[ Users' Review ] - Olympus E-PL1 Review Diary

[headfonz]

The insects shots look overly exposed. Were they what u meant them to look? Or was it straight from metering?

I find the details from PL1 is really good, only personal opinion is that the pics look a little too contrasty for my taste, from the samples here & other sites as well.

Very nice hands on u got there headfonz :lovegrin:

the insect shots were actually given a -2/3 to -1 stop in RAW :embrass: the metered output on jpeg actually look about -1/2 stop lower than my images here, i'm not certain but i think the actual ISO is higher than the reported ISO. (e.g. ISO 400 = ISO 640) and my raw editor does not compensate for it.

on the over exposure, its pretty much to what i wanted to achieve. i haven't been shooting insect close-ups for a long while and i'm a little bored of the "extension tube-with-2-flashes" looks of my old macro shots, so i kinda liked the soft light and bright backgrounds in the scenes :embrass: agree that the baby hopper shot is over. would you like the ORFs? I could send them to you for your evaluation.

contrast wise, the default settings will give very punchy colours. i think that's perfectly fine for a consumer camera and the OoC jpegs should work very well for most users.

 

[moehog]

dear all,

Im just wondering if I should get the EPL - 1 or GF1?

any advice for me?

 

[marky]

dear all,

Im just wondering if I should get the EPL - 1 or GF1?

any advice for me?

Depends.. i think u should read through the 1st page of this post. Or go down to the shop and hands on the cameras. EPL-1 twin kit lens is quite worth the buy as it comes with MMF-2.

 

[headfonz]

just a front and back shot of the MMF1 and MMF2





main difference is the materials between the 2. the MMF2 is very much lighter. being a plastic mount, its great for the Standard Grade Zuiko Digital lenses like the 40-150 mkII, 9-18 and 35 macro. it will also be ok for HG lenses like the 50 macro or 8 fisheye, but i won't be mounting my 12-60 or 7-14 on it as those lenses may put too much strain on the MMF2's plastic mounts.

 

[marky]

Tried it with the 35-100mm yesterday.. but i'll be the last time i'm doing that..:bsmilie:

I guess the 7-14 weight on the mmf-2 is still acceptable as its not that heavy, just have to becareful the way u handle the camera with the lens mounted on.

 

[bousozoku]

i am so tempted to chg my gf1 to this.

wonder if mountinng a 14-140mm to this will be stable. coz on gf1 it is abit off balance and hard to handle..

I can't imagine the E-PL1 doing any better. Shouldn't you consider the DMC-G2 since it has the bigger grip and a bit more size to offset the size of the lens?

 

[moehog]

Depends.. i think u should read through the 1st page of this post. Or go down to the shop and hands on the cameras. EPL-1 twin kit lens is quite worth the buy as it comes with MMF-2.

read through already. :dunno:

anyway thank you.

 

[powergoo]

ISO 3200

E-PL1


GF1


Unprocessed RAW ISO200

E-PL1


GF1

Good job ! thanks.

As GF-1 is known to have more sensitive ISO than stated, is that why the comparison shots are over-exposed. this affects the color comparision.
Is yrs on manual or auto exposure? Can tell the GF-1 shots are over-exposed due to the 'grey' color OM leatherette texture.

 

[marky]

read through already. :dunno:

anyway thank you.

What i meant was to compare the photos that Headfonz has taken for comparison then decide which is better.

 

[moehog]

What i meant was to compare the photos that Headfonz has taken for comparison then decide which is better.

judging from the photo, seems like epl - 1 is better.

but i went to try out the cams, feel that auto focusing gf1 is way faster.

:dunno:

 

[headfonz]

Good job ! thanks.

As GF-1 is known to have more sensitive ISO than stated, is that why the comparison shots are over-exposed. this affects the color comparision.
Is yrs on manual or auto exposure? Can tell the GF-1 shots are over-exposed due to the 'grey' color OM leatherette texture.

Actually the raw iso 200 file here was from the same shot as the jpg in the earlier post. The actual raw files, so it's probably the differences in capturing and in-camera processing. The shots were on manual exposure btw.

 

[headfonz]

judging from the photo, seems like epl - 1 is better.

but i went to try out the cams, feel that auto focusing gf1 is way faster.

:dunno:

Gf1 af is faster, but the EPL1 has IS.
The EPL1 gas better jpegs, but the GF1 has a high res screen.
The pros and cons list goes on and on...

Whether or not that will be the deal breaker is your choice to make. The way I see it, if I didn't own the gf1 already and I have to make a choice, the EPL1 is definitely the more affordable and has 2 key features that is important to me: IS and better jpegs

 

[marky]

judging from the photo, seems like epl - 1 is better.

but i went to try out the cams, feel that auto focusing gf1 is way faster.

:dunno:

Its a matter of getting used to it as i don't think that you'll be using this camera to shoot sports events. It'll be more for leisure shoots.

 

[harper]

just a front and back shot of the MMF1 and MMF2





main difference is the materials between the 2. the MMF2 is very much lighter. being a plastic mount, its great for the Standard Grade Zuiko Digital lenses like the 40-150 mkII, 9-18 and 35 macro. it will also be ok for HG lenses like the 50 macro or 8 fisheye, but i won't be mounting my 12-60 or 7-14 on it as those lenses may put too much strain on the MMF2's plastic mounts.

thanks for the pics.

didn't know that there is difference between the two other then the color...

btw, any idea how much and where we can get the MMF1?

 

[nightpiper]

the insect shots were actually given a -2/3 to -1 stop in RAW the metered output on jpeg actually look about -1/2 stop lower than my images here, i'm not certain but i think the actual ISO is higher than the reported ISO. (e.g. ISO 400 = ISO 640) and my raw editor does not compensate for it.

on the over exposure, its pretty much to what i wanted to achieve. i haven't been shooting insect close-ups for a long while and i'm a little bored of the "extension tube-with-2-flashes" looks of my old macro shots, so i kinda liked the soft light and bright backgrounds in the scenes agree that the baby hopper shot is over. would you like the ORFs? I could send them to you for your evaluation.

contrast wise, the default settings will give very punchy colours. i think that's perfectly fine for a consumer camera and the OoC jpegs should work very well for most users.

What RAW converter did u use? Silky or ACR or Studio2? Maybe not fully supporting the new cam's RAW file yet? :think:

I find the bright bkgnd is taking too much attention from the main subject. Dun mind i use 2 of ur pic for ref. I kind of prefer it tone down a little, there's more details & the texture is better.

here r the revised ver. & of cos comments r all welcome

Contrast wise maybe can tune down a notch on the settings? Sorry i haven't had any experience with this new toy so not sure if it'll look better :sweatsm: Ya i do agree, the punchy OOC jpg wud appeal to many consumers. I like its light weight & size, i feel that this is 4/3's biggest advantage over any other big size sensor cams. :thumbsup:

 

[nightpiper]

Sorry juz 1 more hopper shot for ref Did a little underexpose to bring out a little more detail esp the flower

i think this new PL1 is similar to its older brethrens, ie, need to dial in a -0.3EV or -0.5EV for outdoor shoot. Which means... DR may be compromised?? But at that kind of price, i'm not complaining :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[headfonz]

What RAW converter did u use? Silky or ACR or Studio2? Maybe not fully supporting the new cam's RAW file yet? :think:

I find the bright bkgnd is taking too much attention from the main subject. Dun mind i use 2 of ur pic for ref. I kind of prefer it tone down a little, there's more details & the texture is better.

here r the revised ver. & of cos comments r all welcome

Contrast wise maybe can tune down a notch on the settings? Sorry i haven't had any experience with this new toy so not sure if it'll look better :sweatsm: Ya i do agree, the punchy OOC jpg wud appeal to many consumers. I like its light weight & size, i feel that this is 4/3's biggest advantage over any other big size sensor cams. :thumbsup:

no prob I'm using bibble 5.03. The contrast is from a film plugin I'm using. Btw, you want te raw files? Can pm me your email addy

 

[nightpiper]

PM u liao. thx

i'll take the spidey shot, i've an old spidey from my 40D, can do a quick & dirty comparison. Spidey89 can be the judge for this one. HAHAAHAHA!!!

Anyway, i'm not sure if Studio2 will open the new ORF, might need to look for alternative converter. I always trust the co. proprietary converter :lovegrin:

Any PL1 owner knows if the ORF will be opened in Studio2?

 

[spidey89]

PM u liao. thx

i'll take the spidey shot, i've an old spidey from my 40D, can do a quick & dirty comparison. Spidey89 can be the judge for this one. HAHAAHAHA!!!

Anyway, i'm not sure if Studio2 will open the new ORF, might need to look for alternative converter. I always trust the co. proprietary converter :lovegrin:

Any PL1 owner knows if the ORF will be opened in Studio2?

Just downloaded a sample from some site,apparently can be opened in studio 2 and edited, except art filters got 4 instead of 6,I can judge the spider,but picture can only give comments :bsmilie:

 

[marky]

Remembered that i have a Hoya R62 IR filter.. So i just had to test out the EPL-1 using the IR Filter. Using EPL-1 was much easier compared to the E3 / E330 that i have. Time needed to take the shot was also much shorter (Around 1.3secs compared to 6-8secs for the E-XX). LCD was also able to view the scene clearly for composition of shots.

Here are 2 taken at Chinese Gardens today. This is only my first few attempts on IR, so dun mind the pics. I shall add more when i have the time.

Oh yeah, did i mentioned the MF assist in the EPL-1? I'm not too sure if the other PEN models have this function or was this ever mentioned. It zoom in to about 7 times once u touch the focusing ring, which is quite cool. but it gets irritating after awhile as i often accidentally turn the focusing ring. Therefore, i kept it off from then on.

The AF for this is really slow and under really low light situations, the AF seems to fail. Other than that, this is a great camera. ;p