E3 vs EP1/2

[microcosm]

The only reason why the E3 will be superior at the end of the day is because it is able to receive superb glass. Even the 50-200mm SWD will find its own problems working well on the m4/3 camera bodies.

Personally I am back to using the E3 for more image critical shooting.

The m4/3 bodies are superb, but lacking the important aspect of photography, the glass.

 

[diCam]

Any comments on the IQ now that both are about similar in price :think:

Allow me to attempt this...

From my personal experience who shot RAW all the time, image quality in terms of dynamic range:

- E-P1/2 has at least 1.5 stop advantage over E-3
- E-PL1 has at least 2 stops advantage over E-3

Reason? Sensor and image processor technology advancement.

The Pen and E-3 is designed for different applications. I'm a outdoor shooter. What I can do with E-3 cannot be achieved by the Pen for the time being. The only thing that I need to bear in mind is that I need to take good care of exposure setting when shooting with E-3. It has banding and blown highlight issues.

 

[seafood]

Only you can answer that question because I do not know exactly what you shoot and why you shoot. For me, I use the EPL1 70% of the time, my E1 20% of the time, my E620 7% of the time, and my E3 about 3% of the time. My EPL1 is my underwater camera, my travel camera, and my social camera. For everything else outside of this, I use my E1/E620/E3. For eg, if I need to shoot something with an FL50 flash ... then I take out my DSLRS. Why? Because the EPL1 is damn hard to handle with a FL50 flash on it. Or if I need to use the Olympus ring flash, then I take out the DSLRS. Why? Same reason as the FL50. Or if I want to go do a model shoot, I take out the DSLR. If I want to have AF lamp assist, then I take out the DSLR. If I think I am going into the rough and might get wet, the E3 comes out. If I need big time telezoom, 200mm or more in low light, I take out the E3/E620. Although I have the 4/3 m4/3 adaptor, I think its ridiculous to put the 50-200 on the EPL1. Also, the AF is slow with the 50-200 on the EPL1 - I think its not optimized. Or if I want to use the SHG lens, which I dun own any, I would take out the DSLRs. Same reason, ridiculous to put such a whopping big lens on a tiny body.

So where does IQ of the sensor factor in my decision process....it does not. As far as I am concerned, they are comparable. What I take out depends on what is required. Not what IQ am I getting from the camera. I mean...haven't you been taken by all the marketing by Olympus and Sony where they say DSLR quality in a compact body?? If u so concerned about IQ, then shoot RAW to get the most out of it.

Anyway, I think IQ consideration is so WAY over-rated by everyone. Particularly those who go for the Canon or Nikon FF DSLRS. As far as I am concerned, I do not find the IQ from the Olympus DSLRs the limiting factor. The limiting factor to my photography is actually to get the lighting right. In other words, it is more likely that a shot is not ideal because I din get the exposure right...ie. flash settings wrong etc, rather than the camera IQ cannot make it...which to me never ever happens. Once you get the exposure and lighting correct, everything else is OK.

So the decision between the E-Pens and the DSLRs is function...not IQ, like what everyone else here has already said.

I would beg to differ.

At the end of the day if IQ is not good, I wouldn't even consider the camera/system. I sold of my e620 to get an EP1 coz I thought the IQ is at least equivalent if not better and I am getting something more compact. To date I have yet to conclude that IQ from EP1 is better than from my e620/e3 coz I find that the pics I shoot with the EP1 is very different from those of the e620/3 coz I use different glass for either. I don't shoot RAW; can't afford the time :what:

Anyway I do get your point though it doesn't really address the question. I guess for yourself, you are getting similar if not better IQ for both your EPL1 and E3 so form and function is your deciding factor rather than IQ

 

[seafood]

The only reason why the E3 will be superior at the end of the day is because it is able to receive superb glass. Even the 50-200mm SWD will find its own problems working well on the m4/3 camera bodies.

Personally I am back to using the E3 for more image critical shooting.

The m4/3 bodies are superb, but lacking the important aspect of photography, the glass.

Ditto here ...... I am back to lugging the E3 more ..... for a while I preferred the E620 much more than the E3. Then I sold the E620 for the EP1. Was very happy for a while .... but no good glass ..... even mentioned it in this thread.

 

[seafood]

Allow me to attempt this...

From my personal experience who shot RAW all the time, image quality in terms of dynamic range:

- E-P1/2 has at least 1.5 stop advantage over E-3
- E-PL1 has at least 2 stops advantage over E-3

Reason? Sensor and image processor technology advancement.

The Pen and E-3 is designed for different applications. I'm a outdoor shooter. What I can do with E-3 cannot be achieved by the Pen for the time being. The only thing that I need to bear in mind is that I need to take good care of exposure setting when shooting with E-3. It has banding and blown highlight issues.

Thanks for the response

I guess you actually feel that the EPs's sensor is capable of better IQ compare to the E3.

Have you tried similar glass on both an EP and the E3 for a one-one comparison? Sorry I can't coz I don't have the MMF1/2 adapter, which I feel is waaaaay over priced

 

[diCam]

Thanks for the response

I guess you actually feel that the EPs's sensor is capable of better IQ compare to the E3.

Have you tried similar glass on both an EP and the E3 for a one-one comparison? Sorry I can't coz I don't have the MMF1/2 adapter, which I feel is waaaaay over priced

My opinion is not based on feeling. It is a fact. Visibly better, in term of dynamic range. This has to be the case. Technology advancement brings improvement. Now, imagine the image quality of E-3 replacement... :angel:

I have used ZD glasses on the Pen and E-3. I would not be able to give you a one-to-one comparison. It's too lengthy to type here but I can share with you some of my experiences. I'd used E-P1 and E-PL1 coupled to MMF-1 with:

1. 4/3 14-35mm
2. 4/3 12-60mm SWD
3. 4/3 50-200mm SWD
4. 4/3 14-54mm MK II (2 weeks, limited usage)

In my personal opinion, mounting 4/3 ZD to the Pen produced very good image quality in term of producing details but the auto-focus speed sucks big time. To overcome the limitation I would set the AF mode to S-AF + MF. I would turn the focus ring till the subject look sharp then half press the shutter button to achieve focus. 4/3 ZD is never designed to work with contrast detection auto-focus system (CD-AF). The only exception is 14-54mm MK II which is designed to work with CD-AF camera. This lens work very well and reliably with the Pen. It would be my perfect combination for walkabout.

My 2 cents worth of opinion.

 

[seafood]

My opinion is not based on feeling. It is a fact. Visibly better, in term of dynamic range. This has to be the case. Technology advancement brings improvement. Now, imagine the image quality of E-3 replacement... :angel:

I have used ZD glasses on the Pen and E-3. I would not be able to give you a one-to-one comparison. It's too lengthy to type here but I can share with you some of my experiences. I'd used E-P1 and E-PL1 coupled to MMF-1 with:

1. 4/3 14-35mm
2. 4/3 12-60mm SWD
3. 4/3 50-200mm SWD
4. 4/3 14-54mm MK II (2 weeks, limited usage)

In my personal opinion, mounting 4/3 ZD to the Pen produced very good image quality in term of producing details but the auto-focus speed sucks big time. To overcome the limitation I would set the AF mode to S-AF + MF. I would turn the focus ring till the subject look sharp then half press the shutter button to achieve focus. 4/3 ZD is never designed to work with contrast detection auto-focus system (CD-AF). The only exception is 14-54mm MK II which is designed to work with CD-AF camera. This lens work very well and reliably with the Pen. It would be my perfect combination for walkabout.

My 2 cents worth of opinion.

You are a person of ..... good taste :lovegrin: Love your glassware :heart:

I have tried MF lenses on the EP1 ..... not my kettle of fish With the E3, I can still focus very effectively using just the VF but not with the LV on the EP1. As it is I am pretty stuck when it comes to good dedicated/good function/good form factor lens on the EP1. If I have to use the 14-54/50-200 combo on the EP1, I may as well use the E3.

As it is I can't comment on the IQ of the EP1 compare to the E3 but I do take your word on this. But with the lenses I use on the E3, I do get more satisfactory pics (IMHO) than on the EP1.

And of course the E3's AF is superior compare to the EP1 though I can probably live with the EP1 if there is some glassware at least equivalent to the 14-54 (note I am NOT mentioning the 14-35 *drool* ...) with the EPs' form factor......

 

[Hitman]

I don't understand you.... you have the E-3 and also the E-P1.... and you're asking what ?

Never mind....

 

[diCam]

You are a person of ..... good taste :lovegrin: Love your glassware :heart:

I have tried MF lenses on the EP1 ..... not my kettle of fish With the E3, I can still focus very effectively using just the VF but not with the LV on the EP1. As it is I am pretty stuck when it comes to good dedicated/good function/good form factor lens on the EP1. If I have to use the 14-54/50-200 combo on the EP1, I may as well use the E3.

As it is I can't comment on the IQ of the EP1 compare to the E3 but I do take your word on this. But with the lenses I use on the E3, I do get more satisfactory pics (IMHO) than on the EP1.

And of course the E3's AF is superior compare to the EP1 though I can probably live with the EP1 if there is some glassware at least equivalent to the 14-54 (note I am NOT mentioning the 14-35 *drool* ...) with the EPs' form factor......

I do not own Item 1 and 4. Both are borrowed items. My friend has a 14-54mm MK II mounted "permanently" to his E-PL1.

From my experience, picture taken with E-3 tends to produce image with color that look natural, well balanced. The Pen tends to be punchy.

 

[seafood]

I don't understand you.... you have the E-3 and also the E-P1.... and you're asking what ?

Never mind....

Any comments on the IQ now that both are about similar in price :think:

Just fishing for opinions or comments

 

[seafood]

I do not own Item 1 and 4. Both are borrowed items. My friend has a 14-54mm MK II mounted "permanently" to his E-PL1.

From my experience, picture taken with E-3 tends to produce image with color that look natural, well balanced. The Pen tends to be punchy.

Well .... so you are also one of us ... but at least you are well connected

I tend to agree with you here, too. Initially was pretty impressed by the EP's "colours". But then felt that something was .... not the same. And I attributed it to the quality of the glass. I also had the e620 and colours were never an issue so I thought that the EP's sensor's output should be pretty similar.

Started using the E3 more again. And this brings me here wondering whether I was alone in thinking that IQ may not exactly be similar (whatever the reason) for both these cameras. Whichever is "?better".

 

[diCam]

Just fishing for opinions or comments

After that it become your seafood. :bsmilie:

 

[Hitman]

Just fishing for opinions or comments

Hope you got what you asked for then....

 

[seafood]

After that it become your seafood. :bsmilie:

Hope you got what you asked for then....

Still hungry .... am still interested to find out what the FT users think of the difference in the FT and present mFT IQ ...

There are quite a few cross overs ... e620 to EP and even EP to e620 ...

 

[albertri]

Still hungry .... am still interested to find out what the FT users think of the difference in the FT and present mFT IQ ...

There are quite a few cross overs ... e620 to EP and even EP to e620 ...

hehe i dunno if I am allowed to comments here haha i've used EPL1 for just over a month and I am loving it but in the end I've sold it and change to e620 well the reason too obvious for me hehehe when I was using my EPL1 I'ce acquired my 14-54 and sold my Kit lens I even gotten Panny 14-45 to try it out, then gotten 40-150mm so looking at my glass it's all 4/3 thats when I have decided to jump ship coz I've lost the small form factor of my EPL1....

Here's my personal experience using I think EPL1 is much easy to use specially if you're jumping from p&s cam just like me....

But I've noticed something on my E620 and EPL1 night shots.... I find my E620 a bit more grainy when taking night shots specially keeping the ISO at 200 the dark or black is not really black for me I have taken a night shot on EPL1 using the same lens (14-54) but the EPL1 shots I dont need to do some touch-up...

 

[spidey89]

hehe i dunno if I am allowed to comments here haha i've used EPL1 for just over a month and I am loving it but in the end I've sold it and change to e620 well the reason too obvious for me hehehe when I was using my EPL1 I'ce acquired my 14-54 and sold my Kit lens I even gotten Panny 14-45 to try it out, then gotten 40-150mm so looking at my glass it's all 4/3 thats when I have decided to jump ship coz I've lost the small form factor of my EPL1....

Here's my personal experience using I think EPL1 is much easy to use specially if you're jumping from p&s cam just like me....

But I've noticed something on my E620 and EPL1 night shots.... I find my E620 a bit more grainy when taking night shots specially keeping the ISO at 200 the dark or black is not really black for me I have taken a night shot on EPL1 using the same lens (14-54) but the EPL1 shots I dont need to do some touch-up...

You shoot at night, the noise reduction must be on for exposure longer then a certain timing, I can't remember the exact timing though, I think its 1 or 2 secs, maybe that's why its grainy as compared to the E-PL1, I set my E-P1 to auto:bsmilie:

 

[albertri]

You shoot at night, the noise reduction must be on for exposure longer then a certain timing, I can't remember the exact timing though, I think its 1 or 2 secs, maybe that's why its grainy as compared to the E-PL1, I set my E-P1 to auto:bsmilie:

Oh yeah good thing you remind me I have this link that I have not gone through yet

http://www.biofos.com/esystem/e620_set.html

Bro check the E620 manual on noise reduction on page 103 it can only set to on and auto

Auto - only activate when on slow shutter
On - is always activated

Note during sequential Noice reduction is = Off by default

now how about the Noise Filter??? should I use standard or high?

 

[spidey89]

Oh yeah good thing you remind me I have this link that I have not gone through yet

http://www.biofos.com/esystem/e620_set.html

Bro check the E620 manual on noise reduction on page 103 it can only set to on and auto

Auto - only activate when on slow shutter
On - is always activated

Note during sequential Noice reduction is = Off by default

now how about the Noise Filter??? should I use standard or high?

Up to you,no hard way for it, I shoot with standard or low or high depending on my ISO,quite often I shoot with it off

 

[albertri]

Up to you,no hard way for it, I shoot with standard or low or high depending on my ISO,quite often I shoot with it off

tks bro going through the link and my user guide once again hahaha

 

[seafood]

..... I find my E620 a bit more grainy when taking night shots specially keeping the ISO at 200 the dark or black is not really black for me I have taken a night shot on EPL1 using the same lens (14-54) but the EPL1 shots I dont need to do some touch-up...

I tend to agree with you, too.

The EP1 handles higher ISO (800 and above) better and does do black better than the e620 ....