GX1, E-P3 or wait for E-P5?

[frank_bunnik]

<p>So, I have a dillema.<br>

I have an Eos 5d mark 3 with a 24-70L II lens. Excellent camera and lens but a bit big to walk around with all day. So I have been thinking to buy a micro 4/3 camera. I can buy a mint GX1 for 250 euro, a mint E-P3 for 300 euro. An EVF viewfinder for each camera costs 200 euro. Add the 14, 25 and 45mm lenses or the new Oly 17mm and the 45mm, and I would spend about 1.300 euro.<br>

I could get the OMD but that is about 500 euro more expensive and I like the style of the GX1 and Pen more. I could of course wait a month and get the E-P5. I guess that would also cost me about 500 euro more but I get a more modern camera and sensor than either the GX1 or E-P1 can offer.<br>

Also I am a bit in doubt. I have a fullframe camera. Can micro 4/3 compete in image quality in prints up to about 90 x 60 cm?<br>

What are your opinions?<br>

Thanks for your advice, Frank<br>

<a href="http://www.frankbunnik.zenfolio.com">www.frankbunnik.zenfolio.com</a></p>

[SCL]

<p>My take is this: I picked up a reconditioned Olympus E-PL2 with the EVIL & latest iteration of 14-42mm lens for $300 USD at the end of last year. In spite of using it daily, it has taken me this long to begin to feel comfortable with how to consistently achieve the output which competes with my Nikon D300. But for larger sized prints, IMHO no, the IQ doesn't compete with larger sensor cameras, for most of the reasons cited in in numerous discussions on various fora. I rarely print anymore, and when I do, I use the Nikon DSLR. However, for routine product shooting for display on the web, or sending photos to friends and family...it does a fine job. Bottom line....don't pay a lot for technology which in some ways is inferior to your present camera. It is fun using it though with lots of legacy lenses which would tend to sit mostly idle otherwise.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>I own, and use, the E-PL2, E-PL5, GX1 & OM-D (I really like µ4/3). The 16mp sensor in the GX1 is newer and better than the 12mp sensor Olympus': better resolution, color accuracy and noise. If you don't need high ISO it's very, very close to the 16mp Olympus cameras. If you shoot JPG, the Olympus JPG's look better, particularly under odd color temp light. The GX1 JPG settings can be adjusted so images look almost identical to Olympus, and very accurate. The GX1 doesn't have IBIS, so no stabilization with the Olympus lenses. The good news is that there isn't much vibration from the shutter, so it's hardly harder to hand hold then a PEN with IBIS.The best bang for the buck is the GX1.</p>

<p>If you want to see if the IQ is good enough, I would suggest the 14/2.5 & Sigma 30/2.8. They are both very sharp and very reasonably used. The 20/1.7 is also good, but more expensive and slow AF. I generally print 40 x 30 cm, and the results are better than what I got with a D7000. You'll have to try 90 x 60 to see if it's good enough.</p>

[abib_b]

<p>There was a recent discussion on the GX1 which you might want to take a look at: http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00bWwk<br>

<br />The GX1 is a great camera functionally and ergonomically but will not produce image quality that compares with your 5DIII. Not by some significant margin. But then, you're buying the smaller camera for its size advantage. It's just that the image quality penalty with the GX1 feels too great.<br /><br /> The OM-D has a better sensor so will get closer. It's then up to you whether the remaining difference is the worth the gain you get by having a smaller camera. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Both very nice cameras, great for when you want something smaller. Don't expect performance at or near the level of a 5Diii with L glass. When shooting, you'll be slowed down a bit by the controls (having to click combinations of buttons) and the autofocus, and if you print that large, yeah, you're going to see the difference. If you make modest sized prints or use the photos on the web it's not a big deal.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<blockquote>

<p>...if you print that large, yeah, you're going to see the difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you've made prints that are around 35" on the long side from the 5D mark 3 with a 24-70L II lens, and one of the 16 mp µ4/3 cameras with good glass? Are the differences in tonality, dynamic range, noise, resolution? For what types of subjects are the differences most significant? How close to to you have to view the prints from to see the differences?</p>

<p>Now, if you haven't actually made prints from these cameras, you don't actually know anything; you're just guessing.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>No, but I've made large prints from similar quality M4/3 cameras using similar quality lenses and also from full frame Nikon cameras using good lenses. I can tell you that if I throw my camera out the window it will fall to the ground without actually throwing my camera out the window.</p>

[laur1]

<p>Well, if you can spot a big difference between <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=canon_eos5dmkiii&masterSample=5d3_5215&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_eos5dmkiii&slot0Sample=5d3_5215&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=panasonic_dmcg3&slot1Sample=p1000085&slot2Camera=oly_em5&slot2Sample=p1010013&slot3Camera=fujifilm_xe1&slot3Sample=dscf6518&x=0.35230654761904756&y=-0.7127380752904383&extraCameraCount=0">these 100% crops</a>, then you will probably notice a difference in very large prints too. Otherwise, you should stop worrying and love MFT.</p>

[frank_bunnik]

<p>Thanks for all your advice. Laurentiu, thanks for the link, it is very handy. When looking at this link, I would say that the 5d3 is best (smoothest and sharpest), then comes the OMD (difference with 5d3 is there but not very big difference), then the GX1 and lastly the E-P3. Great that the link makes it possible to compare 4 cameras at once.<br>

<br /> I like mft for it's small format cameras and good optics that are not very expensive. Also the possibilty to use "creative lenses".<br /> I normally always shoot in raw. I will see what the E-P5 is going to cost when it will be announced later this week.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<blockquote>

<p>I can tell you that if I throw my camera out the window it will fall to the ground without actually throwing my camera out the window.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP probably already knew this, and that's why you provided no useful information.</p>

<p>The question isn't whether or not there's a difference, but some quantification to determine its visibility.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>What that means is that things that are obvious don't require an experiment for every case. I'm just telling the OP that, despite all the hype cameras like the OM-D get, sensor size matters when printing large and an M4/3 camera - even a nice one - isn't competitive with a top of the line, newer model full frame DSLR.</p>

<p>The M4/3 is bringing 1/4 the sensor area, and less when cropped to make a 60x90cm print. That's an advantage the M4/3 camera isn't going to overcome. The M4/3 is still a very nice camera, and being small it can get a lot of use because it's easier to carry to more places.</p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>I finally decided on an Olympus epl5. I was torn between that and the GX1. I'm looking at micro 4/3 as a big step up from my point and shoot and a system and something that will auto focus quickly. Still for serious landscapes I will use my D800 mounted on a large tripod. </p>

[User_2000406]

<p>The Panasonic GX1 is now $249 at Adorama. Meanwhile, the Olympus E-P3 with the 14-42mm II R lens is now $379 at Adorama, which means the camera costs only $80 after allowing for the cost of the lens. </p>

<p>I picked up an E-P3 before the most recent price drop (I paid $20 more) and it'll be my backup M4/3 body. I plan to prioritize relatively fast primes over the slow zoom for most uses. However, a midrange zoom is still a nice item to have for those times when you really don't want to have any more than a single lens to fuss with, but you'll be in places where you still want some focal length flexibility (e.g. zooming with your feet won't cut it).</p>