EP5/Poor man's Pen F

Peter Del wrote:

Gosh, you've cropped a 48 inch wide print!

Yes; well maybe !.  At 300 dpi it would be 15.26 x 11.447 inches.   At 200 dpi it would be 22.89 x 17.17 inches.  At 100 dpi it would be 45.78 x 34.34 inches.  One has to go to 95 dpi to get a "48 inch print!".

You are using a straw man argument to try and get around your embarrassment of calling the photo "excellent" ... and you should be embarrassed.

NO ONE who actually knows about and has practised photography and printing would call this photo "excellent" and if you continue to think so then I, and I suspect no one else, can help you.

That photo, quality wise, is pretty damn poor and anyone with their photo head screwed on correctly would agree with me.   It would hit my Recycle Bin faster than you could blink !.   

Now.  Have at it.  I'm out.

I clicked on 'original size', copied it, and viewed itat  A3 size and it is excellent.

If you can't see it, there isn't much I can do about it.

Peter Del

I too thought that Chas J was being overly critical and thought it was a fine shot - I then started looking more closely - I clicked on it and went to 100% zoom and also used the loupe function - Almost directly above the orange building to the right of centre there is a horrible mess - I don't know the technical term for it - It appears to be a smudged blob of colors - I must say that having results like that would certainly give me second thoughts about the camera/lens combo -
Am I seeing things? What are your thoughts - I don't have a Pen F but do have an EP 5 -
I am certainly not trolling or looking to start a war as is so often the case on here - I am now genuinely interested in an explanation -
Monty

This is why many people don’t post images very often. IMO, the image is fine. I didn’t zoom into it to try and read the menus etc, it stands on its own as a whole. It is a pretty scene. For those who want to go down to pixel level, that’s great if that is what you enjoy, but many of us are happy not to. Images don’t have to be perfect to be a nice image. If you want to trash my imperfect images, so be it, let’s see your perfect images.

I can see what you see (accidental use of the smudge tool or yuk on the sensor), but I've never understood this fascination with looking at an image at 100%.

Peter Del

Settle down - Did you read my post? Why must most so many posts on this site end up confrontational? I'm not discussing your posts and  I have never claimed my posts were perfect - I'm glad you like it but just zoom in and have a look - I also like it overall and I am now genuinely interested in an explanation about that particular photo as I was considering that lens -
Monty

I don't consider it a fascination -Do you consider viewing at original size a fascination also? FYI I was contemplating acquiring that lens so I think using a magnified look see is a useful function -
Monty

savonie wrote:

Settle down - Did you read my post? Why must most so many posts on this site end up confrontational? I'm not discussing your posts and I have never claimed my posts were perfect - I'm glad you like it but just zoom in and have a look - I also like it overall and I am now genuinely interested in an explanation about that particular photo as I was considering that lens -
Monty

I didn’t quote you, yes I read your post, I just replied to the thread and yours was the last post so that is what I replied to. My point is directed more at the original criticism of the image. No it is not perfect but I think the criticism of the image is a bit harsh. It’s a nice image. Sorry if you thought my post was directed specifically at you.

savonie wrote:

I don't consider it a fascination -Do you consider viewing at original size a fascination also? FYI I was contemplating acquiring that lens so I think using a magnified look see is a useful function -
Monty

I wouldn’t rely too much on even the “original size” images on DPR. There is a lot of compression that goes on. I will say the Pen-F and the Olympus 25 f1.8 is a fantastic combination IMO.

Well thanks for the explanation - No problem - I was just taken a bit by surprise - And I still agree it is a rather pleasing photo -
I see we were both typing at the same time -
Oh yes I am quite aware that DPR is let's say 'not kind to images posted'!
Monty

Thanks for the reply - Perhaps the OP of the picture should have explained it better - The crane removal was certainly poorly done and detracts from the overall subject -
Monty

I added 12-32 and changed leatherette to black. Now I have perfect street machine but I can't go out I guess 🙃

I'm partial to the black and silver version.

THKPIC wrote:

Yes. Just bought another one. I've had 7 of them. It's my all time favorite camera. Nothing matches the modularity it offers. I like it with the EVF and aftermarket grip, but other times I like it without either of them and just the body. The size of the camera and the beveled back screen is perfect for quick execution of low angle shots. Perfect resistance in the screen. Dual switch in back is fantastic. I think the layout is even more genius than my Nikon DSLR's.

It is a classic. Crazy what prices they go for. I paid a lot more for mine, but I know what the camera can do. Everytime I try a system I end up coming back to it. As someone else said, nothing else since then has really taken it's place. Only issue IMO is the C-AF but if you can live with that, you don't need anything else.

Why 7?

Guy Parsons wrote:

rsmithgi wrote:

I'm partial to the black and silver version.

Somehow I like the look of the silver E-P5 better but use both my silver and black ones on a roughly 6 month rotation to even out the wear (no wear happening at present).

In my case my 12-32mm is black, but looks OK on either body. Way prefer to use the 12-40/2.8 or the 8-18/2.8-4 instead though.

Way back when I was a young man of 58 in the Spring of 2016, there wasn't any such thing as a Pen F. But there was that sly old guy Parsons with his tips for all kinds of Olympus cameras, and it wasn't long before I was able to work up the courage to spend a hundred dollars for my PL-1 with a 14-42 kit lens, just the same as Guy Parsons was so proud of hisownself, before he got fancy and went with the Olympus P-5 which was a thousand dollars, back then and fifteen hundred dollars for the P-5 with the VF-4 viewfinder and the Olympus f1.8 17mm lens with the zone focus ring.   A PL-1 was good enough for Guy Parsons when he started out with Olympus cameras, and I figured it was good enough for me, too.

Fifteen hundred dollars, would go a long way towards my farming habit, buying fence posts and wire and chemicals to kill the brush with.

But here last year, those fifteen hundred dollar Olympus P-5 kits started going on sale and I finally snatched one for only $400.

I felt just like that sly old Guy Parsons down there on the bottom of the wrong side of the world, except he has a pair of P-5's.

I still have my PL-1 but the kit lens shot craps and I've got a 20mm Lumix on it now.

But if you ask me, a P-5 is a rich man's PL-1, when you think about it.

Or somebody  too tight to buy a Pen F at full price.