E-PL2 review up!

[shoooot]

Don't worry, they will test the GH2 sometime after the GH3 comes out. The GF2 review should come out a few months later than that- unless Oly releases a new P&S or the EPl3.

 

[Pangloss]

Interesting feature!
--
Andrew
Panasonic LX3, Ricoh GXR w/ A12 28&50mm user

 

[Pangloss]

Yes, I understand now! Strange though that the addition of a frame should necessarily also make the image look fuzzy. But then again I suppose the RAW file is kept intact.
Cheers,
--
Andrew
Panasonic LX3, Ricoh GXR w/ A12 28&50mm user

 

[Andrew Westlake]

The one, really curious thing about the 'red dot grid' is that it's suddenly become some sort of issue with the E-PL2 when lots of cameras do exactly the same thing, and have done for a long time.

You'll see this phenomenon when shooting directly into the light with certain lenses; it's probably light reflecting off the microlens array and then back to the sensor off the rear element. It's most obvious when heavily stopped down, which is part of the reason why it tends to be more obvious to Four Thirds users - most of the lenses stop down to F22, which is in relative terms a very small aperture indeed.

As for us somehow being 'sloppy' for not mentioning it, this is for two reasons. First of all, as I said, it's far from unique, and secondly we make a point of rarely stopping down beyond F8 with Four Thirds sensors, because of diffraction effects. So we tend not to generate images that show it.

Don't believe me other cameras do exactly the same thing? This example is from my review of the Olympus ZD 50mm F2 macro, shot on the E-3, back in June 2008.



Here's the Panasonic 45mm F2.8 Macro on the G1, showing much the same effect:



The internet is a funny place at times.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

 

[zxaar]

Have you ever noticed the same with Sony cameras (this strong effect)?
I am just curious.

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

This place needed a dose of real world common sense from an authority like you. Kirk Tuck tried to reason with these people but couldn't get through to some of them. Once again, thank you.

 

[thinkfat]

The one, really curious thing about the 'red dot grid' is that it's suddenly become some sort of issue with the E-PL2 when lots of cameras do exactly the same thing, and have done for a long time.

No. The interesting thing is that it is not perceived as a problem on a lot of other cameras, while somehow people do perceive it as a problem on the E-PL2. Therefore, it's an anomaly.

I encourage you to have a look at this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37667338

There are a lot of interesting samples posted by the users "Marla" and "Bob Tullis" (nevermind the "laser" experiment)

As for us somehow being 'sloppy' for not mentioning it, this is for two reasons. First of all, as I said, it's far from unique, and secondly we make a point of rarely stopping down beyond F8 with Four Thirds sensors, because of diffraction effects. So we tend not to generate images that show it.

Well, people still shoot at f/22 so that highlights become nice, starry flares. It should happen a lot, actually. The samples you showed were quite extreme, and the flares and loss of contrast made them worthless as an image anyway, but the samples shown in the mentioned thread are not that extreme and totally good photos, if it weren't for the red dots.

The question remains: why do people think it's a problem with the E-PL2 and not with an E-P1 or E-PL1? An anomaly, as I said, so it is well worth investigating, to be busted as a myth or confirmed as a real phenomenon. Not evaluating it is, well, not very scientific.

The internet is a funny place at times.

True, but sometimes you have to be careful about what you ridicule and what not.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com

--
Everybody loves gadgets, until they try to make them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkfat
http://thinkfat.blogspot.com

 

[Bruce Clarke]

Yes, I understand now! Strange though that the addition of a frame should necessarily also make the image look fuzzy. But then again I suppose the RAW file is kept intact.

The Dramatic Tone filter is probably responsible. I've tried it on my E-5, and it does horrendous things to the detail in some lights. Best to shoot Raw+JPG, then you can add or remove this and the other filters in Viewer. Or just shoot Raw and play around in Viewer later. If you just shoot JPG with any art filter applied, the detail is gone for good.

Bruce
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce-clarke/
Flickriver - view large on black as a stream:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/bruce-clarke/

 

[Jonas B]

(...)

Don't believe me other cameras do exactly the same thing? This example is from my review of the Olympus ZD 50mm F2 macro, shot on the E-3, back in June 2008.

(a red dot image)

The internet is a funny place at times.

Yes it is. It is now 28 days ago I showed the dots from a flare test setup including an Olympus E-510 and the ZD50/2 Macro. "Nothing new really", here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37467978
That was an image from 2007.

After some discussion I also, again 28 days ago, mentioned the problem is no problem in real life, or at least very seldom a problem, here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37472102

It is of course impossible to predict how much of a problem the red dots are for a certain user.

Why some have to ridicule those daring to mention the problem, or neglect it, or start separate threads about it trying to get their point through, repeatedly, is not the Internet though. It's all very human, which you just showed. I guess many of us seek our two minutes of limited fame.

Jonas

 

[BigBarney]

Very positive review with a strong endorsement of the camera and a silver rating, yet only a 71 point rating. I'm afraid it again shines a light on the DPR scoring system and its complete lack of any apparent science or logic.

They claim it's specific to different classes of cameras, a weak attempt at explaining why mFT's always score low compared to DSLR's. But then I look at the compact camera class XZ-1, which based on this should have scored lower, yet is given 74 points compared to the E-PL2's 71.

So much for the DPR explanation.

To put this in perspective, this puts the XZ-1 in the same territory as the E-5, K-x and D5000, also a rather odd set of bedfellows in terms of classes and scoring.

I think you are misunderstanding what these numbers purport to be. Any dpr score should be interpreted by comparison to other cameras in its group only , so your comment on comparisons to Olympus, Pentax and Nikon dSLRs is irrelevant at best. Sorry if that sounds too blunt but I am genetically 25% a Yorkshireman.

While it is good to see that dpr have published this in depth review relatively quickly it only deepens the mystery as to why the Panasonic GH2 in depth review has yet to appear. The GH2 was announced and previewed back in the mists of time in 2010 while the Olympus E-PL2 was previewed in January 2011. We know they have run some tests on the GH2 as these have occasionally appeared in other comparisons. I am being forced towards one or both of the following conclusions:

• dpr lack the technical competence to review such a complex device.

• dpr have agreed to postpone any review by agreement with Panasonic.

The latter explanation could be due to either a pending firmware upgrade or a delay until the stock situation in North America improves. If it is the stock position why are dpreview ignoring the need for good information of all those outside the US? Come on guys, remember where you came from, and stop practising mushroom management!

 

[photo perzon]

they mentioned it several times

 

[TEBnewyork]

I don't think it was completely the lack of two wheels, they added the wrong wheel!

The upper vertical wheel is ergonomically much better. They could make the vertical wheel perfect on the E-P3 by adding the push in to toggle function of the Panny's.

--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

 

[panasonicJoe]

Wonder when they will review the GH2...
--
Ann Chaikin
Painting & Photography:
http://www.annchaikin.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/annchaikin/
Photo a Day
http://www.blipfoto.com/ArtistAnnie
Family Websites:
http://www.chaikinsofbellingham.com

This reinforces the "Myth" that dpreview tends to review the more "popular" i.e. with high clicks, cameras while others which have been out for a long time, GH2, are not even reviewed. I dont understand their rationale.. I'm losing my confidence in the impartialness of this site.

DPR is the single best site of its kind, with or without any perception anyone may have about bias.

If you want some bias, go read Popular Photography's reviews, and I subscribe despite that.

--
joe

 

[MichaelKJ]

Andy,

IMO this is not something that most users need to be concerned about and the E-PL2 appears to be a great camera.

Nevertheless, the red dot problem has received more attention with the E-PL2 because it appears to be more prone to it than other cameras. There is an online post showing this problem at F5.6. There is also a post showing identical scenes shot with the E-PL1 and E-PL2 where only the E-PL2 photos have red dots.

I do not think it is in the best interests of rational debate and the pursuit of knowledge when people ridicule those who think this problem might be worse in the E-PL2 than in other cameras. Your dismissive attitude implies that you think everyone who has voiced concern about this problem is ignorant and/or stupid.

Noise, for example, is an inherent problem that obviously varies across cameras. Isn't is possible that the red dot phenomenon is also an inherent problem that is more pronounced in some cameras that in others? If that is the case, I think some people would find that information useful.

 

[johngraham]

That would be great!

 

[Kevin Peters]

hey dont knock seattle, its probably one of the prettiest places in the US and a great place to test under dark conditions!!

The lens quality looks pretty good to me, but the choice of subject for the sample pictures has gone right down the pan since they moved to Seattle. How many shots of rusty old cars do we need to asses camera performance?

Also, not a mention of the "red dot" problem when shooting against the light.

In the past I have seen forum posts praising the artistic quality of review pictures, but this seems to have disappeared recently - different photographer or just a lack of inspiring subjects?
--

Photographers feel guilty that all they do for a living is press a button. - Andy Warhol

 

[Kevin Peters]

the red dots can also be caused by shoddy photography!

There are numerous people in various forums, including this one, that have no problem to provide photos generously showing the red dot grid around light sources (and it doesn't take a laser to see them). Bob Tullis has a gallery full of them! Yet no mentioning in the review at all? Reminds me of the Sony A55 ghosting that was first omitted and then downplayed as not relevant other than in special situations.

Sloppy, sloppy...

--
Everybody loves gadgets, until they try to make them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkfat
http://thinkfat.blogspot.com

 

[ogremage]

If it only appears at f22 or close, then it is indeed a non-issue.

 

[jang573]

Congrutalions for your interesting review , but I really miss some pics where you can see the capability of this camera to blur the background . I dont't see any difference with the panasonic lx5 as far as DOF is concerned . I'm a compact user who is interested in buying maybe a micro third camera but also tempted by the panasonic lx5 and I would like to see some of the creative possibilities you can get with the Olympus epl2.

I hope one day you fulfill my dream !

Kind Regards ,

jang573

 

[Lars Rehm]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl2/page11.asp

There is a small section on the lens on this page. There is some difference in image quality but not an awful lot. It appears Olympus' main goal of the lens redesign was to make it focus faster and more quietly.
--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com