Warren T.
Well-known
Dave, it's because my picture is linked from my photo hosting site instead of attaching the actual picture file to the message.
--Warren
pixelatedscraps
Well-known
Girlfriend's father has a GF-1 which I borrowed for a couple of weeks. My thoughts:
Pros:
-Awesome, fun little cameras to use with old Leica / OM glass with necessary adapters. Makes it fun, quick and easy to go and shoot with your old glass.
-Quick to use - manual focus not necessarily a trying experience at all.
-Small, light.
-20/1.7 lens is a joy to use. Viewfinder, less so. Piss poor resolution (to my eyes anyway).
Cons:
-No in-built stabilization for your old glass
-Lack of a built in viewfinder means buying one - again constrained by the types of lenses it supports. Also defeats intended purpose of having a small, light camera.
-Pretty bad above ISO 800.
I also recommended my sister to buy an EPL-1 to use for taking pics of her young son and for her cooking / food blog. My conclusions after a day:
-EPL-1 is slower than the GF-1 to use day-to-day
-High ISO performance is a tad better
-In-built stabilization is worth it. I'd take the EP-1 / EP-2 any day over the GF-1
-Build quality on EPL-1 is pretty low - lower than that of the already plasticky GF-1.
-Both Panasonic and Olympus kit lenses are slow to autofocus.
Would I buy one? Sure, just not right now. I'm fine with my gear. I'll wait till I see a EP-3 / EP-4 or GF-3 with high ISO performance comparable to a 5D MkII or D700.
Pros:
-Awesome, fun little cameras to use with old Leica / OM glass with necessary adapters. Makes it fun, quick and easy to go and shoot with your old glass.
-Quick to use - manual focus not necessarily a trying experience at all.
-Small, light.
-20/1.7 lens is a joy to use. Viewfinder, less so. Piss poor resolution (to my eyes anyway).
Cons:
-No in-built stabilization for your old glass
-Lack of a built in viewfinder means buying one - again constrained by the types of lenses it supports. Also defeats intended purpose of having a small, light camera.
-Pretty bad above ISO 800.
I also recommended my sister to buy an EPL-1 to use for taking pics of her young son and for her cooking / food blog. My conclusions after a day:
-EPL-1 is slower than the GF-1 to use day-to-day
-High ISO performance is a tad better
-In-built stabilization is worth it. I'd take the EP-1 / EP-2 any day over the GF-1
-Build quality on EPL-1 is pretty low - lower than that of the already plasticky GF-1.
-Both Panasonic and Olympus kit lenses are slow to autofocus.
Would I buy one? Sure, just not right now. I'm fine with my gear. I'll wait till I see a EP-3 / EP-4 or GF-3 with high ISO performance comparable to a 5D MkII or D700.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
So what's the cliff notes summary here, that a specific hacked u4/3 camera does better video than some consumer dslr?
Is there anything here about still photos?
ok
So what's the cliff notes summary here, that a specific hacked u4/3 camera does better video than some consumer dslr?
Is there anything here about still photos?
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Aah! Thanks, Warren.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I waited and waited for m43 and bought a GF1, plus the EVF. It does the job but I can't warm to it.
The kit zoom cancels out the size advantage entirely. The EVF makes it worse.
If I wanted to use the fixed 20mm lens I've got a Bessa with the 40/1.4 Nokton.
The EVF is only just adequate, but certainly better than trying to use the LCD screen.
Using manual M-mount lenses on it is a bit of a pain, in my view.
I think I'm going to sell the GF1 and 14-45 lens and get a new LX5 when they become available next month - and keep the EVF to use on that!
The kit zoom cancels out the size advantage entirely. The EVF makes it worse.
If I wanted to use the fixed 20mm lens I've got a Bessa with the 40/1.4 Nokton.
The EVF is only just adequate, but certainly better than trying to use the LCD screen.
Using manual M-mount lenses on it is a bit of a pain, in my view.
I think I'm going to sell the GF1 and 14-45 lens and get a new LX5 when they become available next month - and keep the EVF to use on that!
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
SMART choice on the G1, Warren. If I were buying in right now or upgrading (which I might do with my G1), I'd go for the G1 or preferably the G2.
/
ampguy
Veteran
I'm thinking about the NEX
I'm thinking about the NEX
but I do already have LTM and M adapters for µ4/3
If you buy my M8, M6, or some lens from me, I'll be able to get a really nice µ4/3 setup and maybe a NEX too ...
I'm thinking about the NEX
but I do already have LTM and M adapters for µ4/3
If you buy my M8, M6, or some lens from me, I'll be able to get a really nice µ4/3 setup and maybe a NEX too ...
Warren T.
Well-known
It's handy for taking pictures of your classic Leica gear too .
Taken with Lumix G1 and 5cm I-26M:
.Taken with Lumix G1 and 5cm I-26M:
Warren T.
Well-known
Thanks Ray. Yes, the G1 is a real bargain right now, and the 14-45mm kit lens is surprisingly good.
--Warren
James McDaniel
Newbie
I'm just a hobbyist but I love my Lumix GF1 with the Panasonic pancake and 45-200 zoom lenses. Amazing quality for the money.
hausen
Well-known
I have recently looked to sell my EP-1 and then in last couple of weeks have taken it in my bag when I have been out with my Mamiya 6 so I have a close up option. Have been using one of my MD lenses 50/1.7 and have been staggered by how good the results were. Also have a Minolta 40/2 and have used both for close up flowers and such performs as nearly as well as my Canon 7d plus 60/2.8 macro and at under half the size. I may have to keep it.
jky
Well-known
Been using the GF1 since last December and I've enjoyed the journey thus far. Just a few things I'd really like :
1. A better EVF
2. Where the heck is that 14mm f2.5 prime?
3. Firmware for distance scale.
1. A better EVF
2. Where the heck is that 14mm f2.5 prime?
3. Firmware for distance scale.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
*That* particular 40-ish lens... YES!
It's that good, Ted.
Wide open inside a silk-factory (not a lot of light).
Those of us who like smooth bokeh should be happy with this lens.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Semilog, I've been telling people for a long while now that 4/3rd platform is a *very* good one if you care about image quality at all (now after my experience bringing along my E-P2 abroad, also for build-quality).
But I guess some of us just can't be bothered with picture samples, facts, and the value of the whole package, instead putting more weight on repeated incorrect information and picture-deprived opinions.
:angel:Matus
Well-known
I have never used or even handled the u4/3 cameras, though the EP-2 and GF1 do seem to be quite well built cameras that deliver reasonable output. What keeps me away is the size of the sensor (and subsequently size of pixels) that limits shallow DOF. Also the zoom lenses are rather bulky. I find the 35mm RF lenses small enough so I hope that future will bring larger sensors (but not in a body like sony NEX) in comparably small bodies. I also hope that Foveon technology will keep developing - actually if they would manage to scale-up the existing sensors than we would already get us about 3 x 15 Mpix in FX format - that would be great. With the detail density Foveon is capable of that would mean great A3+ prints.
Truth to be told - if I would have a stronger reason to get a compact digital camera I would not hesitate much to get one from Olympus or Panasonic.
Truth to be told - if I would have a stronger reason to get a compact digital camera I would not hesitate much to get one from Olympus or Panasonic.
cz23
-
As an experiment, I shot this year's SoFoBoMo project with a GF1, 20mm and 14-45mm.
You can view the PDF book here: http://sofobomo.org/book-412-The-Road-Ends-in-Water
Last weekend I did some testing and compared B&W prints from the GF1 and 5DII. At 12 x 16", if there are any quality differences, I sure don't see them.
I'm sold on m4/3 and plan to make it an integral part of my photography. Mike Johnston of TOP recently wrote that sensor and lens technology is now to the point where IQ is no longer much of a factor in camera system selection. I think he's right.
John
You can view the PDF book here: http://sofobomo.org/book-412-The-Road-Ends-in-Water
Last weekend I did some testing and compared B&W prints from the GF1 and 5DII. At 12 x 16", if there are any quality differences, I sure don't see them.
I'm sold on m4/3 and plan to make it an integral part of my photography. Mike Johnston of TOP recently wrote that sensor and lens technology is now to the point where IQ is no longer much of a factor in camera system selection. I think he's right.
John
nikku
Well-known
I have and use a GH1 fairly regularly. The video is mind-blowingly good. Like, "are we watching a tv show" good. I don't like the jpeg output compared to my old E-410 and I'm too lazy to shoot in RAW. Anyone have any suggestions for settings on the GH1 that will help the jpegs look a little nicer?
kuzano
Veteran
My E-PL1
My E-PL1
Due to the excellent reviews (and my testing) I find the E-PL1 Jpegs to the the best of the lot of OOC jpeg on almost all the consumer grade Olympus 4/3, standard or micro.
I also find a pleasing bokeh on this flower image using the not too fast 14-42 kit zoom. I took about twenty images of this flower bed before moving on. Turned out to be mostly keepers and quite similar to this example.
Wassamatta youse guys. Are you really looking at the m4/3 and kit lenses. Are you reading the review.
This image is Jpeg OOC NO POST PROCESSING... MY GOAL. NO legacy lenses... no noktons, CV's, no Leica stuff... just the pieces that come in the box.
It won't replace my Fujica G690bl, but it's sure a bunch ligher.
I have sold all my other Olympus 4/3.
My E-PL1
Due to the excellent reviews (and my testing) I find the E-PL1 Jpegs to the the best of the lot of OOC jpeg on almost all the consumer grade Olympus 4/3, standard or micro.
I also find a pleasing bokeh on this flower image using the not too fast 14-42 kit zoom. I took about twenty images of this flower bed before moving on. Turned out to be mostly keepers and quite similar to this example.
Wassamatta youse guys. Are you really looking at the m4/3 and kit lenses. Are you reading the review.
This image is Jpeg OOC NO POST PROCESSING... MY GOAL. NO legacy lenses... no noktons, CV's, no Leica stuff... just the pieces that come in the box.
It won't replace my Fujica G690bl, but it's sure a bunch ligher.
I have sold all my other Olympus 4/3.
Last edited:
S
sfaust
Guest
I agree with the quality observations above. When pixel peeping you will see differences in quality, but once on paper the differences even up nicely until you get to extra large prints. On the screen, its not even an issue.
IMO, the risk one takes when shooting on the 4/3 systems is when they happen upon an image that they later want huge prints done. In those cases the content usually supersedes the quality, and there are ways to up-res to improve the quality for large prints.
The other way to mitigate that risk is to drag the DSLR around everywhere just in case. But I feel the 4/3 system is perfectly suited for those that are unwilling to do so, and looking for something better than the P&S offerings for every day carrying.
I would also be curious to figure out what the size relationship is for a full frame sensor compared to a huge billboard, and what an equivalent size print/billboard would be for the 4/3 system. I would bet is a very large print, and would look just as good as the proper viewing distance. I recently shot an advertising job where the images were used on billboards, the full sides of buses, etc, and I was worried that the 1DsMkii wasn't up to the task. Once seeing it in person, that was quickly laid to rest. I feel the 4/3 could easily do a 1/4 of that billboard with similar results, and that would exceed most print sizes I would be likely to use.
Here is a shot of how big the billboard is, and the quality was excellent. You can see the awnings and doorway of the building in the lower right corner as a size comparison. That's one monster size print! I think we tend to forget how big we can print images and have them look nice at the proper viewing distance. Any big print is going to show artifacts when viewed up close, but those disappear when you step back and take in the whole image at a reasonable distance. I think I should make some 40x60 prints off the u4/3 as a test!
IMO, the risk one takes when shooting on the 4/3 systems is when they happen upon an image that they later want huge prints done. In those cases the content usually supersedes the quality, and there are ways to up-res to improve the quality for large prints.
The other way to mitigate that risk is to drag the DSLR around everywhere just in case. But I feel the 4/3 system is perfectly suited for those that are unwilling to do so, and looking for something better than the P&S offerings for every day carrying.
I would also be curious to figure out what the size relationship is for a full frame sensor compared to a huge billboard, and what an equivalent size print/billboard would be for the 4/3 system. I would bet is a very large print, and would look just as good as the proper viewing distance. I recently shot an advertising job where the images were used on billboards, the full sides of buses, etc, and I was worried that the 1DsMkii wasn't up to the task. Once seeing it in person, that was quickly laid to rest. I feel the 4/3 could easily do a 1/4 of that billboard with similar results, and that would exceed most print sizes I would be likely to use.
Here is a shot of how big the billboard is, and the quality was excellent. You can see the awnings and doorway of the building in the lower right corner as a size comparison. That's one monster size print! I think we tend to forget how big we can print images and have them look nice at the proper viewing distance. Any big print is going to show artifacts when viewed up close, but those disappear when you step back and take in the whole image at a reasonable distance. I think I should make some 40x60 prints off the u4/3 as a test!
Last edited by a moderator: