Indecisiveness

[girishmenon]

<p>EOS cameras with the 16-35 2.8 lens is my primary setup. I also have the Olympus PEN E-P3 with the 17mm 1.8 lens.<br>

In recent times, I find DSLR cameras more and more inconvenient to use outdoors i.e. for street and travel photography. There's no question that the image quality of the DSLR camera with that lens is exceptional but how far behind is the E-P3 with the 17 1.8?</p>

[matthijs]

Try creating the shot you want with the Pen.

If you succeed in that and you enjoy the process: switch.

 

If not: don't.

 

Whether switching is a good idea is 100% personal.

[bobatkins]

<p><em>There's no question that the image quality of the DSLR camera with that lens is exceptional but how far behind is the E-P3 with the 17 1.8?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Does it matter? What are you going to do with the images that demands the highest possible image quality? Are you making 40"x60" prints? Are you selling the images to art galleries or demanding stock agencies?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>We all have a different standard and different ideas of what "image quality" would mean, so what works for me might be completely wrong to you, and vice versa. Since you have the gear, just go out and try for yourself, and see whether it works for you.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Just keep doing what you're doing. If the DSLR equipment sees little use make the switch by selling it. If doubts remain keep it. Think into the future, how will you be looking at the images in 5 years or 10 years time? If you have a 27" monitor that should give an indication of quality. Maybe you will put them on a 60" UHD TV, how will the Olympus rate then? All questions only you can answer.<br>

For myself my 6D sports pictures look great on my media room projector on the 12' screen. Those from my phone are not so good.</p>

[girishmenon]

<p>Thanks. Yes, I need to make archival prints of the photos. I think I'll stick with the DSLR but also carry the mirrorless camera on my travels. At times when I don't feel like lugging a heavier camera, I'll bring out the morrorless.<br>

It's just that these little cameras are so much easier to handle and demand less attention. </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I was an avid M43 shooter for 3 years and sold off most my gear this summer, save for the E-P3 and 17 1.8. Nobody would buy it (& it was priced to sell).I'll just say E-P3 IQ is a long way behind even my most humble DSLR, the SL1/24 2.8 STM, and not much smaller or lighter. Oddly, RAW files from the E-P3 can't take much processing before turning to mush and even ISO800 is very noisy. The newer M43 are much improved but the SL1 is so tiny, takes EOS lenses and is more ergonomic and easier to use.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>The E-P3 images are great at low ISO but are fairly dreadful otherwise. I sold mine for that reason. DSLR is still king but if you need something small then m43 or a Fuji X100 is probably the most sensible choice.</p>

[girishmenon]

<p>A DSLR is something that I will always use in the studio and for wildlife shoots. But I'm looking for something smaller, for street photography. The E-P3 did not give me satisfactory results. Mind you, it's more than sufficient for editorial print work and online audiovisuals, but not for museum prints, I reckon. But it's size is perfect.<br>

The 16-35 on a 60D with battery grip is a bulky piece of kit when you're trying to go unnoticed. Is the X100 a lot better than Olympus?</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>The X100 has noticeably better image quality than the E-P3. It's in a different league and will give you image quality at least as good as those from your 60D. It has has a fixed lens so you're stuck with a 35mm f/2 (equivalent) but the lens is excellent. If any digital camera was designed for street photography then it's the X100. Just beware that although the autofocus is good, it is not as quick or as surefooted as the Olympus cameras. It also lacks the excellent in body stabilisation of the Olympus.</p>

<p>I must also point out that the newer Olympus m43 cameras have a far better sensor than the old E-P3. If you want the ability to change lenses and you like your 17mm f/1.8 then you would love the newer E-P5. The image quality is much more DSLR-like, especially at higher ISO and is probably very close to what you get from your 60D. The image output is vastly superior to the E-P3. You would also continue to enjoy the blazing fast AF and in-body IS. If you want a built in viewfinder then look at the Olympus OMD E-M10... same great image quality but a built in viewfinder.</p>

<p>To summarise:</p>

<p>Fuji X100 series:</p>

<ul>

<li>Looks cool</li>

<li>Has a unique switchable optical and electronic viewfinder</li>

<li>DSLR image quality</li>

</ul>

<p>Olympus E-P5:</p>

<ul>

<li>Looks almost as cool</li>

<li>Blazing fast AF</li>

<li>Great in-body image stabilisation</li>

<li>Interchangeable lenses</li>

<li>90% DSLR image quality</li>

<li>If you want a viewfinder, check out the OMD E-M10. Different styling but same great image quality and a built in viewfinder. </li>

</ul>

 

[girishmenon]

<p>Thank you very much Jamie Robertson. I think I'll upgrade to the E-P5 eventually since I have the 17mm lens. I prefer optical viewfinders, the VF-1 does the job.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Good choice, you will see a huge difference in image quality compared to the E-P3, especially at higher ISOs.</p>