E-PL2 review

[nightpiper]

btw, the 645D does look more detailed as expected. though i would say, not by a mile. so we'd have to think about is that advantage worth the difference in price? but i guess to some who really need all the extra detail and resolution they could get, it's worth it.

In our modern times these days, we tend to take such quality for granted. The 645D sample tells me a few things

1) The lens is able to resolve the MP
2) The very fine details tells me the signal fidelity of the sensor & DSP behind it is very solid.
3) Colour accuracy also pretty spot on.


I'd say the 645D is really quite an achievement. And there's also a tramp card not shown here... RAW file. For those who can afford or willing to pay the premium, i wud say its a diff class altogether :lovegrin:

 

[Oly5050]

Quite frankly, there are some things that are way too murky to be able to judge what exactly we see. For one thing, which lens did they use? Did they ensure the image is properly focused? Did they use the f-stop at which the lens is the sharpest?

With none of these information available, how can we possibly even call this a controlled test? If we want to be pedantic, the two M4/3 cameras should use the 45mm Panasonic Leica macro lens, and the E-5 shoud use the 50mm f2 macro. The same would apply to the rest of the cameras.

All I can say is, this widget is a pile of poodoo.

If you think it is a pile of poodoo, then dun waste your time on this anymore. For me, I would again not totally discount the value of these comparisons. It is clear that significant resources are devoted to performing these tests. Much more than what other people can devote to. Practically, it is not possible to make every single variable comparable. There will always be limitations. U just have to trust the reviewers judgement on how they control their variables.

With reference to the post on X100 vs PEN2, i dun see how not better le. So which part of the IQ u referring to that needs to be debunked?

The details is clearly superior. U can see the dust on Pluto's eyes & nose. The pic of the man behind Pluto also can see the cross hatched sketch pattern distinctly. The fuzzy ball also very clear & u can also see the texture of the pinup wall.

Colour wise, more subjective.

Lastly bear in mind the 4 shots in comparison r solely based on jpg. How much better wud these 4 compare in RAW? I'm most interested in the answer.

Well, u are looking at another part of the image. I based my observation on the image that I posted with my post. No doubt that the image of the 645 is larger, the EPL2 appears to be better resolved. I can more clearly see the separation between the lines in the coins on the EPL2. As for RAW versus JPEG, everyone has different wants....this is a JPEG comparison, so just take what they have done. If they have RAW, then sure, look at the RAW. But they dun have or u cannot get it. So..there is no point talking about it because that information is not available. We can only talk about what we have in front of us.

 

[nightpiper]

Well, u are looking at another part of the image. I based my observation on the image that I posted with my post. No doubt that the image of the 645 is larger, the EPL2 appears to be better resolved. I can more clearly see the separation between the lines in the coins on the EPL2.

I understand u r a fan of Oly but i think u need to be a little more objective here. What u see is not the incompetency of the 645D. On the contrary, the 645D is so good that it is displaying the flaws of the printed wine label.


Let's shift ur crop of the image a little to the left:

Which shows "1872" & its details clearer? If its juz bigger but with fuzzy details or smudgy/blotchy details, i wud have agreed with u on the "lousy" IQ of 645D.

The crop portion i selected is a live physical object & not limited by the printers'/paper constraint. The fur, hair, dust, texture etc is obviously more clearly defined than any of the Oly models in comparison.

 

[Oly5050]

I understand u r a fan of Oly but i think u need to be a little more objective here. What u see is not the incompetency of the 645D. On the contrary, the 645D is so good that it is displaying the flaws of the printed wine label.


Let's shift ur crop of the image a little to the left:


Which shows "1872" & its details clearer? If its juz bigger but with fuzzy details or smudgy/blotchy details, i wud have agreed with u on the "lousy" IQ of 645D.

The crop portion i selected is a live physical object & not limited by the printers'/paper constraint. The fur, hair, dust, texture etc is obviously more clearly defined than any of the Oly models in comparison.

Just because my nick is Oly5050 does not mean that I am a fan, OK? It just so happens I my nick was created because I happened to have a C5050 at that time.

In any case, I was objective when I was looking at the horizontal lines. And I made my observation on that. I did not think I was biased. Of course, I did not go all around the image to compare every detail. But, yes, I do agree that the numbers look larger and clearer on the 645. In any case, we are pixel peeping here, really....scrutinizing the a portion of the image that is 1/20th of the actual size. LOL!! And based on that, at least the E5 is still better than the EPL2. Phew.

Anyway, I think its a nice and convenient widgit for people to pixel peep. LOL! There are a ton of other cameras to compare with including the full frame 135 sensors from Canon, Nikon and the APSC of the Leica X1.

 

[microcosm]

Thank you guys for your sharing.

The conclusion : The new Olympus cameras are good and therefore when you have a lousy shot, it is because of the photographer, not the gear... ha ha ha...

Anyway, it is great to know there are more reasons for us to love our gear more.

 

[gooseberry]

Just wanting to point out that when you use that dpreview widget to compare cameras, it's comparing at the default settings of the cameras (dpreview only tests the cameras at default settings, not at optimal settings for each camera).

So when you look at the jpeg comparisons, what you are seeing as differences are more likely to be due to the differences in the default sharpening and contrast settings of the cameras - some cameras would apply more sharpening/more contrast at default settings than others.

 

[wonglp]

Saw this review, intereting part was launch price hk 4990, abt 830sgd? Very reasonable price if sgp street price is similar. Iirc epl1 kit rrp was 999?
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.dcfever.com/news/readnews.php%3Fid%3D4750

 

[aryanto]

Saw this review, intereting part was launch price hk 4990, abt 830sgd? Very reasonable price if sgp street price is similar. Iirc epl1 kit rrp was 999?
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.dcfever.com/news/readnews.php%3Fid%3D4750

the poison is strong. hopefully they have good deal for olympus followers :lovegrin:

 

[microcosm]

I am sure Oly SG is working on making the prices equally delicious.

 

[Oly5050]

Just wanting to point out that when you use that dpreview widget to compare cameras, it's comparing at the default settings of the cameras (dpreview only tests the cameras at default settings, not at optimal settings for each camera).

So when you look at the jpeg comparisons, what you are seeing as differences are more likely to be due to the differences in the default sharpening and contrast settings of the cameras - some cameras would apply more sharpening/more contrast at default settings than others.

Thanks for highlighting that. But really, I think it does not matter. I do not think there is any point to go to town about this settings because more than 90% of the users will shoot JPEG and will utilize default settings. To make the results relevant to more people, default settings will be a good benchmark. Of course, u can go and do trial and error to determine the optimal settings, but really, how much time and resources do u want to devote to that. Then at the end of the day, there will still be someone out there who will say that the settings that u chose is really not the optimal because he went to do that setting instead and got better results. Then another discussion will start and we still have not resolved any issue.

 

[dannyfoxy]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::angel:

Thanks for highlighting that. But really, I think it does not matter. I do not think there is any point to go to town about this settings because more than 90% of the users will shoot JPEG and will utilize default settings. To make the results relevant to more people, default settings will be a good benchmark. Of course, u can go and do trial and error to determine the optimal settings, but really, how much time and resources do u want to devote to that. Then at the end of the day, there will still be someone out there who will say that the settings that u chose is really not the optimal because he went to do that setting instead and got better results. Then another discussion will start and we still have not resolved any issue.

 

[rwhite]

Dun understand, why E-PL2 doesnt comes with 17mm lens package at Amazon har?

 

[diCam]

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Everything I said about the EPL1. It goes for the EPL2 as well