Containing some of what was overlooked in part one…
I know the EPL2 is just about out now. I suspect much of what I write here will apply to the newer model and, for the moment, the EPL1 is still available at a very reasonable price
In Russia I used my EPL1 with the excellent Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. Because I always lose lens caps and try to take care of my kit I fitted it with a protective glass filter.
At the end of the first day’s shooting I was dismayed to see I had so many apparently unsharp images (the great thing about digital is that you can see what’s going wrong during your shoot and not just at the lab back home when it’s too late to save the job). I had taken a lot of pictures where there were very bright light sources behind the main subject. Normally this isn’t a problem but the 20mm has a very curved front element and, because of the filter, I was getting a serious internal reflection problem. Now this has nothing to do with the quality of the lens and was entirely my fault but I was surprised by just how much these reflections degraded the quality of the image. Perhaps a lens hood would have attenuated the problem: I ordered a stepping ring from eBay to be able to mount one before my trip but it still hasn’t arrived. I haven’t seen a dedicated lens hood manufactured by Panasonic for sale anywhere.
Cropped example of flare from backlight when using a filter on the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. Click on image for full-size version version.
In similar lighting conditions, just moving the camera slightly dramatically reduced flare. Click on image for full-size version.
The Photo JPEG video from the EPL1 is very nice and you can fit “legacy glass” (in my case AI Nikkors) to the camera via an adaptor. If you do, you can use a magnified view of part of the image to manually focus when you are in stills mode. Not as fast as autofocus but accurate nevertheless. In movie mode, however, this magnified view is not available which is, to say the least, inconvenient.
In stills mode you can opt to focus on a smaller portion of your subject, making focusing more precise but then the “Info” button is not operational. You have to exit the magnified view if you want to see the live histogram, for example. Inconvenient again.
Following on from the previous post where I compared output from the Olympus and my Canon 5D MK II, here, to illustrate my point, are two shots of the same subject made made with each of the cameras (as I said before, I can’t publish yet the whole of my story on the homeless of Saint Petersburg: I’m making a single exception here to illustrate my point). Clicking on the images should bring up a full-sized version in a new window. Draw your own conclusions…
Canon 5D MK II, 35mm f2, 1/50 sec f3.5, 3200 ISO. Click on image for full-size version.
Olympus EPL 1, Panasonic 20mm f1.7, 1/40 sec f2, 400 ISO. Click on image for full-size version.
Lightroom sharpening and noise reduction settings for the Olympus EPL1 image. As I’ve said before, this is where you make or break your RAW files, especially when working with smaller-sensor cameras.
Okay, I know this isn’t a scientific test. Don’t call me on that one! It’s just that there are so many of them on the web, accompanied by photos of cats or lighthouses etc. that I thought it might be interesting to some of you out there to compare images from a real-world photo assignment. The 5D MK II produces a much larger file than the EPL1 so we’re not strictly comparing like with like. My point is simply, taking into account the two stops difference in depth of field between the two, how little difference – to my eyes at least – there is between the output of the two cameras. As far as file size goes, the more pixels you have the larger you can print (obviously) and (more important to me) the more you can crop your image if required. In reality I have clients that repeatedly ask me to reduce the size of files from the 5D MK II because their computers and servers can’t deal with that amount of data. The 12.3 megapixels of the Olympus are more than enough for any regular magazine publication.
2 Comments
I pulled both your images into PS and enlarged the Olympus EP1
image to the same size as the Canon MKII. There is not much difference in sharpness between the two images when looking at the faces.
I want to buy a smaller digital camera to compliment my Nikon D200 and I am worried about the sharpness of the images compared to Nikon lenses. I have an older 2.8/80-200 Nikon lens that I would like to use with the EP-1 and your images answered that question.
Cheers
Very nice summary of the E-PL1. I, too, use an E-PL1, and have been surprised by the quality of the images, considering the size of the sensor. I agree with you completely that taking the time to become familiar with this camera will be a terrific advantage. I have used Canon FD lenses on the E-PL1 with success (particularly 28 and 50 mm), and find that MFT prime lenses, such as the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, greatly enhance the capabilities of the camera. For me, I have found the E-PL1′s firmware and general operation to be an easy transition from Oly’s other 4/3rd cameras (eg. E-510 and 620). Operation of the 620, in particular, is very similar to the E-PL1 (without the dedicated controls of the 620, of course), and the 4/3rd lenses work seamlessly on the MFT format with either the Panasonic or Olympus adapters.
As an aside, I am curious about your work. A friend of mine works extensively in eastern Europe, primarily with Romani, and among other things has documented and reported on housing conditions and homelessness.
Good luck, and thanks for your interesting posts!