The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

First shots from GF1 - Very pleased

jonoslack

Active member
Rafa, I disagree... IQ would have been different from the E-P1... Different AA filter/image processing pipeline.

I note that Thom Hogan has just bought himself a second E-P1 - there's an interesting pano on his front page stitched from E-P1 + Lumix 7-14 shots.

Cheers

Brian
Right Mate
I'm putting you on the spot.
Tell me why the E-P1 is better than the G-F1 (WRT AA filter and image processing pipeline)
(I certainly don't care about flash or EVF, and I probably don't care about focus speed) . . . but I'm very considering getting back into m4/3 (silas stole my E-P1).
 

nostatic

New member
I have to admit that I sometimes regret selling the EP1. The files had a nice grain/grit to them, especially at iso 1600. I haven't seen enough GF1, nor have I shot it so I can't really compare.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Hi Jono,

my feeling is that the E-P1 produces cleaner, smoother detail through Olympus Studio and out of camera jpegs, with the closest thing to the Olympus E-1 colour signature I've seen since the E-400.

I believe the AA filter is actually a little stronger than the G1 (and I'm guessing the GF1 uses the same AA filter as G1). You can see evidence of this in Andy Westlake's widget tests of the 20mm f1.7 on the G1 vs the E-P1... the lens shows higher resolution on the G1... I don't believe this necessarily translates to better IQ.

Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself whether Olympus IQ is more than a myth ;)

Cheers

Brian
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono,

my feeling is that the E-P1 produces cleaner, smoother detail through Olympus Studio and out of camera jpegs, with the closest thing to the Olympus E-1 colour signature I've seen since the E-400.
Hmm, well, one thing is for sure, which is that I won't be using Olympus Studio . . . it's either Aperture or Lightroom, or possibly C1, anything else implies such a difference in workflow that it isn't even worth thinking about. (I do have studio, but I ain't using it! :deadhorse:)
I believe the AA filter is actually a little stronger than the G1 (and I'm guessing the GF1 uses the same AA filter as G1). You can see evidence of this in Andy Westlake's widget tests of the 20mm f1.7 on the G1 vs the E-P1... the lens shows higher resolution on the G1... I don't believe this necessarily translates to better IQ.
No, nor do I.
Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself whether Olympus IQ is more than a myth ;)

Cheers

Brian
Well, I'm right up for myths . . . but, you've singularly failed to live up to the Yorkshireman myth of absolute conviction :p
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Well, I have total conviction that I'm shooting with the best available m4/3rds combination right now - the E-P1 + 20mm f1.7 rocks!

Cheers

Brian
 

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
...


Well, I'm right up for myths . . . but, you've singularly failed to live up to the Yorkshireman myth of absolute conviction :p
I've never heard about that, but I'm not a Yorkshireman. I am a Suffolkman.

The only myth about Suffolkmen that I know about is that they have legs like tree-trunks, that certainly fits me.
But as a Suffolkman, I always lean to the conservative side, I have a G1 because it's the best, and an E-P1 because it has in-body stabilization (but I'm beginning to think "do I really need that", because I have legs like tree trunks :toocool:)

Keith
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well, I have total conviction that I'm shooting with the best available m4/3rds combination right now - the E-P1 + 20mm f1.7 rocks!

Cheers

Brian
Hi Brian
Okay - well, that does hold some weight . . . but first I need to find whether I can print to an Epson 3800 from Lightroom2 in 64 bit mode under Snow Leopard . . . and nobody seems to know!!!


I've never heard about that, but I'm not a Yorkshireman. I am a Suffolkman.

The only myth about Suffolkmen that I know about is that they have legs like tree-trunks, that certainly fits me.
But as a Suffolkman, I always lean to the conservative side, I have a G1 because it's the best, and an E-P1 because it has in-body stabilization (but I'm beginning to think "do I really need that", because I have legs like tree trunks :toocool:)

Keith
Hi Keith
Ah, well, I guess that as I was born in Cornwall, then I ought to be a Cornishman . . . but I've lived on the Suffolk/Norfolk for 26 years, so perhaps I get honorary status! On the other hand, I don't have legs like tree-trunks, so maybe I do need IS!
 

Diane B

New member
I use a Voigtlander 35mm finder with the 17 and it works really well with the 20 also--in fact maybe better than with teh 17 (remember its 3:2 format)---if that helps.
 

trisberg

New member
The Sigma VF-21 finder for DP-2 should work although it's a 3:2 rather than 4:3 aspect ratio for the frame lines.

-Thomas
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Jono, don't take my word for E-P1 quality... Simon Johnson over at dpreview has just put his review up.

Regarding comparative image quality here.

"With the same lens and (almost) the same sensor it should come as no surprise at all that these two cameras produce superficially similar results. The more you look at the two shots, however, the more differences you can find - and the more obvious it becomes that Olympus is still beating Panasonic by just about every measure when it comes to in-camera JPEG processing. The E-P1 is not only capturing fractionally more detail, but its output is cleaner (without the GF1's moiré and artefacts) and is less 'digital' looking, certainly when viewed this close.

The color differences (which we've covered in more detail elsewhere) are more likely to affect most users than minor differences in pixel level rendering; you've got to be looking pretty closely to see the E-P1's superior JPEG performance, but superior it most certainly is."

Regardless of image quality, he loves it!

If you're a raw shooter, the differences will be down to your raw converter and the AA filter.

Cheers

Brian
 

andrewteee

New member
I've been trying the GF1 with the 20mm lens and come to the same conclusion: I still prefer the EP1 and its JPGs. I don't have much time for PP and I rely on good ooc JPGs based on my preferred camera settings. I like the Olympus look, whatever that is. Have ever since the E520 (now an E30). The Panasonic 20mm lens is very nice, though! And focus speed on the GF1 is indeed faster than the GF1. The EP1 is more comfortable and easier to hold. I'm sticking with Olympus. They are both great cameras.
 

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
Goodness, that is quite a drastic difference. I assume, though, that the GF1 in "vivid" mode (or whatever it's called) looks more like the E-P1 jpeg? it seems it's mostly a matter of contrast and saturation.
 
K

Kevin_b1

Guest
Intresting to hear what people on the forum still say about the E-P1 so I decided to unpack the E-P1 and give it another workout.

What I found was that it was the Olympus 14-42 lens that I did not like as its noiser then the Panasonic 14-45 it gives the impression it takes longer to focus because you notice the noise.

I tried the 14-45 on the E-P1 and found it was almost as quick as the GF1, so this weekend I am off to RHS Wisley so will try them side by side.

I know what will happen I will end up keeping both and the wallet suffers.

Regards

Kevin
 
Top