kit lens that came with the camera.

Really?

That must be a very special Olympus 14-42 MkI lens.
My copy has a maximum aperture of f5.5 at 40mm, not f4.0.

Maybe you shouldn't have returned it so soon.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

mfbernstein · Jan 9, 2012

fermy said:
mfbernstein said:

fermy said:

No, that simply says that within its capabilities modern compacts are quite good. E-PL1 with kit lens provides better IQ than any compact, however the capabilities of this combo do not extend capabilities of a compact that much (this is true for most zoom kits that I know of). Now put 20mm or fast 50, or 9-18 on E-PL1 and compact simply can't do what this combo can.

Click to expand...

A faster kit lens or one with a more useful range would do that too. Nowhere is it written in stone that a kit lens must be a 28-80mm EFL f/3.5-5.6 lens with middling sharpness and significant CA.

Click to expand...

True that. To be fair, Pany has (had?) 20mm and 14mm kits, while Oly has 17mm kits. I'd love to see 9-18 Zuiko bundled in a kit though.

The Oly 17/2.8 is a worse lens than the 14-42mk2, save in aperture, so that doesn't necessarily help

But for the higher end Pens and Panasonics, it really wouldn't hurt to have a better zoom lens, like the 14-54/2.8-3.5 which Olympus used with some of its 4/3 DSLRs or the 14-50 that Panasonic included with the L1. It's not like the E-P3 or GH2 are particularly inexpensive!

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

deleted12 · Jan 9, 2012

453C,

Then it must have been the other kit lens, the 40-150, since that begins at f4. Those were the only 2 lenses in the Costco package I purchased.

D

453C · Jan 9, 2012

happyden said:
453C,

Then it must have been the other kit lens, the 40-150, since that begins at f4. Those were the only 2 lenses in the Costco package I purchased.

If you say so.

Seems a little odd that this is the first time we've heard about anything other than the 14-42 MkI in your possession, and that you decided to edit the EXIF for "fun".
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

deleted12 · Jan 9, 2012

Don't you have anything better to do? Costco only sells the camera in the 2 lens package. The date was what it was as I didn't even bother to set the date on the camera, so it defaulted to the 1899 date obviously.

But seriously now, I came from the distant past with that camera from 1899 to see how the world was doing currently, and its clear its not doing very well.

Have a good day.

D

453C · Jan 9, 2012

happyden said:
Don't you have anything better to do?

Of course I do, but right now, I'm curious about you.

deleted12 said:
Costco only sells the camera in the 2 lens package.

If you mentioned buying a twin lens kit at Costco, I don't remember seeing it. Perhaps that would've been better mentioned towards the beginning of the thread, amidst all of your disappointment.

deleted12 said:
The date was what it was as I didn't even bother to set the date on the camera, so it defaulted to the 1899 date obviously.

If that was the case, why didn't you just say so?

happyden said:
Oh my! You noticed I changed the date, very good!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40270534

When you make contradictory statements, don't be surprised or angry if someone questions them.

deleted12 said:
But seriously now, I came from the distant past with that camera from 1899 to see how the world was doing currently, and its clear its not doing very well.

Are you returning soon? If so, take your S95 with, as I don't think an E-PL1 would impress. Sorry the PEN didn't work out for you. From what you've said, maybe sticking with your S95 is the best choice for now.

deleted12 said:
Have a good day.

You, too.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

tedolf · Jan 9, 2012

happyden said:
The camera was quickly returned.

If it was quickly returned, then how is it that you just posted a recent photo from it?

deleted12 said:
OP

TEdolph

tedolf · Jan 9, 2012

mfbernstein said:
fermy said:

mfbernstein said:

Ray Sachs said:

I've always thought (and recommended) that most folks are better off with a good compact with a fast lens than with an m43 camera if they're only planning to use the kit lens .

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mfbernstein said:

mfbernstein wrote:

That says as much about the quality of the kit lenses as anything else. Just because they're usually mediocre and slow doesn't mean they always have to be.

Click to expand...

No, that simply says that within its capabilities modern compacts are quite good. E-PL1 with kit lens provides better IQ than any compact, however the capabilities of this combo do not extend capabilities of a compact that much (this is true for most zoom kits that I know of). Now put 20mm or fast 50, or 9-18 on E-PL1 and compact simply can't do what this combo can.

Click to expand...

A faster kit lens or one with a more useful range would do that too. Nowhere is it written in stone that a kit lens must be a 28-80mm EFL f/3.5-5.6 lens with middling sharpness and significant CA.

that a kit lens must be very, very inexpensive.

mfbernstein said:
--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

tEdolph

tedolf · Jan 9, 2012

mfbernstein said:
fermy said:

mfbernstein said:

mfbernstein said:

No, that simply says that within its capabilities modern compacts are quite good. E-PL1 with kit lens provides better IQ than any compact, however the capabilities of this combo do not extend capabilities of a compact that much (this is true for most zoom kits that I know of). Now put 20mm or fast 50, or 9-18 on E-PL1 and compact simply can't do what this combo can.

Click to expand...

A faster kit lens or one with a more useful range would do that too. Nowhere is it written in stone that a kit lens must be a 28-80mm EFL f/3.5-5.6 lens with middling sharpness and significant CA.

Click to expand...

True that. To be fair, Pany has (had?) 20mm and 14mm kits, while Oly has 17mm kits. I'd love to see 9-18 Zuiko bundled in a kit though.

Click to expand...

The Oly 17/2.8 is a worse lens than the 14-42mk2, save in aperture, so that doesn't necessarily help

you got test charts to back that up?

At the same aperture?

Didn't think so.

mfbernstein said:
But for the higher end Pens and Panasonics, it really wouldn't hurt to have a better zoom lens, like the 14-54/2.8-3.5 which Olympus used with some of its 4/3 DSLRs or the 14-50 that Panasonic included with the L1. It's not like the E-P3 or GH2 are particularly inexpensive!

Panny tried that with the 14-45mm. They gave up and replced it with the inferior (marginally) 14-42mm kit lens.

mfbernstein said:
--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

TEdolph

tedolf · Jan 9, 2012

453C said:
tinternaut said:

That said, the basic photographic controls of the S95 (i.e. the control ring around the lens) are inherently better than all but the best of the Micro Four Thirds cameras. Still, it helps to learn how to use the camera.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
My lowly E-PL1 has a control ring around the lens.

Well, this lens (thanks to WT21 for the photo):

Works great!

Seriously, it's a shame the MFT spec doesn't include an aperture ring. Aperture-by-wire seems like it would be very easy to accomplish, and having such easy access would be preferable to any body based control scheme.
--

Samsung has it with thier intelligent control ring.

453C said:
http://453c.smugmug.com/

phototransformations · Jan 9, 2012

To each his own. I never want to be asked, Do you really want to do this? And then to have to press multiple keys to say that yes, indeed I do want to do that.

tedolf · Jan 9, 2012

happyden said:
453C,

has been cooking the EXIF data, eh?

I wonder what other data (other than date) he cooked?

deleted12 said:
Then it must have been the other kit lens, the 40-150, since that begins at f4. Those were the only 2 lenses in the Costco package I purchased.

Sure, sure HappyDen, it must have been the "other" lens (that you didn't tell us about).

We believe you.

Really, we do!

deleted12 said:
D

Terdolf

tedolf · Jan 9, 2012

453C said:
happyden said:

453C,

Then it must have been the other kit lens, the 40-150, since that begins at f4. Those were the only 2 lenses in the Costco package I purchased.

Click to expand...

If you say so.

Seems a little odd that this is the first time we've heard about anything other than the 14-42 MkI in your possession, and that you decided to edit the EXIF for "fun".
--

why we all cook our EXIF data on a regular basis........

just for fun.

Don't you?

453C said:
http://453c.smugmug.com/

Turdolph

tedolf · Jan 9, 2012

happyden said:
Don't you have anything better to do? Costco only sells the camera in the 2 lens package. The date was what it was as I didn't even bother to set the date on the camera, so it defaulted to the 1899 date obviously.

HappyDen.

It all makes sense now that you have explianed it away.

We believe you......totally.

Honest.

deleted12 said:
But seriously now, I came from the distant past with that camera from 1899 to see how the world was doing currently, and its clear its not doing very well.

Clearly.

I wonder why you changed the date "for fun" (that is what you said you did) to 1899?

Or, were you.....uh......mistaken when you said that and now your story is that the camera "defaulted" to 1899.

Which one is it?

I am getting confused.

deleted12 said:
Have a good day.

D

Turdolph

453C · Jan 9, 2012

phototransformations said:
To each his own. I never want to be asked, Do you really want to do this? And then to have to press multiple keys to say that yes, indeed I do want to do that.

Believe me, I know what you're talking about, but in this instance, having to make two distinct button presses makes some sense. This is one of those small things that could be user configurable, to the benefit of everyone.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

Is it just the EPL1 or are all 4/3 cameras not very user friendly?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts