Have you tried the u4/3 system out?

[ampguy]

The problem I see often with the G1 is a) the hump - makes it really not much smaller than our D40 and I have a lot more Nikon Glass than 4/3, and b) IQ with either real wides (other than native 4/3 lens) or stopped down, like past f4) really show IQ loss.

Only #a above is G1 related, b would apply to Olympus models as well with legacy glass.

But we'll see. For me to be more interested, the size will have to be NEX size or smaller, and price < $300 for a body, right now they're still around $400 for a G1, would much rather have a D40x, or even an old D100.

There is something I may want 4/3 specifically for, and that is to use some existing lens with a small body at 2x, but again the G1 loses out on the hump size thing.

 

[chrisso]

I'm using the GH-1 regularly.
Mostly manual lenses and mostly my late 80's M lenses.
The camera is a lot of fun and I've taken a couple of pictures that are on my wall at home. Taken with an old Kodak c mount lens actually.
The lens choice is fun and mind boggling.
The video quality is superb.
I can't really fault the camera as yet..... except it isn't a multi-thousand dollar Leica

 

[Pickett Wilson]

My Olympus EP-2 is as good as any camera and better than many. I'm not sure we need any more cameras or formats, though. The cameras makers keep providing us with more and more expensive toys to buy and play with. There are so many really good cameras out now that buying new stuff is more entertainment value than need. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

 

[NVARon]

I have been more regularly shooting with an OLympus Pen e-PL1 (I have used a Panasonic G1 a lot, especially with the 45-200 for a compact telephoto). On my flickr site, www.flickr.com/photos/novaron, most of my recent sets are with the Pen and often a Contax 50/1.4 Planar (SLR Contax) or Contax G 90/2.8. I find with the in body image stabiliation and the electronic viewfiner, it is a wonderful camera to use with tehse older lenses. And I love the Pansonic 20/1.7 lens. I also like shooting B&W jpegs with it and the Guy King at Andy's Jazz Club was all shot in this manner. I have not used my Canon 40D very much recently.

 

[Santtu Määttänen]

Just today I did a promo shoot of a performance group. With only E-P2. I think this camera is slowly replacing Nikon D300 for some reason, not that it would be better in terms of IQ, only that it's more handy on scene, easier to keep along and quality is up there for internet / newspapers / magazines. Even gallery prints unless I go crazy with size (which i do from time to time but mostly from medium format originals). It's not the greatest camera ever but it works.

 

[jarski]

during the initial enthusiasm, when this system was only one out there, was really tempted. but, small sensor kept me away. hope Sony will eventually bring prosumer model for NEX, or even better, Canon or Nikon might surprise us.

 

[semilog]

during the initial enthusiasm, when this system was only one out there, was really tempted. but, small sensor kept me away. hope Sony will eventually bring prosumer model for NEX, or even better, Canon or Nikon might surprise us.

Once again: the vertical difference between micro 4/3 and APS-C is 20% linear (for Sony/Nikon APS-C) or 17% (for Canon APS-C). In practical applications, this is generally not enough to make a significant difference in IQ.

It is the case that Canon and Sony sensor technology is a bit ahead of Panasonic, by perhaps half a generation. But this is an implementation issue, not a sensor size issue, and it only makes a substantial difference at ISO 800 and higher.

If you have an application that demands better IQ than a 4/3 camera can deliver, you pretty much have no choice but to go FF. That means that no APS-C NEX camera is going to do what you want it to, although a hypothetical FF NEX of the future might.

 

[ampguy]

20% is huge. Try wearing shoes 20% smaller than your normal size, see how your tootsies feel the next day ...

 

[semilog]

But that 20/1.7 lens is about $400, or as much as an M-mount CV lens, or Rokkor 40/2, and 1/2 a Cron 35. If you have other M-mount bodies, is it really worth getting a dedicated 40ish FOV lens just for the AF and that body?

Don't forget that on Oly bodies you also get IS that really does give you an extra 2-3 stops. That is a very appealing combination. And I'm seeing the 20/1.7 hold its value reasonably well. If I could justify buying into another
system -- which I can't, right now -- it would be an E-PL1 with the 20/1.7.

 

[semilog]

20% is huge. Try wearing shoes 20% smaller than your normal size, see how your tootsies feel the next day ...

Inapt analogy. Yawn.

 

[ampguy]

about that Oly IS

about that Oly IS

I'm a bit leery of it, several folks haven't seen it or felt it was really 2-3 stops worth of IS.

I'm curious if someone who normally couldn't hand hold and get a sharp 200mm lens focused at 1/60th, now can with the Oly (on a non-moving subject) ...

Don't forget that on Oly bodies you also get IS that really does give you an extra 2-3 stops. That is a very appealing combination. And I'm seeing the 20/1.7 hold its value reasonably well. If I could justify buying into another
system -- which I can't, right now -- it would be an E-PL1 with the 20/1.7.

 

[Dogman]

I'm a bit leery of it, several folks haven't seen it or felt it was really 2-3 stops worth of IS.

I'm curious if someone who normally couldn't hand hold and get a sharp 200mm lens focused at 1/60th, now can with the Oly (on a non-moving subject) ...

I don't own a 200mm that will fit my E-P1 but I'm convinced the IS gives me a couple of extra stops with what I do have. I was skeptical of IS for years but finally tried it in a Canon G10 and discovered it does work. Back in my younger days, I had the rep of a guy who was rock-steady with handholding at slow speeds. Those days are long gone, along with my ability to stay up all night and my good eyesight. I admit it's a crutch but I'll use it.

 

[semilog]

I'm a bit leery of it, several folks haven't seen it or felt it was really 2-3 stops worth of IS.

I'm curious if someone who normally couldn't hand hold and get a sharp 200mm lens focused at 1/60th, now can with the Oly (on a non-moving subject) ...

In my experience with both Pentax and Olympus bodies, it works. I have not used Sony/Minolta bodies.

Here is a set of quantitative evaluations: (in German) (Google Translation to English).

The comparison between an Olympus, Pentax, and Sony (sensor-shift IS) vs. Nikon, Canon, and Leica-Panasonic zooms with in-lens IS is particularly informative: at short focal lengths, the sensor-shift IS systems arguably do a better job.

Falk Lumo, a physicist-turned-photographer, has written a thoughtful analysis of a subset of the above results, with comparisons to his own work.

If you want to argue with actual measurements, go for it. But be prepared to show your work.

 

[coelacanth]

I've used G1, E-P1 in the past and have E-PL1, considering switching to G2, but not quite sure.

Love the E-PL1's size and OOC IQ. Miss the built-in EVF of G1 and that's the main motivation behind considering G2. Although I'm not a big fan of SLR-like styling, G1's ergonomics and control worked great so G2 should be even better. But again, E-PL1 is really really great and EVF is the only critical cons I have with it.

I'm not sure how many stops IS is compensating, but it's certainly doing some good, and I had no problem with them. That said, this is not THE feature I need.

Hmmm. Anyone can convince me to either stay with E-PL1 or jump back to Lumix?

 

[sfaust]

I can't quantify it in terms of stops, but in my general experience the stabilization is certainly doing a very nice job. I use the E-P2 in low light often, and one of the reason that I went with the E-P2 over the G11. I use the smaller form cameras for a lot of my personal snapshots, and a large chunk of those are in low light situations.

I've found I can count on the stabilization to allow me to shoot well below what I normally would and still get sharp results. So much so that when I first got it I assumed I had shot a bunch of throw aways, but when I got them on the computer I was pleasantly surprised with the number of keepers I've had. I no longer get nervous when I see the shutter speed getting down in the 1/4 of a second range.

For how I use it, and compared to past results, I'm convinced the IS is giving me more than a stop for sure, and probably 2+ stops if I actually tried to quantify it.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks all, it does sound like the Oly IS does work, and I'll certainly consider this if I go with the u4/3 at some point, even if used as a backup/alt for m-lenses.

 

[gavinlg]

The sensor IS definitely works well. You can bet on about 2-3 stops in low light worth of advantage.

 

[Clancycoop]

Tried it out

Tried it out

I would have kept the EP-1 if I didn't feel the need to allocate the funds to different cameras.

 

[kuzano]

Staying with the E-PL1 and buying the VF-2

Staying with the E-PL1 and buying the VF-2

But again, E-PL1 is really really great and EVF is the only critical cons I have with it.

I'm not sure how many stops IS is compensating, but it's certainly doing some good, and I had no problem with them. That said, this is not THE feature I need.

Hmmm. Anyone can convince me to either stay with E-PL1 or jump back to Lumix?

I have the E-PL1 for all the reasons you mentioned. Particularly, I am staying with that camera because of the reviews and my own experience with the best OOC IQ, whereas, even the Panasonic GF1 got hammered in that particular area. Then there is the IS in the Olympus.

I've had most of the e-xxx olympus DSLR's prior to the Pen and none of them have come close to the IQ of the E-PL1. Even the E620 is rated a bit soft on jpegs.

So, bottom line, I don't think the loss of IQ and the soft Jpegs of the Panasonics up to the direct competitor... GF1 would move me to the Panasonic from the Olympus E-PL1.

Regarding the EVF, I think I will buy the VF-2 which fits the E-PL1. One of the advantages of that move would be selection to use or not use the EVF, PLUS the likelihood that any improvement of the EVF will retrofit to the E-PL1.

I still shoot film...... medium format and large, so digital is not a mainstay for me. But, I did get a Canon T2i for a month to carry along with the E-PL1. I expected that at 18Mp the Canon might outshoot the E-PL1. It did not!....

I sold the Canon... kept the Olympus.... can't see anything about the Panasonic that attracts me. I think I'm done on seeking better digital with the possible exception of adding the removable EVF.

 

[ampguy]

Wow, thanks Kuzano

Wow, thanks Kuzano

that's a lot of great praise and detail on the EPL-1.

Are you by chance using MF M lenses, or native 4/3 AF lenses?

I have the E-PL1 for all the reasons you mentioned. Particularly, I am staying with that camera because of the reviews and my own experience with the best OOC IQ, whereas, even the Panasonic GF1 got hammered in that particular area. Then there is the IS in the Olympus.

I've had most of the e-xxx olympus DSLR's prior to the Pen and none of them have come close to the IQ of the E-PL1. Even the E620 is rated a bit soft on jpegs.

So, bottom line, I don't think the loss of IQ and the soft Jpegs of the Panasonics up to the direct competitor... GF1 would move me to the Panasonic from the Olympus E-PL1.

Regarding the EVF, I think I will buy the VF-2 which fits the E-PL1. One of the advantages of that move would be selection to use or not use the EVF, PLUS the likelihood that any improvement of the EVF will retrofit to the E-PL1.

I still shoot film...... medium format and large, so digital is not a mainstay for me. But, I did get a Canon T2i for a month to carry along with the E-PL1. I expected that at 18Mp the Canon might outshoot the E-PL1. It did not!....

I sold the Canon... kept the Olympus.... can't see anything about the Panasonic that attracts me. I think I'm done on seeking better digital with the possible exception of adding the removable EVF.