[paperbag846]

Both the G1 and EPL-1 are 12mp, as is the K-x. The G1 out-resolved the Canon 450D when DPR tested it

This is because you have the same MP in a smaller space.

The kit lens on the Oly might be better than the Pen, but I fail to see the relevance of this claim. That is a whole other lens system with a smaller sensor size, with even less DOF control than APS-C. It makes more sense to compare the Pen to systems like Sony, Canon, & Nikon, which use ASP-C.

[papillon_65]

This is because you have the same MP in a smaller space.

The kit lens on the Oly might be better than the Pen, but I fail to see the relevance of this claim. That is a whole other lens system with a smaller sensor size, with even less DOF control than APS-C. It makes more sense to compare the Pen to systems like Sony, Canon, & Nikon, which use ASP-C.

There really isn't much in it at low ISO's, it's 1 stop at most and that isn't a hindrance for most shooting, in fact it's an advantage, especially shooting static objects in low light where the extra dof helps keep the ISO down. There are a lot of misconceptions about 4/3's and m4/3's. As for the "claim", use the lens comparometer on DPR and see for yourself. I'm not an advocate of using lens tests on their own, I prefer real life experience but you will see how good both the Panasonic 14-45mm and Zuiko 14-42mm lenses are using this tool. This matches my experience of both these lenses.

[paperbag846]

I prefer real life experience

As do I. Which is why I prefer the K55 1.8 or the A 28mm 2.8 over any kit lens, any day. No lens tests to be found on those lenses.

I think you are conflating noise and dpi, which are two different factors contributing to sharpness. Smaller sensors are noisier, but 14 MP in 4/3rd also has more dpi than 14mp on Pen.

I would be interested to see how the two compare on the same camera body. You can do that with Oly, right?

I don't think there are any misconceptions about the 4/3rds system here. Personally I never considered them due to the sensor size. If I was to move anywhere (unlikely as the limited's have me hooked), it would be to Nikon, so perhaps I am biased. I am at least honest.

[papillon_65]

As do I. Which is why I prefer the K55 1.8 or the A 28mm 2.8 over any kit lens, any day. No lens tests to be found on those lenses.

I think you are conflating noise and dpi, which are two different factors contributing to sharpness. Smaller sensors are noisier, but 14 MP in 4/3rd also has more dpi than 14mp on Pen.

There are no 14mp 4/3 cameras, the sensor is exactly the same size in 4/3's and all Pens.

I would be interested to see how the two compare on the same camera body. You can do that with Oly, right?

I can, I use some of my 4/3's lens on my Pen. Unfortunately my DSLR is only 5mp so there wouldn't be much point comparing.

I don't think there are any misconceptions about the 4/3rds system here. Personally I never considered them due to the sensor size. If I was to move anywhere (unlikely as the limited's have me hooked), it would be to Nikon, so perhaps I am biased. I am at least honest.

The EPL-1 up to ISO 1600 will outperform many DSLR's in certain respects. I too am honest.

[paperbag846]

Which DSLR is 5 MP?

[papillon_65]

Which DSLR is 5 MP?

The Olympus E-1, built like a tank, ergonomically superb and takes beautiful images. I can live with the low resolution because it's a keeper. I don't think I could ever bring myself to sell it to be honest.

[Clarkey]

Paperbag, I am with Papillon on the DOF comment for µ4/3. I have a e-pl1 and a 17mm (I told you I needed to slow down on the camera gear), and find less difference (at least at 2.8) than I anticipated at close distances. e.g. playing at the kitchen table.

The 17mm is a great lens, but I'm not sold on the 14-42 collapsible. It's just too wobbly.

The E-1 is a tank. There are stories around here of it having been "dropped" at the beach for fun to the horror of other brand owning photographers, and amusement of the oly owner when they wash it off and it keeps going.

No kit lenses there though and none in my post. Please continue the debate......

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[northcoastgreg]

You've got some beautiful images in your gallery, so you have more credibility than two of these im-posters, but let's see some of your shots that have been 'ruined' by the 18-55?

It's not an issue of shots being ruined. I'm not claiming that the 18-55 "ruins" shots; I'm merely pointing out that better glass will produce better results. Many of us find the differences to be more than worth the significantly greater prices we have paid for better glass. That's why we're willing to pay significantly more to upgrade our lenses.

To get a general sense of the better results one gets from higher end glass, compare the following two panoramas of Discovery Point at Crater Lake:

DA 18-55mm II @ 18mm:



DA 12-24mm @ 21mm:



Now granted, these aren't perfect, scientific comparisons, as the photos are taken more than a year apart with somewhat different light. But you can't explain the striking difference in the colors by the lights alone. I took thousands pictures with 18-55 and never got the kind of colors I capture all the time with DA 12-24. Crops of both panos tell even more strongly in the DA 12-24's favor:

DA 18-55mm II ~1:2 crop:



DA 12-24mm ~1:2 crop:




Now while the 18-55 didn't ruin the pano, it is obviously outclassed by the DA 12-24 pano. The kit lens produces a nice result; the DA 12-24 produces significantly better results.

I don't mean to disparage the kit lens or suggest that it will "ruin" everyone's photos. As I pointed out in my first comment in this post, the 18-55 is not a bad lens, merely a mediocre one. I wish only that there be some truth in advertising about the 18-55. It's not a great lens; it's not even particularly good lens: it's an average lens capable of decent but rarely spectacular results. Photographers with real talent, if they want to max that talent out and make the best of their gifts, probably should be using better glass. I know I missed a number of opportunities to get better results because I didn't think I could afford superior glass. Now, being familiar with what better glass can do, I know better.

[Jewelltrail]

norhtcoastgreg: I don't mean to disparage the kit lens or suggest that it will "ruin" everyone's photos. As I pointed out in my first comment in this post, the 18-55 is not a bad lens, merely a mediocre one. I wish only that there be some truth in advertising about the 18-55. It's not a great lens; it's not even particularly good lens: it's an average lens capable of decent but rarely spectacular results. Photographers with real talent, if they want to max that talent out and make the best of their gifts, probably should be using better glass. I know I missed a number of opportunities to get better results because I didn't think I could afford superior glass. Now, being familiar with what better glass can do, I know better.

Nice summary of the Kit. No one here disparaged it: many of us just try to keep others mindful of its mediocrity, lest they spend too much of their valauble time shooting with it--thanks for the post.

BTW, nice Panowork.

[paperbag846]

Paperbag, I am with Papillon on the DOF comment for µ4/3. I have a e-pl1 and a 17mm (I told you I needed to slow down on the camera gear), and find less difference (at least at 2.8) than I anticipated at close distances. e.g. playing at the kitchen table.

Wow, that photo gives me a little to think about with respect to the 4/3rds system. Thanks!

I think those panos do a great job of showing the kit lens' strengths and weaknesses. Great shots .

[papillon_65]

Paperbag, I am with Papillon on the DOF comment for µ4/3. I have a e-pl1 and a 17mm (I told you I needed to slow down on the camera gear), and find less difference (at least at 2.8) than I anticipated at close distances. e.g. playing at the kitchen table.

It's knowing how to account for the 1 stop less dof by using focal length, distance to subject and subject distance to background as you have shown, nice shot.

The 17mm is a great lens, but I'm not sold on the 14-42 collapsible. It's just too wobbly.

I didn't like the collapsing mechanism, (the IQ was fine) so I changed it for the Panasonic 14-45mm, probably the best kit lens I've ever used.

The E-1 is a tank. There are stories around here of it having been "dropped" at the beach for fun to the horror of other brand owning photographers, and amusement of the oly owner when they wash it off and it keeps going.

It does have a somewhat cult following due to it's ruggedness and the colour and quality of it's images. It's normally a case of whether you can live with the tiny lcd and 5mp. I can because of it's other qualities.

No kit lenses there though and none in my post. Please continue the debate......

Happy to continue the debate

[papillon_65]

Nice summary of the Kit. No one here disparaged it: many of us just try to keep others mindful of its mediocrity, lest they spend too much of their valauble time shooting with it--thanks for the post.

BTW, nice Panowork.

I would tend to agree with this. Of course the 18-55mm is clearly good enough for some people, just not for me. My previous experience of kit lenses has been better. That doesn't mean others cannot use the 18-55mm quite happily.

[papillon_65]

Wow, that photo gives me a little to think about with respect to the 4/3rds system. Thanks!

I think those panos do a great job of showing the kit lens' strengths and weaknesses. Great shots .

Here is a 4/3's shot at F2 and the one below at F8, dof looks shallow enough to me . This is what I mean about misconceptions with 4/3's and m4/3's.

[RioRico]

Many apples and oranges here.
Much comparison of incomparable items.
True, the 18-55 doesn't have the pristine optics of much costlier lenses.
Yes, its images can be pumped in PP, for better or worse.
No, not everybody likes (or has a good copy of) the 18-55.
This argument has outlived its usefulness.
Zzzz...

[elg]

The Olympus E-1, built like a tank, ergonomically superb and takes beautiful images. I can live with the low resolution because it's a keeper. I don't think I could ever bring myself to sell it to be honest.

It looks like you had a good experience with E1.

Correction: I confused E1 with E10 and E20, therefore the rest of the post is now defunct:

E-1 was not entirely classical DSLR. It had no flipping mirror inside. Instead there was a prism. Its sensor also was quite small and noisy (based on what I saw when I used it). It has no direct relation to 4/3, except being an Oly. product.

I had one which I bought second hand. People were very happy about it in Oly. forums (and also about the legendary between the Oly. folk C2100UZ), but 'my copy' of E1 was not so good. I do not know what exactly was wrong with it.
Yes it was heavy and built like a tank, however the pictures from 'my copy' of E-1 were not sharp. I realized this only when I got Canon eos 300D (which was 6mp camera while E1 was 5MP, so there was no big difference in resolution). 300D was producing much sharper pictures with its plastic cheap lens. So I sold E-1. It may well have been my lack of experience with DSLR's or bad hama filter that I used, that cause not sharp pictures with E1, however this does not explain why 300D appeared to be better.

Cheers,
elg (Erika)