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!

Olympus vs G1

jonoslack

Active member
I hope so as I know you are wanting a quite small 4/3rds camera (still for riding???--how's that going???). I'm neither a Panny nor Oly person, so my mind is open, but I've become a fan of the EVF on the G1--I use it quite a lot with MF lenses.
I probably would have got used to it, frustration with raw file converters was the last straw (neither Aperture nor Capture One support it).

Riding? what riding :ROTFL:
I've had some interesting experiences hanging on to his neck when a bicycle with squeaky brakes rushes around a corner, and up on his hind legs when a van with a ladder on the roof appeared out of nowhere. I'm beginning to realise why people said 'how brave'! Fun though, and yes, that's what I want the camera for.
 

m3photo

New member
Re: Olympus E-P2

No, it's a joke - you'll note it says E-P2
I saw that, it made me wonder if Olympus might have decided to put two Electronic Pens on the market at the same time following on from their extensive reminders of all the previous Pen offerings in the past with their ad campaign - hence one LCD based and one rangefinder type: the E-P1 and E-P2.
My two dogs and three cats have been ordered to cross their paws until further notice ...
 

clay stewart

New member
Re: Olympus E-P2

I saw that, it made me wonder if Olympus might have decided to put two Electronic Pens on the market at the same time following on from their extensive reminders of all the previous Pen offerings in the past with their ad campaign - hence one LCD based and one rangefinder type: the E-P1 and E-P2.
My two dogs and three cats have been ordered to cross their paws until further notice ...
I was also wondering if that was a PS job. It would be nice if there was a rangefinder as well. I think the M8 would have been a better camera, had it had live view, for the wider lenses, as I don't much care for hot shoe finders.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Golly, I've never ever put any 4/3 camera on a tripod . . . actually that's not quite true, I've sometimes done it for product stuff, but not otherwise.
That's a shame. You're giving up about half of the quality that can be gotten out of any camera if you don't put it on a tripod, and particularly with long, heavy lenses or ultra-wide FoV lenses.

I only rarely shoot with anything longer than the 40mm lens without using a tripod. The 50-200 is hand-holdable in good light at 50-100mm, but that's about my limit ... and I like using it more with a tripod. :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I hope so as I know you are wanting a quite small 4/3rds camera (still for riding???--how's that going???). I'm neither a Panny nor Oly person, so my mind is open, but I've become a fan of the EVF on the G1--I use it quite a lot with MF lenses. ...
Hi Diane,

I see this camera as a complement body in my kit, probably to be used almost exclusively with the 17mm prime lens but capable of being used with my entire lens kit if needed. As indicated in my previous posts, I use a tripod an awful lot of the time for serious work and I particularly like using the LCD rather than the eye level viewfinder when working on a tripod.

For eye-level work with the 17mm, the Voigtländer 35 viewfinder will be quite good enough for my desires. I might even want the Voigtländer 75 viewfinder for occasional use with the 40/1.4 lens, although it is of course a bit inconvenient to have to use one thing for focusing and another for framing.

I'm in no rush to buy, however, and am quite willing to wait at least until Lightroom supports the new camera's RAW files and even through seeing what else Olympus has in mind ... with regard to lenses and further developments of the body. The G1 is simply a darn good camera for most of my work and small enough to lighten the load by quite a lot already, so there's no reason to dangle my feet over the bleeding edge through equipment lust ... ;-)
 

jonoslack

Active member
That's a shame. You're giving up about half of the quality that can be gotten out of any camera if you don't put it on a tripod, and particularly with long, heavy lenses or ultra-wide FoV lenses.

I only rarely shoot with anything longer than the 40mm lens without using a tripod. The 50-200 is hand-holdable in good light at 50-100mm, but that's about my limit ... and I like using it more with a tripod. :)
The trouble around here Godfrey isn't the camera shake, but the subject shake - it's ALL foliage, and it's ALWAYS windy - there's no point in putting a camera on a tripod to take pictures of waving vegetation.

I remember watching a guy with a hassleblad on a tripod, and a stepladder to look in the viewfinder, taking a picture of a plant in a botanic garden in a stiff breeze.

Conventional wisdom isn't always wise.


Anyway, that's what IS is for (replacing tripods that is).

Added to which, the quality of my pictures depends on the subject and the composition, not the camera shake :)
 

monza

Active member
The Voigtlander mini-finder would be a perfect setup for this camera, very tiny and 28/35mm frames.
 

pellicle

New member
jono

the subject shake - it's ALL foliage, and it's ALWAYS windy - there's no point in putting a camera on a tripod to take pictures of waving vegetation.
well ... same in the rainforest when its windy ... but sometimes it works out well



the trunks look solid ... but the foliage turns blurry

ok .. sometimes ;-)
 

jonoslack

Active member
jono



well ... same in the rainforest when its windy ... but sometimes it works out well



the trunks look solid ... but the foliage turns blurry

ok .. sometimes ;-)
HI There
actually, of course I can see the benefit of tripods . . . sometimes, but I still reckon I can hand hold pretty well, I certainly don't find myself with blurry pictures.
The real trouble is that I simply lose the will to live if I have to carry a tripod around with me, and worse if I have to put the camera on it. It's like the old rule - take a ranging shot, then concentrate and get the good one, with me, it's always the ranging shot which is the good one.
Mind you, if I DID use a tripod, I wouldn't mess with these little cameras, I'd be straight for MF with a digital back, If I've got to carry a bag full of stuff, why not a BIG bag!
So, for me it's a personal thing, but I do remember someone saying to me that it wasn't worth taking landscape pictures at less than 1/500th second without a tripod . . .:ROTFL:
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
:bugeyes: For nightshots, without people moving around, a tripod can come in handy.
BTW, I am a little worried about the design so far. Little too retro in the wrong direction, but that is just me. Prefer someting with less curves and corners. Not talking about the technics inside of course. Purely speaking of design I would like it to look more like a Voightlander R4A and no like a Citroën 2cv. :ROTFL:
Michiel
 

Lili

New member
Re: Olympus vs D-lux4 DP1 G10

Here is another one done by someone called 'nosenseofplace' on dpreview:

(thanks to him)



Good Eh!

Hmmm, Jono, are these relative sizes accurate? I hadn't seen any dimension for Oly yet. Of course the Hot Shoe Dimensions are a constant so one could scale of that. But that image is a rather small part of the whole picture so there is room for error....
 

Lili

New member
The lack of an in-built OVF does not really bother me. As has been pointed out before, it saves a lot of volume and one can buy external ones from many sources. My big concern would be dust and IS. Of the two feature, SWF dust removal is absolutely required what with the proximkity of the sensor and all that.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
I saw this image on dpreview, and thought it was interesting:
Based on eyeballing what little we can see of the actual lens mount flange (the only part of the Olympus picture which has a known reference size) I think he understated the size of the Olympus by a bit. The different lenses exaggerate the size difference as well.

If you ignore the pseudo-tapered styling crease on the top of the Olympus body, it's almost a perfectly rectangular "brick." I suspect it will turn out to be very similar in size to the Panasonic body "brick" exclusive of front grip and top lump. (Of course we can't see heights in this image, but I'll bet they're similar as well.)

That would be very logical: it shows that with the Panasonic you "pay" a front-grip-and-top-lump's amount of extra body volume to get the eye-level viewfinder, articulated LCD, pop-up flash, more versatile microphone (on the GH1) and dedicated controls for more functions. With the Olympus you give up those things to get smaller body volume. It's nice to have a choice.
 

monza

Active member
The lack of an in-built OVF does not really bother me. As has been pointed out before, it saves a lot of volume and one can buy external ones from many sources. My big concern would be dust and IS. Of the two feature, SWF dust removal is absolutely required what with the proximkity of the sensor and all that.
Apparently SSWF and IS are included. I guess we'll know for sure in a few days. :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The trouble around here Godfrey isn't the camera shake, but the subject shake - it's ALL foliage, and it's ALWAYS windy - there's no point in putting a camera on a tripod to take pictures of waving vegetation.
...
Anyway, that's what IS is for (replacing tripods that is).

Added to which, the quality of my pictures depends on the subject and the composition, not the camera shake :)
Neither tripod nor IS does anything about subject movement. That's up to you, the photographer, to manage.

Tripods are simply much more effective at eliminating camera movement than IS can be. AND they allow you to work without having to hold the camera all the time, allowing precise and consistent framing, multiple exposures for HDR type layering, etc.

But eh? you don't use them, and you don't care. Such it is.

The real trouble is that I simply lose the will to live if I have to carry a tripod around with me, and worse if I have to put the camera on it.
Can't have that.
 
Top