EP-1 vs. EP-2 vs. GF-1

<p>Good morning Brian</p>

<p>I understand your G7 journey. I still use a Nikon CP5000 which produces a generally pleasing image quite able to print to A4 size and satisfy all but the most discerning who leave nose prints on my paper. The RAW file needed for this however it takes 40 seconds on a standard x8 CF media card to write that ... during which time it remains locked. This is something which has always bothered me ... but then everything is usually some sort of compromise.</p>

<p>Even though I had a Canon EOS 10D and 20D until I bought my G1 I was still actively using the Nikon as a travel / snapshot camera because it was lighter and more versatile <em><strong>without </strong> heavy additional pieces like a Tokina 12-24mm lens</em> . In this way my CP5000 exceeds my G1. While both have a similar standard zoom range, the CP does 2cm focus distance (nice for macro) and much like your G7 my CP is a ruggedly constructed camera which I expect will remain operational well into the future. I can poke my CP into a backpack side netting and fear nothing. The same is not true for the G1 (although may be for the E-Px) because the lens is rather more obtrusive and it feels less 'tough'.</p>

<p>I find that already the print is wearing off the buttons on my G1 which reinforces my opinion that the camera was a little prototypic. This is not a negative for me as I feel that I got excellent value for money in the features and components which are in fact the real guts of the camera.</p>

<p>Unlike my CP I can add simply 2 lenses into my bag (50mm and 200mm) and one set of extension tubes. This extends the functionality of the G1 to give me macro as powerful as the Coolpix (if somewhat different in angle of view and working distance, it is much more 35mm esque) while not remarkably increasing its burden. In this way it is still far more compact than the 10D would be with lenses of similar angles of view (requireing a 100mm and a 400mm).</p>

<p>So for me the G1 offers a compact and carry-able package such as my Olympus Trip 35 was, producing images of high enough quality to make very satisfactory 50cm wide prints and at the same time can become the core of a more versatile image making system. It is <strong>exactly</strong> the sort of digital camera I wish I had when I was a professional product photographer.</p>

<p>Good morning, Yoshio!<br>

I still have my CP 5000, and it does take fine pictures...although I have to add that it was a difficult camera for me to use owing to its interface. Very handy, though. In the interface, the G7 has been much easier to use...and it's pretty tough, as proven by the dents on it. And, I can use that wide angle Nikon on it by shortening the Canon lens adapter. Complaints I do have, but I'm not sorry I've had it, all things considered, and now I pass it along to my wife who is more flexible and less fussy. (Not a single complaint in that department! :-) !!) Maybe I get to borrow it once in a while...</p>

 

<p>Size is relative. My wife and I went to Ritz in Ala Moana mega shopping center and looked at both the EP-1 and the G-1 and held them. Both seemed relatively small and light to me. We were impressed with the quality of the EVF on the G-1 and the eye control switching of screens. At this moment in time, I think I could easily fall for the G-1. But then I have to buy a couple hundred dollar adapter for use with my FD lenses. And once an FD lens goes on-whoops- there goes the small small factor. Not entirely of course. I also like the G-1's use of the LCD screen. I like the sneak covert thing, Illka, for street shots of people. Inconspicuosity. If one has a few bucks, I would even think one can imagine two micro thirds cameras. OR, wait to see what Epson will deliver in a small electronic viewfinder. That will be a game changer I am thinking. I used to shop in Japan. If nothing else, it is great fun...bring along a local and they will throw in all kinds of accessory stuff I bet, to make the sale...Right Yoshio?</p>

<p>PS. Ala the Coolpix P 5000. . If I weren't invested in the Nikon Coopix P 5000 with an SB 400 flash and a wide angle adapter, shucks I would go for a G-1 and Cameraquest FD adapter ( I want good quality machine work) in a heartbeat. I do not need super speed in my shooting. That is relative too as said.. I love the Nikon's SB 400 dedicated mini tilt tube flash for the Nikon. A great under appreciated camera for the money. Have to hand it to the folks at Big N. It fits my hand right and built solid. (The tiny Hobbit sized manual is almost written in invisible ink but,hah, - I got it enlarged to 8 X10 so I can now finally learn all the little goodies. )</p>

<p>Jay, I would not rush to judgment on the forthcoming EP-2. I am thinking Olympus may sell a bunch of them. It will be first quarter of next year. Not all that long. Image stabilization is nothing to sneeze at in a camera body for legacy lenses I am thinking....but of course you know that already. I like Olympus build quality and lens quality and am plugging for the company I guess. We know they know how to make great professional quality equipment if they choose to compete in the upscale department.</p>

<p>That is the big question right now. Up front at least, Olympus is obviously setting their micro four-thirds system up for only the most amatuer type of user with all the slow zooms and, unfortuinately, the underperforming 17mm f2.8 compared to the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. Even the 14-42 kit zoom for the E-P1 suffers compared to the same lens in the DSLR system. Even the lowest quality kit zooms for the DSLR system are excellent. You cannot say that yet about either of the current micro four-thirds Zuikos.</p>

<p>With no DSLR system to support, Panasonic is the maker to look to for the fastest system build-up, which will give them a considerable advantage in terms of user base in the long haul for this system.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>then I have to buy a couple hundred dollar adapter for use with my FD lenses.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I got several adapters off e Bay for less than $60 and they all work well.</p>

<p>On the topic of lens reset when turning on/off the EP-1: go to Menu AF-MF, scroll to Reset Lens, turn off. It still pulls the front lens element back into the barrel, but does not reset to infinity--returning instead to the distance last focused on.</p>

<p>On the topic of lens reset when turning on/off the EP-1: go to Menu AF-MF, scroll to Reset Lens, turn off. It still pulls the front lens element back into the barrel, but does not reset to infinity--returning instead to the distance last focused on.</p>

<p>Good morning Gerry</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>But then I have to buy a couple hundred dollar adapter for use with my FD lenses. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it hard to understand why in this internet age people are unaware they are available for about US$70 ... they are in reality quite smiple things.</p>

<p>I have bought my FD adaptor from a fellow called Ciecio7 on ebay ... it works very well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>( I want good quality machine work) </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a friend who is a professional machineist ... he says the work is of highest quality. This is my adaptor. I note that there is effectively some internal light baffling due to the design</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3602/3506202465_d67070e21c.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="354" /><br>

besides if you know much about retail you'll know the price they sell for in the shop is not what the maker gets ... but still someone has to support the big retail chains.</p>

<p>Jay, the discussion drifted a little bit away from your original post. The thread is some days old, I hope my remark doesn't come too late.<br>

You wrote, you want a mFT camera mainly to use your 15mm Heliar and a 35mm Summicron. Unfortunately all M-Mount wideangles do not perform very well on micro 4/3. The prices for a used Leica M8 are falling since the M9 was introduced. Surely a better way to get most out of your M-mount lenses.</p>

<p>I went through the same deliberations but eventually decided on the Panasonic GF-1 for its faster autofocus. What I especially like about the camera is the face recognition feature which immediately locks on faces to keep them in focus - this may sound like an "amateur" feature but it has proven very useful to me when taking pictures of my kids and dogs who keep moving constantly even if they "pose" for a photograph! Also, I find the flash on the GF1 quite useful (even though it is not very powerful), sometimes it is the only way to get a picture and sometimes it is a good way to balance the exposure. I do not think the shutter lag is excessive - again that's because of the fast autofocus (of course it is not Nikon D3 quick but I have not missed to many pictures because of it, unlike with a number of other compact cameras).</p>

<p>Ulrich, thanks for your post. I had not heard that M-mount "wide angles don't perform well on micro 4/3 cameras." Is that your own experience or is there a test or blog somewhere that relates this? It's pretty important info if that's the case. The whole point of this exercise is to use my old lenses. <br>

BTW I did call a certain seller of M-mount adapters and asked if they impacted lens performance. He almost bit my head off over the phone line, he was that upset. Obviously he disagrees but then again he's selling the adapters. </p>

<p>Jay & Ulrich</p>

<p>for some reason I did not spot the component about :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You wrote, you want a mFT camera mainly to use your 15mm Heliar and a 35mm Summicron.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should have read more carefully</p>

<p>Ulrich raises a point there which needs some addressing:</p>

<p>Firstly with respect to the 15mm and 35mm ... remember that their field of view will be limited to as if they were 30mm and 70mm respectively. I would put forward that the kit 14-45 lens will likely give you equal results on this format</p>

<p>If I had those lenses (and I have something in the middle a 21mm) I would only use them on full frame as that is where they shine. With respect to 'smearing' issues reported on the 15mm I would suggest that is mainly from the 4/3 system ... which have thicker anti alias filters than on a G1</p>

<p>I have read that they do well on full frame cameras, for instance from a well respected <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=31536619"><strong>source</strong> </a> :</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I've taped up the mirror of the old Nikon D100 and mounted the 12mm Voigtlander. Although its exit pupil is 28mm from the sensor, it worked surprisingly well. And there's pictures on the web from people who managed to put a 12mm Helier on Canon 5D and 1Ds bodies.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>anti alias and IR filters from a 4/3 camera</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/3594883735_68267b522f_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Jay, sorry that I can't respond immediately, I live in a different timezone.<br>

Yes, I have tried the 35mm (non ASPH) Summicron on a Pana GF-1 in a shop (providing very good testing conditions). Undoubtedly you can get pictures with it. If you are critical, you need to stop down to f4..f5.6 to get sharp corners. IQ is beaten by the Pana kit zoom. Nothing left from the glory of an exceptional lens. Unfortunately I cannot provide examples as I did not keep the test shots nor buy the GF-1 at that moment.<br>

There are quite a few forum reports about experiences with different M-mount lenses on mFT. While wide angle lenses up to 35mm do not seem to render great results, the situation is much better with 50mm Summicrons. You can find some opinions and some examples <a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-x1-forum/98132-leica-x1-panasonic-gf1-m-glass.html">here</a> .<br>

That said, you still can get usable photos with your M-mount wideangles and a mFT camera - but don't expect a performance that comes near to a Leica. Besides that, the 15mm Heliar becomes the equivalent of a boring slow F 4.5 30mm lens.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=190082">Greg Chappell</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Even the 14-42 kit zoom for the E-P1 suffers compared to the same lens in the DSLR system. Even the lowest quality kit zooms for the DSLR system are excellent. You cannot say that yet about either of the current micro four-thirds Zuikos.</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >really? is the quality lower?</p>

 

<p>The 14-42 kit lens for the DSLR system is excellent. This review of the performance of the micro 4/3rd's version notes a lower performance level compared to the DSLR lens. Most likely too many compromises in order to make it so small.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page21.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page21.asp</a></p>

<p>that's weird because on the same review the E-P1 shows much better resolution than the e620.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page36.asp</p>

<p>Now, they say the relevant lens was used, but I can't see what lens?</p>

<p>If the E-P1 is using a m4/3 lens and the e620 is using a 4/3 lens then regardless of the compromises, it is taking higher resolution shots?</p>

<p>What gives?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the E-P1 is using a m4/3 lens and the e620 is using a 4/3 lens then regardless of the compromises, it is taking higher resolution shots? What gives?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a pixel peeping review site, the tests aren't particularly rigorous. It's most likely that the particular e620 body and lens used in the review falls at the low end of allowable manufacturing tolerance. Who knows, maybe it's front or back focusing. This is at least a whole class of problems that micro-4/3, by design, doesn't have.</p>

<p>William, go back a few pages and look at the JPEG and RAW comparisons and you will see the lens they are using in their camera tests when comparing the E-P1 to the E620 is the Zuiko 50mm f2, so they are using it on the E-P1 with the 4/3rd's to micro 4/3rd's adaptor and the 14-42 kit lens of the E-P1 is not being used. They pretty much use the 50mm f2 Zuiko in all the Olympus body tests because it is probably the sharpest lens Olympus makes.</p>

<p>The higher resolution of the E-P1 comes down to Olympus using a lower strength AA filter on the E-P1 vs what they have used in their DSLR system to date, but in using the E620 and processing a few thousand files to date it's hard to note any detail being lost to a too strong AA filter. You've got to be a pixel-peeping geek to have what the stronger AA filter of the E620 blocks in terms of additional resolution really bother you.</p>

<p>well then by definition do you have to be the same peeping geek to notice the difference in the two lenses?<br>

I say this because I have been using Zuiko lenses for 20 odd years. And regardless of lens test data I can't really tell the difference between the quality of slides or prints from any of them. And by that I mean a £20 135mm F3.5 or a 50mm F1.2. Can't see the difference at all.<br>

For example, if I took a picture of the exact same scene at exactly the same time with the m4/3 lens and the 4/3 lens; then printed them both to say, 18", and you were viewing them both from a foot or so away, could you pass the pepsi challenge and say which is which? And could you always tell the difference? Say 100 pictures lined up, could you sort them into two piles?<br>

And that is a serious question.</p>

<p>(Because I am might attracted to the small size of the E-P2 (I hike and climb regularly, so small is good. I also take lots of photography in music venues, so small an unintrusive is good too).</p>

<p>There are additional comments in the review of the 14-42 kit lens for the E-P1 that say it is pretty soft at 42mm and wide open and, overall, not as consistent across the range, which probably does make no difference at all at f8 as long as f8-11 can be used. I bet your 135 Zuiko isn't worth a darn at f2! They may both take identical images at f5.6, but I know there's a reason why you also own that 50mm f1.2 besides just the focal length.</p>

<p>Yes, in music venues small is always good idea, but so is speed and good image quality wide open, and as far as unobtrusive goes, many acts here do not allow photography and a bright LCD back gives you away with security at least as quickly (if not quicker) as bringing a camera up to your eye.</p>

<p>it's a 135 F3.5. I've taken plenty of shots at that aperture and never thought it was soft. Maybe I'm just not the sort of person to look at big prints under a magnifying glass.<br /> Out of the thousands upon thousands of slides and prints I've taken over the years, it's a matter of absolute fact that I couldn't tell which aperture was used for each slide (except in the blind obvious cases where the depth of field is so narrow it must have been wide).<br /> That's why I always liked Zuiko and stuck with Olympus. Ignoring the lens tests I was blissfully ignorant that some people could measure differences in quality over focal ranges and apertures. But then they were taking pictures of test targets I suppose? Taking a portrait and the corner of the hair is slightly soft; or a mountain range and the fluffy clouds are soft at the edges...hmm I never noticed that at all.</p>

<p>Nice story about why I own the F1.2.<br /> I had a "bog standard" F1.8 which had an accident involving a cliff and a 100ft drop. I bought a "mint as new and boxed" F1.8 over the internet; and the postman was kind enough to bring a "mint as new and boxed F1.2". Very nice of him. £35.</p>

<p>Wouldn't the E-P2, with the viewfinder, have an option to switch of the LCD display?<br>

(btw when I bought the E510 and the 12-60 zuiko I was gutted with the crappy performance. Asked questions about it here. It was terrible. Sent it back to Olympus for testing, and it was returned saying nothing wrong with it. Tried again. Crap. Demanded a replacement, and the replacement was perfect. And I still can't see the moaning about clipped highlights and noise with that camera. Damn, the film I used back in the day was much noisier than anything that camera produces.)</p>

<p>Jay - I cannot comment on M mount lenses on M4/3 but with Canon FD lenses I have three observations. <br>

Firstly to get well focused shots you need the EVF hand held as it is very difficult to focus and stabilize the camera with an MF lens and no tripod (this is especially difficult with fast lenses like the Canon 85mm F1.2 as the DOF of the effective 170mm F1.2 lens is so small). Thus for MF use you should test the EVF carefully.<br>

In terms of the two bodies the UK magazine Amatuer photographer31st Oct (which has been in print for 125 years) rates the GF1 above the EP-1 in a number of areas - notably build and handling, AF and white balance / color. Their noise and resolution tests also favor the GF1. While I have had issues over the years with some magazines tests (is advertising a factor) I have always found AP to be very good (good enough to subscribe from Canada!) and their tests the most objective around. I have the G1 for my MF lenses and it performs much better than I expected.<br>

Wide angle MF lenses work fine on M4/3 - there will be some slight vignetting but as the camera only uses the center of the lens this is almost imperceptible. I suspect rangefinder lenses (Biogons etc...) may have significant vignetting as the rear element is so close to the sensor but my wifes Contax G lenses do not adapt to M4/3. The main problem I have had with MF lenses on the m4/3 body is the sun. What happens is the sun is in the lens angle of view (but not necessarily the viewfinders due to the crop) what then appears to happen is the stray light refelects off the sensor, off the uncoated rear lens element and back onto the sensor destroying contrast. The is no real solution to this beyond a price of card and care is framing the shot - it will prevent some shots.</p>

 

<p>"Nice story about why I own the F1.2.<br />I had a "bog standard" F1.8 which had an accident involving a cliff and a 100ft drop. I bought a "mint as new and boxed" F1.8 over the internet; and the postman was kind enough to bring a "mint as new and boxed F1.2". Very nice of him. £35."<br>

Oh, my uh, 50/1.2 got lost in transit from the UK. That must be the one I ordered, send it to me. ;-)</p>