Jump to content

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


jay_davidson2

Recommended Posts

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >I’m looking for a small digital camera that can use all of my old Leica M and Voightlander lenses (with the right adapter). I’d really like a digital version of my old Leica CL, or the Minolta CLE, which I still think is the best camera ever; compact, light, and can take quick shots on the fly.</p>

<p >Now that the EP-2 is out it seems hardly worth waiting for, just a few more bells and whistles like “art filters” that seem a waste of space. The new viewfinder makes it significantly more bulky, and more like an SLR (which I do not like).</p>

<p >I am VERY concerned about shutter lag, and have heard some say that the GF-1 is superior in that regard. I think just comparing the specs for shutter lag can be very misleading as in practice a camera with an advertised low lag time may have a shutter mechanism that does not give enough tactile feedback to insure that you know when the pic is being taken. I’d be interested in feedback from those who have actually used the camera over time.</p>

<p >The EP-2 and GF-1 both sell around $1,200, while the EP-1 can be bought for $750. Plus, the chrome EP-1 just looks cooler.</p>

<p >So the EP-1 sounds like a no-brainer. What am I missing here?</p>

<!--EndFragment-->

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Jay</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>What am I missing here?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I feel you are misunderstanding shutter lag ... none of the cameras have shutter lag which any human can percieve. However the <strong>delay introduced in focusing</strong> and<strong> the camera being forced not to take upon shutter press until focus completion</strong> creates the so called shutter lag.</p>

<p>using any manual focus lenses on any of the cameras mentioned will remove this from the equaiton :-)</p>

<p>Additionally while the accessory finder for the E-P2 may be bulky I read that it is as good as the EVF on the G1 (which I have) which is very good indeed.</p>

<p>I am searching for a second micro 4/3 camera, I am also considering the 3 you mention. I am beginning to think that the E-P 2 may be my best next choice. Because:</p>

<ul>

<li>when I take snapshots I will probably just as well use the rear screen</li>

<li>when I set up on a tripod the extra effort to attach the accessory finder should be no significant effort</li>

<li>the articulating finder may be better for me than an articulating screen ... though I'm not sure of that ... one of each would be nicer ;-)</li>

</ul>

<p>you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>the Minolta CLE, which I still think is the best camera ever; compact, light, and can take quick shots on the fly</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>which is interesting as owning and using a Trip 35 for many years I am comfortable to say my G1 does better than that camera. I fully expect that any of the above mentioned 3 would do the same.<br>

BTW, it seems commonly reported across enough locations that the Panasonic lenses focus faster than the Olympus ones ... which creates a small dilemma for me in price ... you see I would like the panasonic lens, but the Oly body .... I also think the 20mm will be a nicer <em>normal </em> for me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jay, you do understand that the angle of view of your Leica and Voightlander lenses mounted on these cameras would be 1/2 of that on a film camera. So that a 50mm lens mounted on a micro 4:3 body would have an angle of view about the same as a 100mm lens mounted on your CLE. This may or may not be an issue with you but I had not seen it mentioned.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the responses. Yoshio I do understand that the bulk of shutter lag is caused by autofocus, however (to my understanding, and based on responses in this and other forums) simply switching to manual focus will not eliminate lag. These is still a lag - and it can be significant especially if you are doing action photography. <br>

Thanks John, I do realize that the lenses will be effectively doubled in length. I'm planning on using my Voightlander 15mm and 21mm and a Leica 35mm summilux. <br>

Any thoughts from people who have already been using these cameras? </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>These is still a lag - and it can be significant especially if you are doing action photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>None of the mFT cameras are ideal for action photography. I have a GH1 which focuses as fast as an entry level dSLR. However once the shutter is triggered there is a black out time during which the VF is inoperable. This limits how fast you can take a second shot.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yep, and if you use the burst mode and pan while trying to follow a moving subject, live view is turned off for the duration. You see quick reviews of what you just took, but that does you no good in keeping up with where the subject now is. You can try and guesstimate and follow, but the tighter you try framing the subject, the more problematic that process is.</p>

<p>No camera with an electronic finder is ready yet for action photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jay</p>

<p>I disagree ... even my old Nikon Coolpix cameras had no human appreciable lag when set to manual. I can only assume you have never tried this.</p>

<p>The other points about using these cameras for action are dead on target, and the only way (assuming 3 fps was enough for you) would be to use an optical clip in finder to allow tracking. Less than ideal. I would prefer something faster myself. I was spoiled by my EOS 630 which was a fast camera (both AF and film advance), only superceded by the EOS 1 and later of that series really. The RT was built on the same body and was fast too.</p>

<p>For shooting action I really recommend 5 fps min and fast AF</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The shutter lag that Leica people are concerned about is actually the delay of the image on the display. There IS a lag between the moment of the sensor capturing the image and that the image is processed and displayed on LCD/EVF. The actual shutter lag should be of less concern and, as Yoshio pointed out, the human lag should be more influential.</p>

<p>In order to get rid of the affect of the lag of the displayed image, you need to use an additional optical viewfinder with the appropriate angle of view. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am pondering the same questions, having used a couple of GRDs and a DP-1 as my small digicams while having a fairly full 4/3 system based on E-3, as well as a Leica M6 with three lenses. Here is my thinking. I do not want to buy an electronic viewfinder. I do not mind if the camera can have one, but I have no intention of buying one. For fast casual shots, I much prefer a separate optical finder. With a fixed 40 mm equivalent lens, there is no problem finding a suitable finder to fit any of these three cameras. For occasional tripod based landscapes, I can use the rear screen so no need to get a EVF for that either. Sigma DP-1 is very slow, much slower than even the E-P1. This is a price we have to pay for a small camera with a large sensor. There is just no way you can get the speed of a good DSLR in such a small package. Otherwise why would E-3, D3 and 1D be such big and heavy beasts? I have a lot of lenses that I can fit on that camera, and I already have a m4/3 to Leica M adapter (bought it in Japan when happened to find one second hand, even before I got a m4/3 body). I do want the Panasonic 1.7/20 lens. I do not want a zoom, or the much weaker Zuiko 17mm. When the E-P1 came out, I was very tempted but decided to wait for some reviews and for some other announcements. Reviews were not that positive, causing me to delay further. Now that both GF-1 and E-P2 are out, the reviews for E-P1 have suddenly turned much more positive. Maybe the truth is starting to come out, and the reviewers have got a reality check. I awaited Olympus to come up with the new model they had already mentioned, but was disappointed that it basically only adds electronic viewfinder to it. Seems like there is another Olympus model still under development, but how long should one wait? GF-1 looked positive and is in some ways better but has also some shortcomings. For me, the main one is that most 4/3 lenses do not autofocus on it. So, what am I going to do? I will be in Japan again in a couple of weeks time. I will see if I can find an E-P1 second hand with no lens and a Panasonic 1.7/20 lens, also second hand. Japanese are great at jumping in with both feet when something new comes out, and then dumping their gear on the second hand market as soon as they get bored with it or something different comes along. I am sure the E-P2 causes a lot of clutter on the second hand E-P1 market in Japan. If I cannot find this combo, I will most likely get the GF-1 with the 1.7/20 lens as a package. This is readily available now in Japan, second hand. For me, paying more for E-P2 makes no sense at all. But your criteria, of course, may be entirely different.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ilkka,<br />if you are planning to buy Panasonic G series cameras in Japan, keep in mind that the Japanese domestic versions do not allow to set the laguage other than to Japanese (more precisely, Japanese version of the firmware has no menu to select language). You could buy international versions at tax-free shops and there might be some second-hand international versions, but you'd better make sure.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks, I need to check that when buying. I have bought a few cameras in Japan and normally one can choose Japanese and English. If it is Japanese only, then I would certainly not choose that model/make. I find it a bit silly considering the large number of foreigners living in Japan.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ilkka</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is a price we have to pay for a small camera with a large sensor. There is just no way you can get the speed of a good DSLR in such a small package.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree entirely ... there is simply no reason to support that ... what I agree with is that there are presently no marketed options that provide such. And there is clearly some compromise required. But essentially what you are saying is equivalent <em>to a rangefinder can not have a motor drive or be used for sports</em> . Do not confuse what is marketed with what is possible</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Otherwise why would E-3, D3 and 1D be such big and heavy beasts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>because of other criteria such as "grips" which people seem to adore (making their cameras more macho I suspect in many cases) and prisms and the need to flip mirrors up and down fast ...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now that both GF-1 and E-P2 are out, the reviews for E-P1 have suddenly turned much more positive.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>and as the reviewers pull their heads out of the personal biases ...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe the truth is starting to come out, and the reviewers have got a reality check.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>exactly my view ...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Olympus model still under development, but how long should one wait?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>exactly ... and there will likely always be '<em>another under development</em> ' this is why I jumped in and bought the G1 ... perhaps the among the first sold in this country.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>GF-1 looked positive and is in some ways better but has also some shortcomings. For me, the main one is that most 4/3 lenses do not autofocus on it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>or on any of the m4/3 actually</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So, what am I going to do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well I can't answer that, but I can tell you what I did ... personally as an SLR user and one who grew up on rangefinders I took to the G1 like a duck to water ... I get all the advantages of an SLR (such as through the lens focusing for telephoto and macro) and all the advantages of my old range finders (compact and light) with interchangeable lenses</p>

<p>the reality of size difference between the G1 - GF-1 - EP-x is minor</p>

<p>I might be quite tempted to get the EP-2 as my 'second body' as I really think that for the tripod work the EVF it comes with is great, the rear screen would be enough for framing and I could generally point with it over my face (or buy an optical viewfinder, which I suspect you may already have ...)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I will be in Japan again in a couple of weeks time. I will see if I can find an E-P1 second hand with no lens and a Panasonic 1.7/20 lens, also second hand. Japanese are great at jumping in with both feet when something new comes out, and then dumping their gear on the second hand market as soon as they get bored ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well ... there are as many buyers aware of this and the resale prices are often just as high (encouraging people to dabble and sell :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For me, paying more for E-P2 makes no sense at all. But your criteria, of course, may be entirely different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>of course ... but if you consider the price difference between the E-P2 and 1 perhaps the plug in EVF may be better than you think ... unless you are at that stage of your life when everything you know and how you work is fixed and inflexible</p>

<p>;-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So, just how usable/responsive is the EP-1 in old school, hyperfocal focused, clip on optical VF, decisive moment kind of shooting? Used like this, does the camera get out of its own way?</p>

<p>For me, the lens is likely to be the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. However, I've been debating hard about the body, whether the GF1 or EP1. I've concluded that the in-body image stabilization is really worthwhile, so Olympus most likely is it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, just how usable/responsive is the EP-1 in old school, hyperfocal focused, clip on optical VF, decisive moment kind of shooting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>an important issue to consider with the 'prime lenses' is that they are focus by wire AF, as far as I know not all focus by physical extension moved by a motor and reset between power off and power on. I do not have the two prime lenses to test, but this is the case with my zoom.</p>

<p>So, if you put a mechanical lens on (like my FD 28mm or my OM 21mm which are effectlvely "normal") then it will be totally predictable and operate perfectly as you expect ... in fact this is often how I use my G1 :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As Yoshio pointed out, the focal distance setting of 20/1.7 is reset when you switch the camera (G1, in my case) off even in MF mode. So far as I'm aware, none of m4/3 lenses have either distant or DOF scale, so they should not be suitable for zone focusing. Older MF lenses will do for you. If I would do zone focusing with wider angle of view, I would consider Cosina/Voigtländer 15mm/f4.5.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tanaka-san, whoa... I just voiced MY opinion. I am entitled to MY opinion, am I not. You have yours, and I respect that. Therefore I will not start defending each point I made and you then refuted. I would just like to ask you one question: are you seriously saying that Canon/Nikon/Sony (the three leading digital camera manufacturers today) COULD MAKE a near full frame 12-15Mp camera that was the size of a GF-1/DP-2/E-P2 and had as fast focusing and shooting speed as 1D/D3/A900 but they just do not want to make one? Sigma DP-1 was a great idea but took a lot longer to come to market and had some serious shortcomings when it did. The same thing has happened will ALL successive small cameras with big sensors. Yes, they are getting better. I am sure they will be getting better still in the future. One key deisgn issue with all these present cameras is the need to keep the shutter open for viewing, and needing to close it prior to exposure. This causes delay. Also, the small physical size of the bodies makes it impossible to include all the electronic components that are inside big DSLRs that allow them to operate faster, for example the dual processors in Sony A900. In future, other design concepts will be devised that overcome some of these limitations. </p>

<p>And yes, I have used cameras with electronic viewfinders, also good ones. I agree that they are getting better. But I still don't like them. I prefer to use something else. Please let me. It is my money. Arigato.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Illka</p>

<p>I thought the content of my reply was conversational, and expressing my own opinion. I don't see how I suggested you could not have your opinion ... can you point it out? I can see that I agreed with your points on a few places, and extended them in others. I am sorry if your understanding of conversation is to each nod in agreement. I intended to engage in discussion. I regret that I did not understand your sensitivities.</p>

<p>To answer your question cautiously and with as much sensitivity as possible:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would just like to ask you one question: are you seriously saying that Canon/Nikon/Sony (the three leading digital camera manufacturers today) COULD MAKE a near full frame 12-15Mp camera that was the size of a GF-1/DP-2/E-P2 and had as fast focusing and shooting speed as 1D/D3/A900 but they just do not want to make one?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes, I am saying that, perhaps not "was the size" but "near the size". Further there seems no reason to me from an engineering standpoint that they could not also offer a fully coupling electronic adaptor (working exactly as does the existing life size extender) to enable them to manufacture a smaller flange distance range of lenses (thus capitalizing on the smaller body) and giving access to the full range they currently have operating as it does.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another question (if anyone's still reading this); Given that the Leica lenses on these cameras will have their effective focal lengths doubled, does that mean that their depth of focus will be affected as well? So an adjustment will have to be made on the DOF scale if you want to do zone focusing? <br>

Thanks for the lively discussion!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hello Jay</p>

<p>yes, the DoF scales (which like the pirates creed are more a like a guideline really) will vary (even in 35mm film work depending on cropping and magnification too). I feel it is well represented <strong><a href="http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/any-lens.html">here</a> </strong> :</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>When any lens of a focal length F is mounted on a Four Thirds body and stepped down to aperture (F-number) A, its effective depth of field will be the same as that of a lens with focal length 2F stepped down to aperture 2A, and working on a film camera. </em><br>

<em> This is an ugly, but accurate, sentence, and I wasn't able to make it any friendlier. Just in case, read it once again. Slowly. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>further reading <a href="http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html"><strong>here</strong> </a></p>

<p>In practice, you can get portraits like this (of my friends daughter) with a 50mm<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/4079831511_cb9c074964.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br>

hope that helps</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>After all the dust settles and the hype is over, we begin to see the limitations of these m3/4 systems. Since I plan to use these as a back-up or travel camera, the speed of the AF is not critical. I thus love the idea that E-P1 has IBIS so all the lenses I own can be used on this camera with IS and I love the fact that its JPEGs are very nice so I no longer need to spend time developing the RAW. I also like the new EVF which is articulated thus allowing one to take pictures from odd angles. But no IBIS during video? </p>

<p>I have a GH1 with the 14-140 kit lens. In this set up one can no longer see the "compact" form factor that these cameras are supposed to offer. In fact to use the form factor as a major selling point, GF1 is most frequently shown with the 20/1.7, but if you put the 14-140 or 45-200 on it, it will no longer look small. The 20/1.7 is made to be small. However to make up for the "loss in DOF" (so to speak), wouldn't it be nice if this prime were f1.4 or f1.2? How big would this lens be if it were a f1.2 lens? So far neither Olympus nor Panasonic offers a fast standard zoom (similar to the Nikon 17-55/2.8), and one can only imagine that such a lens will be very big and heavy to negate the advantage of the small camera body. At the end of the day, we will see that the m3/4 is still a compromise. If you want a small system, you need to accept the compromises in IQ, AF speed, burst rate, etc ...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Is it not blindingly obvious that m3/4 is a compromise?</p>

<p>Medium format is a compromise<br /> 35mm is a compromise</p>

<p>Damn, the optics of the Hubble Space Telescope are a compromise.</p>

<p>What do you want the camera to do, what are the minimum specs and how much can you pay?</p>

<p>Let's not complain about a mini cooper not being a ferrari.</p>

<p>I will be getting the ep2 now we have a viewfinder. I very rarely shoot action shots so the concerns here don't bother me. If I was paying my bills taking action shots then I would be buying something else.<br /> I want something to truly replace my OM4ti. Something small. Something beautiful. Something with zuiko optics. Olympus have given me the digital PEN. Until the Digital OM arrives - if it arrives - that will have to do.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I changed my mind about the EP-1, not based on anything besides my own preferences, even though the things that bothered me about it when I bought and returned it are still there (shutter, aperture, focus adjusting). So I'll take the plunge again. Why the change of heart?<br>

Two things happened: <br>

1.) I went out on a trip with my ancient Canon G7, and there was a perspective adjustment--same handling complaints, only worse when I stopped to think about it, plus it has the inherent limitations of a small-sensor P&S. A couple of fairly disagreeable ones, I find.<br>

2.) The GF1 came out, and looked great, except that the Jpegs are said to have a color shift, and it doesn't have IBIS, plus, its ergonomics has some issues of its own in the very same respects.<br>

3.) I added one other: the EP-2 came out, and wasn't much different and I don't want an EVF, so, I decided the EP-1 plus the Panny 20mm f/1.7, which happens to match my film camera's view angle, is about as much as I can reasonably expect to have available at this time for what I'd like to be doing.<br>

For me, it makes more sense to adopt the half-full outlook: it's such an improvement over the P&S, and also isn't a big thing to carry around, so the drawbacks just don't matter as much as they did at first.<br>

Regarding the focus reset issue, I agree completely that is not nice, but maybe it's not that serious of a problem unless you are really in a hurry, in which case maybe one might leave the camera on when appropriate and just put in one of the extra batteries you will probably be carrying around with you anyway...that is, sooner than you will otherwise also be doing. I keep thinking: glass half full. :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...