Camera Dilemma - lx3 / olympus e-p1

[aureliaaurita]

I'm posting this in both the point and shoot and micro 4/3rds forums as I expect some biased views 😉

I largely like to shoot portraits, but occasionally the horses.

I had a G1 that I have now sold because it was just that bit too big and it never went anywhere with me, so, good as it was, it didn't see much action at all.

I want manual focus. Is this very tricky on the lx3?

I also need a viewfinder if I buy an lx3....and I don't want to pay £150 for hte pleasure, would this really do?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...=STRK:MEWAX:IT

what would you suggest?

if I were to go for the olympus, it would be the pancake lens and VF1 option and in all honesty, I don't think I would invest in another lens for some time. I used a ricoh gr d for years so a fixed lens is no issue for me - it also makes me think more which generally = better photos.

trouble being, it's an awful lot more money and I would have to wait a month or so before purchasing, whereas the lumix I can buy straight off.

I have also never worked with RAW files but know that I need to get a grip on this - I don't really understand the distinction however, or what advantage they give you?

help.

 

[zoz63]

E-P1 is way better option and can use most other lenses as well with cheap adapter.

 

[payasam]

I do a good bit of portrait work. For that I much prefer 35mm film cameras to my 4/3 digitals. Reason: depth of field. The M4/3 has a sensor of the same size. For the field of view of a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera, one must use a lens whose actual focal length is 50mm: with correspondingly greater depth of field.

It took me under an hour to get the hang of the basics of raw file conversion and only a couple of days to understand most of the other tools -- those of them that I use.

 

[gavinlg]

the e-p1 is in another league to the lx3 in image quality, handling - everything except size - being a little bigger.

 

[Spyro]

I found the LX3 better in every respect. Manual focus is a little irrelevant in these cameras because as a general rule you'll be using from wide to hyper-wide lenses, therefore pre- or scale focus becomes more relevant. The LX3 wins there because, I dont know how they managed not to have a focus distance scale anywhere on the ep1, but they did. Prefocusing to a certain distance is impossible other than with manual lenses, see below.

The LX3 also wins in quietness, size and weight. Again I dont know how they managed to make a mirrorless camera with a tiny sensor (1/4 of a full frame sensor) sound like a sewing machine, but they did. Also the LX3 has a very usable lens, whereas with the ep1 you'd have to either a) put up with the proprietary lenses that have no distance scale, no hyperfocal distance and no infinity stop ie the focus ring turns perpetually or b) put legacy lenses on which usually gives you very limiting combinations of focal length and aperture eg you put a 28/2.8 on and what you get is a 56mm f2.8 lens but with the wide dof of a 28mm lens. Too narrow for street/landscape, too big dof for portraits/stills. Boring. And there is no way of achieving wide with moderately fast aperture whereas with LX3 you get a very nice 24/2. Lastly the ep1 I had was terribly noisy at ISO200, I emailed Olympus and they said thats how its supposed to be. too bad.

 

[Finder]

aliceelizabeth, the biggest factor against the LX3 would be the very wide angle of view. which will not be ideal for portraits. At an equivalent of 24mm, this is more suited to architectual photography rather than people. You could get very close to your subject, but then you are going to have sever perspective, which will not be pleasing. While the Olympus lens as also a wide, it is fairly moderate. You can then pickup a cheap manual focus lens if the 17mm is not perfect--You are stuck with one lens with the LX3, which is not bad in and of itself, but you sound like you will want more from this camera.

Also, the viewfinder you have linked to is not a good match for the LX3. If you use a viewfinder designed for a 35mm camera, you would want one designed for a 24mm lens to match the angle of view of the LX3. Also, while 35mm viewfinders are fine for m4/3 cameras (I use one myself), they have a slightly different aspect ratio: 3:2 for 35mm, 4:3 for m4/3.

Don't worry about RAW processing. The Olympus makes fine jpegs. You can also take RAW and jpegs at the same time. So there is no rush to learn RAW processing--it isn't that hard, but it does take a bit of practice if you have never done this, at least if you really want to dig into the finer points.

BTW, I bought the E-P1 with the 17mm/VF. I really enjoy it. This may be a good time to buy one as the camera is discontinued and you should be able to find some good prices.

All the reviews of the E-P1 state noise, or the lack of it, is excellent.

You can also prefocus the Olympus m4/3 lens including the 17mm at any distance you wish. There are several ways to do this depending on the way you like to work.

 

[Finder]

BTW, Dof field does change when you use 35mm lenses on a m4/3 camera--you lose DoF. So if you use the depth of field scales on the lens, you use the scales for two stops larger--when the lens is set to f/11, use the f/5.6 scales. Scale focusing gets tricky at maximum aperture or one stop closed down as their are no scales. But you can always focus on the monitor.

Also, the E-P1 does not sound like a sewing machine.

 

[back alley]

small and cute is lost once you put an external finder on (evf).

 

[aeolist]

BTW, Dof field does change when you use 35mm lenses on a m4/3 camera--you lose DoF. So if you use the depth of field scales on the lens, you use the scales for two stops larger--when the lens is set to f/11, use the f/5.6 scales. Scale focusing gets tricky at maximum aperture or one stop closed down as their are no scales. But you can always focus on the monitor.
Also, the E-P1 does not sound like a sewing machine.

amen to that, at last somebody who is not posting about how 35mm lenses on m4/3 cameras have bigger DOF.

Spyro you know I highly regard you and your useful posts on all forums we frequent, but you are plainly wrong here

b) put legacy lenses on which usually gives you very limiting combinations of focal length and aperture eg you put a 28/2.8 on and what you get is a 56mm f2.8 lens but with the wide dof of a 28mm lens. Too narrow for street/landscape, too big dof for portraits/stills. Boring. And there is no way of achieving wide with moderately fast aperture whereas with LX3 you get a very nice 24/2.

We have already discussed that on fredmiranda, read Finder's post.

Lastly the ep1 I had was terribly noisy at ISO200, I emailed Olympus and they said thats how its supposed to be. too bad.

I recently re-read your post on the greek forum and the EXIF data showed you were underexposing by 2 stops and had dialed in +1 contrast. Isn't noise to be expected with such settings??

to the OP:
the G1 is 124 x 84 x 45 mm
the E-P1 is 120.5 mm x 70.0mm x 35.0 mm
the LX3 is 108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm

all excluding protrusions (lenses and such)

 

[chrishayton]

aliceelizabeth, the biggest factor against the LX3 would be the very wide angle of view. which will not be ideal for portraits. At an equivalent of 24mm, this is more suited to architectual photography rather than people. You could get very close to your subject, but then you are going to have sever perspective, which will not be pleasing. While the Olympus lens as also a wide, it is fairly moderate. You can then pickup a cheap manual focus lens if the 17mm is not perfect--You are stuck with one lens with the LX3, which is not bad in and of itself, but you sound like you will want more from this camera.

Also, the viewfinder you have linked to is not a good match for the LX3. If you use a viewfinder designed for a 35mm camera, you would want one designed for a 24mm lens to match the angle of view of the LX3. Also, while 35mm viewfinders are fine for m4/3 cameras (I use one myself), they have a slightly different aspect ratio: 3:2 for 35mm, 4:3 for m4/3.

Don't worry about RAW processing. The Olympus makes fine jpegs. You can also take RAW and jpegs at the same time. So there is no rush to learn RAW processing--it isn't that hard, but it does take a bit of practice if you have never done this, at least if you really want to dig into the finer points.

BTW, I bought the E-P1 with the 17mm/VF. I really enjoy it. This may be a good time to buy one as the camera is discontinued and you should be able to find some good prices.

All the reviews of the E-P1 state noise, or the lack of it, is excellent.

You can also prefocus the Olympus m4/3 lens including the 17mm at any distance you wish. There are several ways to do this depending on the way you like to work.

Dont forget the lx3 has a zoom lens. 24-60mm (i think, might be 70)
However the IQ on the LX3 is not as good as the micro 4/3rds and you wont get much in terms of shallow depth of field. Id be tempted by the gf1 and 20mm over any of the others.

 

[dnk512]

My only and big gripe about LX3 (and all fixed lens digital) is dirt on the lens and inability to clean it. Had to send mine for sensor cleaning (within warranty). 3 weeks no camera == not good.

Otherwise, the image quality vs portability trade off balances very evenly for the two camera's you are listing.

 

[Al Patterson]

I'd get an EPL-1 if I had the cash, but the LX3 does have a great reputation on various digital sites.

 

[PCB_RF]

Digital hardware is a world of compromise, and the LX-3 brings significant compromises for what you want to do.

1. Portraits: LX3 long 60mm-equiv. focal length is short for portraits. Its f/2.4 max aperture at 60mm still has fairly deep depth-of-field, so you'll have a harder time isolating your subject from the background. If your definition of "portrait" is a 90-105mm equivalent lens with shallow dof, the LX-3 isn't great. If you're talking about "environmental portraits," photos of people in their environment where deeper dof is helpful, and if your subjects don't mind some facial distortion, the LX3 will work fine.

2. Horses: Didn't you say in a previous thread that you felt you needed a long lens, preferably a long zoom lens, for your horse photos? The LX3 stops at 60mm, and it won't shoot action well. So you'll have to either be cropping a lot, on a small-sensor image, or limit yourself to subjects you can render well at 60mm. Your hit rate with action shots will be fairly low.

3. Manual focus on an LX3 is pretty tiresome. You're pushing up/down (left/right?) buttons while trying to judge focus on a small screen. Not easy outdoors even if your subject is static, less so if your subject is moving. Locking prefocus isn't that difficult, but true mf is.

4. Size is where the LX3 wins, it is very compact. It's the only need on your list that it does well, IMO.

The G1, or E-PL1 w/EVF, will do everything on your list much better except be small. You can buy any inexpensive 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 SLR mf lens and cheap adapter to take much better portraits than the LX3 can. 100mm effective focal length for better compression, wider aperture with significantly less dof for better subject isolation. True mf capability, which works very well with either evf, indoors or outdoors.

Slap on any inexpensive 135/3.5 mf slr lens for long horse photos. 270mm focal length, easy mf, less need to crop final images. Bigger sensor so you lose less IQ when you crop.

You keep mentioning the E-P1 w/17mm and VF if you go Oly m4/3, but that does neither portraits nor horses well. You'd be better off with the 14-42, which has the 17mm focal length, but also gives you the 42/85mm long end for portraits and horses. Still much shorter than ideal for horses, but better than the 17mm or LX3 60mm equivalent.

If you get one adapter and buy same-mount 50/135mm lenses, you can have great mf portrait and horse lenses for US$125 or so.

There are also long-zoom compact p&s cams that will do better horse photos. The Panasonic ZS-7 w/16x zoom, or Fuji F80 or any number of long-zoom compacts will give you better much longer optical zoom than the LX-3. Still not great action shooting, but significantly tighter framing in a similar size package.

Note that the E-PL1 w/evf is not much smaller than a G1. Shooting long lenses or action outdoors without the evf is not fun. The evf is expensive.

I'm sorry to blather on for so long, but you're going to have a hard time finding anything smaller than a G1 that will do portraits and horse/action nearly as well. Add mf and a $500ish price point to the mix and you're in the land of Don Quixote.

Only you can decide what you're willing to give up, but you'll have to give something up.

 

[kuzano]

E-PL1 $599 and dropping - New

E-PL1 $599 and dropping - New

I wouldn't even put the LX3 in the same camp with the M4/3 in many respects.

I've seen the E-PL1 already at $525 from reputable sellers. Use it with the LCD and if the EVF becomes necessary, it has the port for one.

The EVF will NEVER be an option on the E-P1-- No port. The E-PL1 is just slightly smaller than the E-P1 and 2. The reviews on the E-PL1 rate JPEG images sharper because of a slight change (improvement?) in the anti-aliasing filter to result in sharper IQ.

That's my choice.

One potential downside is the menu control system and loss of control wheels on the E-PL1, but most reviewers say it's not a substantive change and surely not worth knocking the camera for given the price and IQ, art filters, etc.

The camera is definitely targeted as a bridge camera from Point and Shoot, to larger sensor and lens interchange, and seems to be selling quite well.

Hell, even Best Buy and other big box stores are carrying it. I haven't seen an Olympus in a store in my town, 200,000 local and surrounding population for about 6 years. But, I did get my hands on an Oly at Best Buy last week.

Two Added Notes:

I do not dislike the Panasonic LX3. Frankly I think the Panasonic Point and Shoots are among the best available. But the LX3 is really still just a P&S with small sensor and fixed zoom.

Secondly, It''s worth noting that the Panasonic G10 is expected to hit the market at $599 also, and has the EVF built in at that price. I note your dislike of the size, but once you attach an EVF to your Olympus Micro, it's not going in your pocket either. I would not want to be attaching and detaching the EVF often enough to make it fit.

 

[aureliaaurita]

thank you everyone, detailed responses indeed.

I think that the e-p1 would definitely be my best option, but unfortunately we have not seen the price plummet over here that you have in the states and it still currently retails around the £700 mark (est over a thousand dollars), and I cannot justify this.

Yes I do shoot horses but this comes secondary, the zoom is obviously a concern - honestly, I tend to move and think a lot more without one.

It seems that neither is ideal at the moment, I may have to wait for the pen to drop in price - even buying 2nd hand is pricey still, and they are rarely available.

Can anyone suggest a third alternative?

 

[ampguy]

I would go with the EPL1 over the EP1. Smaller, and every image will be better with the reduced thickness of the AA filter vs the EP1/EP2. This is not something you can dial out in PP, it's like having a better sensor in the EPL1.

Other than that, the Canon A5xx cameras are very good, they zoom further than the LX3 and have great image quality, but don't have removable lenses, and have very tiny sensors. Still 2ft x 3ft enlargements are great.

 

[Fujitsu]

I used a ricoh gr d for years so a fixed lens is no issue for me - it also makes me think more which generally = better photos.

Why not just continue using a GRD? The III has an even faster lens (f1.9).

A friend of mine is carrying a GRD and a GX100 side by side for street shooting and is getting pretty good results. The good thing about the Ricohs is that they totally do not draw the attention bigger cameras would.