Is a new EP-1 worth $150?

raid

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
8:22 PM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,567
I mean the EPL-1.

I wonder whether the 12MP is still worth $150 with a one year warranty.
Is there anything out there that is somehow better at this price level?
The camera allows the use of many lenses vi adapters, and the perspective is sort of similar to twice the focal length for the perspective. Stil, this is a well made camera.
 
I saw that Cameta camera was selling the EPL1 for $149 through their website and Amazon. There are some other older Olympus mft cameras for sale also.

The EP-2 is being sold for $249 and the EPM1 can be bought for $349 (refurb). At the end of the year they were $500 and went on sale for $449.

I am tempted to buy the EPL1 for $149, because it's $149. The sensor supposedly had not changed until the EP3 was introduced.

There were some compromises to that camera to keep the price down; plastic body, smaller lower resolution LCD, and one button on top, with slowish AF. Its really inexpensive, but it does not come with a lens. That to me takes a bit of the luster off the deal.
 
Last edited:
I have a new EP2 ($249), so the EP1 would be a back up camera, if I actually bought one.
 
The price is right. I think having a second body is an excellent idea.

For $150 I might just buy one because I have the 14-45 Lumix kit lens from my long sold G1 in a drawer somewhere.
 
ive had both. for autofocus only, no difference. but for manual focus i found i could not focus the ep1 at all, the excellent evf-able ep2 made all the difference in the world to me. personally, i would not ever buy a camera without a vf for use with mf lenses.
tony
 
I am also thinking about going for a refurb epl2, but with a kit lens as I don't have any m4/3 lenses. I read that the 14-42 ii has faster AF and that's why I'd go for the epl2. I like the in body IS on the Oly that I can use other m4/3 lenses with, but dislike the 2x crop, oh well

Anyone have exp with the 14-42 ii kit lens?
 
Not at any price...

Not at any price...

Sorry, that sounds kind of harsh, eh?

First, i've been an Olympus guy since the 70's in terms of 35mm film and digital. I had the E300, the E-1 and a number of other DSLR's and looked hopefully at micro 4/3.

My foremost quest has been for sharp images OOC in digital. Digital in Oly, and the Nikons and Canon DSLR's i have tried has always had a softness OOC that I dislike, which has kept me shooting film. Why???

Because I am opposed to the effort to work with RAW and Post Processing. I work on computers (25 years now) and teach computer classes, and the last thing I want to do for a pastime is POST Process my images in front of a computer screen. No Gonna Do!

The first micro's did nothing to satisfy me... ie the EP-1 and 2. Same problem as with most digitals on the OOC images. Anti Aliasing filters that were too strong and necessitated post processing to produce the sharp images I like.

Then the EPL-1 came out and I tried one. Amazing... Oly jumped a forbidden fence and weakened the anti aliasing filter. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the weakest AA flilter fitted to any of their camera's. It even kicked ass for OOC sharpness on it's Panny counterpart of the same time... the GF-1. So I bought one and would not buy any of the previous models at any price. For me... waste of money.

In addition, I've never actually grasped the need for a "back up" body. But then I usually have 50 to 75 cameras around at any given time.... Is that backup?

I've been buying and selling camera's on eBay for about 8 years.....mostly film.

Now that I've found the EPL-1, my only next move will be the OM-D EM5, AFTER I see the sharpness OOC.

So, on the one hand, I think $150 is a good price for the EP-1. OTOH, not for me. And lastly, also not for me, because there's no margin at $150 to make any money on it.
 
kuzano said:
Sorry, that sounds kind of harsh, eh?

First, i've been an Olympus guy since the 70's in terms of 35mm film and digital. I had the E300, the E-1 and a number of other DSLR's and looked hopefully at micro 4/3.

My foremost quest has been for sharp images OOC in digital. Digital in Oly, and the Nikons and Canon DSLR's i have tried has always had a softness OOC that I dislike, which has kept me shooting film. Why???

Because I am opposed to the effort to work with RAW and Post Processing. I work on computers (25 years now) and teach computer classes, and the last thing I want to do for a pastime is POST Process my images in front of a computer screen. No Gonna Do!

The first micro's did nothing to satisfy me... ie the EP-1 and 2. Same problem as with most digitals on the OOC images. Anti Aliasing filters that were too strong and necessitated post processing to produce the sharp images I like.

Then the EPL-1 came out and I tried one. Amazing... Oly jumped a forbidden fence and weakened the anti aliasing filter. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the weakest AA flilter fitted to any of their camera's. It even kicked ass for OOC sharpness on it's Panny counterpart of the same time... the GF-1. So I bought one and would not buy any of the previous models at any price. For me... waste of money.

In addition, I've never actually grasped the need for a "back up" body. But then I usually have 50 to 75 cameras around at any given time.... Is that backup?

I've been buying and selling camera's on eBay for about 8 years.....mostly film.

Now that I've found the EPL-1, my only next move will be the OM-D EM5, AFTER I see the sharpness OOC.

So, on the one hand, I think $150 is a good price for the EP-1. OTOH, not for me. And lastly, also not for me, because there's no margin at $150 to make any money on it.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the EPL1 (body only) at $150?
 
I got one as a backup for my GH-2. At $150, I don't expect to be selling it, just figure I'll use it a few years and that's good. In-body stabilization, I already have the primes, good to have on a longer trip when relying on electronic bodies... so what's not to like.

The EP-2 and others take me to $250 or more, a place I don't think I need to go (or want to). Direct buy from Cameta saves the $13 shipping they charge on Amazon.
 
I think it is worth it. I bought used EP-1 from rover a while ago. My wife uses it, she loves it. I paid $350 or something like it 2 or 3 years ago. She wouldn't let me use it, she says, I have enough cameras of my own, but a few times I got to play with it, I liked it very much.
 
yup

yup

EPL1 is the way to go. Especially at the current Cameta prices and other places selling them new for < $200.

The EPL1 with upgraded firmware, and the original collapsing 14-42 ED is a great lens, just try to stay away from the extremes, 25-35mm is good, and 5.6 and f8 are excellent.


kuzano said:
Sorry, that sounds kind of harsh, eh?

First, i've been an Olympus guy since the 70's in terms of 35mm film and digital. I had the E300, the E-1 and a number of other DSLR's and looked hopefully at micro 4/3.

My foremost quest has been for sharp images OOC in digital. Digital in Oly, and the Nikons and Canon DSLR's i have tried has always had a softness OOC that I dislike, which has kept me shooting film. Why???

Because I am opposed to the effort to work with RAW and Post Processing. I work on computers (25 years now) and teach computer classes, and the last thing I want to do for a pastime is POST Process my images in front of a computer screen. No Gonna Do!

The first micro's did nothing to satisfy me... ie the EP-1 and 2. Same problem as with most digitals on the OOC images. Anti Aliasing filters that were too strong and necessitated post processing to produce the sharp images I like.

Then the EPL-1 came out and I tried one. Amazing... Oly jumped a forbidden fence and weakened the anti aliasing filter. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the weakest AA flilter fitted to any of their camera's. It even kicked ass for OOC sharpness on it's Panny counterpart of the same time... the GF-1. So I bought one and would not buy any of the previous models at any price. For me... waste of money.

In addition, I've never actually grasped the need for a "back up" body. But then I usually have 50 to 75 cameras around at any given time.... Is that backup?

I've been buying and selling camera's on eBay for about 8 years.....mostly film.

Now that I've found the EPL-1, my only next move will be the OM-D EM5, AFTER I see the sharpness OOC.

So, on the one hand, I think $150 is a good price for the EP-1. OTOH, not for me. And lastly, also not for me, because there's no margin at $150 to make any money on it.
Click to expand...
 
Now that I'd snap up...

Now that I'd snap up...

Thardy said:
What do you think about the EPL1 (body only) at $150?
Click to expand...

I'd pay $150 for the EPL-1 body in a heartbeat.

Now that's a deal. That's the body wth the improved (weaker) AA filter. Sharper images OOC.
 
Thanks raid. I read that the AF is faster in the 14-42 ii lens, and not the epl2 body, so an epl1 with a newer ii lens would AF the same as an epl2 with the same kens, where as the older version of the 14-42 lens has slower AF. is this true?

I am now comparing the refurb epl2 and epm1 from camera, only a $20 difference but the epm1 is the same as th ep3 without an external dial and has the weak Aa filter kuzano mentioned which is good for sharp images?
 
Only the EPL1

Only the EPL1

has the weak AA filter, according to folks on the fourthirds forum, and dpreview images. It may have been a test to see how weak they could go on the filter for sharpness, while giving up high iso noise control.

From the EPL2 on, they had to strengthen it, for better high iso performance.

The odd thing is, is that the high iso noise in the epl1 is very film like, in fact, it is more film like than film ;)


stewmander said:
Thanks raid. I read that the AF is faster in the 14-42 ii lens, and not the epl2 body, so an epl1 with a newer ii lens would AF the same as an epl2 with the same kens, where as the older version of the 14-42 lens has slower AF. is this true?

I am now comparing the refurb epl2 and epm1 from camera, only a $20 difference but the epm1 is the same as th ep3 without an external dial and has the weak Aa filter kuzano mentioned which is good for sharp images?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for that clarification...

Thanks for that clarification...

ampguy said:
has the weak AA filter, according to folks on the fourthirds forum, and dpreview images. It may have been a test to see how weak they could go on the filter for sharpness, while giving up high iso noise control.

From the EPL2 on, they had to strengthen it, for better high iso performance.

The odd thing is, is that the high iso noise in the epl1 is very film like, in fact, it is more film like than film ;)
Click to expand...

Without researching it, I wondered if the EPL-1 was the only weak AA filter outfitted to the M4/3 line. I had not seen any reference to the sharper images via the weaker AA filter on any PENs after the EPL-1.

This will be a disappointment to me on the EM5 if they went back to stronger AA filter, and I definitely will want to find out about sharpness out of the camera on the EM5. I had pretty much convinced myself that the EM5 was the camera I had been waiting for both for nostalgic reasons (my history with OM film cameras) and the advances of the new camera.

However, going back to soft OOC images will be a deal killer for me. Guess I'll look for an EPL-1 "backup" body if the EM5 doesn't make the cut on that point alone.
 
The EPL1 is really the end all for IQ, at least for ISO 1250 and under. The high iso wars have decimated lower ISO IQ.

I've found EPL1 IQ (OOC) > NEX > M8 > M9. Again, this is for under ISO 1250.

You can't change AA filter strength dependent on ISO, you're stuck with the physical filter over the sensor.
 
ampguy said:
The EPL1 is really the end all for IQ, at least for ISO 1250 and under. The high iso wars have decimated lower ISO IQ.

I've found EPL1 IQ (OOC) > NEX > M8 > M9. Again, this is for under ISO 1250.

You can't change AA filter strength dependent on ISO, you're stuck with the physical filter over the sensor.
Click to expand...

There's been too much made of shooting at ISO 1 million, etc. I very rarely shoot above 800, for the kind of photography I do, so 1250 is cool. Glad to hear your findings, they confirm my decision to get one (another reason I like your findings :)
 
Another good point from Ampguy.....

Another good point from Ampguy.....

ampguy said:
The EPL1 is really the end all for IQ, at least for ISO 1250 and under. The high iso wars have decimated lower ISO IQ.

I've found EPL1 IQ (OOC) > NEX > M8 > M9. Again, this is for under ISO 1250.

You can't change AA filter strength dependent on ISO, you're stuck with the physical filter over the sensor.
Click to expand...

I suspect many other advances in digital have suffered for the race for high ISO. When I shot film, i rarely shot over 400, and I find that on digital, even on indoor shots (family and that) I rarely crank the ISO up to 800.

If I wanted grain (noise), I'd go back to film and shoot 1600 pushed to 3200 so there would be no likelihood of recognizing any artist/musician in the photos.

And when I go to a concert, I'm there for the music and the experience. I am not going to let a camera hamper my dancing with the crowd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom