Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 102

Thread: GF1 compared to E-P1

  1. #1
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    GF1 compared to E-P1

    The first thing I noticed on opening the box is that the GF1 seems smaller than the E-P1. Total volume is probably pretty close but the difference in width really makes it seem smaller.

    The build quality feels better to me than the G1 and I think it is the metal body that gives that visual/psychological perspective. For some reasons the buttons feel better than the ones on the G1 that felt very tiny. Compared to the E-P1 I can't say that the difference is better or worse, just different.

    The LCD is an area that is a mixed bag. While the GF1 has a higher resolution screen, it is not as bright and vibrant as the E-P1's screen and in bright sunlight where you are shooting toward the light both screens are really unusable but the GF1's is considerably worse. Part of the problem is the contrast on the GF1 screen is very low and the colors look pale and washed out in comparison to the E-P1's screen. I cranked up the GF1's contrast to max to give the images some color depth. On the GF1 the LCD is not recessed meaning you really need to put a screen protector on it (I put one on the E-P1 too as it isn't very recessed either). One area where the GF1 LCD did much better than the E-P1 is in low light. On the E-P1 the screen becomes very noisy and the colors wash out while on the GF1 in the same lighting (same lens on both cameras) the GF1 screen was vibrant, bright and almost noise free.

    Focus speed with 20mm f1.7 and 17mm f2.8. I couldn't accurately time with a stop watch but my estimation using a 1,000 One count is that the GF1 is about twice as fast as the E-P1 with either lens. It seemed that the 20mm Panasonic lens was a little faster but we are talking small amounts in the same low light such that at ISO 200 and f2.8 the shutter speed was 4. In brighter light both cameras get faster. I can't say that the focus speed is so different as to make one unusable compared to the other. In very low light the focus assist light on the GF1 comes to the rescue and it is absent from the E-P1. In these circumstances, a virtually dark room, the E-P1 cannot find focus and the GF1 does very quickly.

    White balance. The E-P1 wins this one hands down. I had to adjust the WB settings for every shot done in AWB on the GF1. I could minimize the amount of adjustment if I selected a preset that made the image appear to be close but with the E-P1 the color was so close as shot that I didn't need to mess with it unless I was being super critical. Panasonic could learn something from Olympus on this aspect. Maybe by the next firmware release (currently version 1.0 for both body and lens) we will see a major improvement.

    Write speed and speed to preview. The E-P1 takes about 6-7 sec before you can hit the play button and look at and zoom your image (you have to wait for the blinking write light to stop). With the GF1 it is almost instantaneous.

    Exposure. This is a tricky area and it is clear that Olympus is pulling a few tricks here with their exposure curve. I set up a tripod and mounted each camera on it and took a series of pictures from ISO 100 to 3200 using the same 20mm lens wide open on both. The first go around I used spot focus and spot exposure. I used the camera viewfinder cross hairs to focus on the same spot in the image with each camera and to frame the shots as close as possible. Lighting conditions were identical and all shots were taken within minutes of one another. WB was set to auto on the first round and later I changed the WB on the GF1 to get closer to what I was seeing with my eyes. On the first series of tests, I got the following values:

    E-P1 GF1
    3 200 10 200
    6 400 20 400
    13 800 40 800
    25 1600 80 1600
    50 3200 160 3200

    When I looked at the histograms, the E-P1 files were all over exposed to the right.

    After I changed to area exposure on each camera things changed again. Finally I decided to see what happened if I set the GF1 to read the scene and then set both cameras to shoot the same shutter speed and same f-stop at each ISO setting. With both cameras, over exposing to the right and then bringing it down in post processing results in much cleaner images. The JPGs on the E-P1 are generally superior to the GF1 and on the GF1 I had to switch to vivid mode while I shot on natural on the E-P1. As you can see if the shutter speed and f-stop are equal at ISO 32 the E-P1 just barely ekes past the GF1 in IQ performance in raw in some cases and loses in others. All of the comparison images are in LR at 1:1.

    I then shot some hand helds where I used the flash on the GF1 and no flash on the E-P1. In most cases the E-P1 images were much sharper and the GF1, though shot at a faster shutter speed showed image blur and it took me trying multiple shots before I would get a sharp one on the GF1 unless I forced the shutter speed up to over 100 with the flash. The in body IS is definitely a BIG plus for the E-P1. The E-P1 does tend to blow out the highlights as you can see in the outdoor shots. Also, note when set to the same shutter speed, the E-P1 tends to under expose the image thus making it actually noisier.

    I will do some more testing tomorrow and post the results.
    Last edited by barjohn; 8th November 2009 at 18:35.
    V/r John

  2. #2
    Subscriber Member Streetshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Thanks for taking the time to start this. Looking forward to your ongoing results....
    shooter

  3. #3
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Yes, thanks John... much appreciated. What SDHC card are you using, by the way? my Extreme III 4GB card clears the E-P1's 9 shot raw buffer in about 10 seconds.

    How many raw shots does the GF1 store in the fast internal buffer? and how long does it take to clear the buffer to your card?

    Cheers, looking forward to more example shots with that 20mm f1.7!

    Brian

  4. #4
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    John

    yes, indeed! Thanks ...

    The build quality feels better to me than the G1 and I think it is the metal body
    did you say metal body? I'm not sure I've missed this before but you mean the GF1 has a metal body!

    wow that's really attractive.

    thanks for the images.

    May I ask an addition of the test? I find that JPG images from my G1 give blinking highlights on the screen but do not in fact have that in the RAW file (using dcraw -4 -T to convert). This leads me to think that their JPG engine is a little ... err ... challenged. It has accordingly challenged me in setting exposure to optimally expose right on my camera.

    I'd be very interested to know if you find similar between GF and EP. I expect that a manual exposure setting may be the easiest to work with.

    Thanks

  5. #5
    Member DjordjeJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Thanks for interesting comparsion. I am still uncertain which camera to buy, but since Panasonic is not available in Serbia, and E-P1 is in stores, a will probably get E-P1.

  6. #6
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Ahhh har

    ... I read more carefully the preview here.

    That said, though it doesn't wear its retro design cues on its sleeve like the Olympus E-P1, it's a handsome camera that (thanks to the almost full metal jacket) has a quality feel.
    nice one centurion ... like it!

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    John



    May I ask an addition of the test? I find that JPG images from my G1 give blinking highlights on the screen but do not in fact have that in the RAW file (using dcraw -4 -T to convert). This leads me to think that their JPG engine is a little ... err ... challenged. It has accordingly challenged me in setting exposure to optimally expose right on my camera.

    I'd be very interested to know if you find similar between GF and EP. I expect that a manual exposure setting may be the easiest to work with.

    Thanks
    Most of my cameras do the same...This is not unusual.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Thank you for posting this, very helpfull comparison, indeed. Helped me to hold back on pulling the trigger on a GF1, but ordered only the Pana 20mm instead, which will get used on the EP1. It seems as if both cameras are capable, with different strengths going for one or the other. From first comparisons showing up on the net it looks as if the Pana lenses (14-45 and 20) combined with the EP1 could provide the best compromise for some of us.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    ...snip...

    May I ask an addition of the test? I find that JPG images from my G1 give blinking highlights on the screen but do not in fact have that in the RAW file (using dcraw -4 -T to convert). This leads me to think that their JPG engine is a little ... err ... challenged. It has accordingly challenged me in setting exposure to optimally expose right on my camera.

    I'd be very interested to know if you find similar between GF and EP. I expect that a manual exposure setting may be the easiest to work with.

    Thanks
    You might find this article on Luminous Landscape (written by Ray Maxwell) helpful. http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...ht-hista.shtml
    Some people might be blaming their camera when it is their settings that are at fault.

  10. #10
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    I will be doing some more testing today and posting some follow up to the questions posed here. The Panasonic lenses are definitely superior to the Olympus ones in my opinion. The Panasonic's are heavier and noisier that is the negative but the Panasonic's appear to focus faster and have better optics.
    V/r John

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    The Panasonic's are heavier and noisier that is the negative but the Panasonic's appear to focus faster and have better optics.
    Heavier is a good thing (Oly m4/3rds lenses are flimsy ). If your Pana lenses are "noisier", you need to find other samples.

  12. #12
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Most of my cameras do the same...This is not unusual.
    well ... sorta ... after using my 10D for quite some time I was quite surprised when I converted my first few raw files on the G1 ...

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    The only lens that makes noise is the 20mm pancake and the lens element that has to be moved for focus is big and heavy. All the others are very quiet especially the 14-140 so as not to have lens focusing noise in videos.

  14. #14
    Subscriber Member Streetshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Terry,
    it seems there is conflicting opinions about the screen.
    What is your opinion compared to the Pen.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    Hi



    well ... sorta ... after using my 10D for quite some time I was quite surprised when I converted my first few raw files on the G1 ...
    I just turned my blinkies off in the G1 (and GF1). Solved that LOL--and I think I can read it just from histo pretty well now after processing a lot of files. The blinkies were distracting--and, as you say, usually not right. I always have just shot in RAW.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    [QUOTE=barjohn;140600] I cranked up the GF1's contrast to max to give the images some color depth. QUOTE]

    After reading the article on LL about getting best histo for RAW--this would conflict. I know with my Canons I always kept them 'neutral' so as to get best RAW histo (even though no on screen). I'm going back and checking my settings on both the G1 and GF1.

  17. #17
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    [quote=Diane B;140714]
    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    I cranked up the GF1's contrast to max to give the images some color depth. QUOTE]

    After reading the article on LL about getting best histo for RAW--this would conflict. I know with my Canons I always kept them 'neutral' so as to get best RAW histo (even though no on screen). I'm going back and checking my settings on both the G1 and GF1.

    Diane, Exactly. That is why I pointed to the LL article. That method of testing is flawed IMHO.

  18. #18
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Cindy and Dianne, I am only talking about the rear LCD setting, not the in camera JPG processing. This was to make the LCD screen look better with more saturated colors. It doesn't effect the histogram.

    I have run into something I need help on, maybe it's a defective GF1. Today I tried using manual lenses, first a Leica with Novaflex adapter and then a Nikon with DMW-MA1 and Fotodiox adapters and the camera will not let me select MF with either so I can't get the enlarged image for manual focus. The menu is set to allow AF + MF and the MF Assist is on. It works when the Pana lens is on but not with any legacy lens. What may I be doing wrong?
    V/r John

  19. #19
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Hi John,

    you're probably looking for a menu option to allow shooting with no lens fitted, or something like that - sorry, I don't have my G1 to hand to give you the exact menu text.

    Also, from Andy Westlake over at dpreview - a disagreement with your LCD assessment :

    "In my more cynical moments, I'd suggest that just sounds like someone who hasn't found all of the GF1's LCD controls yet. Remember Panasonic's bad habit of having effectively two separate brightness controls - one in the menu, and 'Power LCD' in the Quick Menu - means it's really easy to miss setting it up optimally (just as 99% of users won't even find, let alone attempt to set up, the LCD colour balance controls). "

    So make sure you've enabled 'Power LCD' in the Quick Menu too!

    Cheers

    Brian

  20. #20
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    Cindy and Dianne, I am only talking about the rear LCD setting, not the in camera JPG processing. This was to make the LCD screen look better with more saturated colors. It doesn't effect the histogram.

    I have run into something I need help on, maybe it's a defective GF1. Today I tried using manual lenses, first a Leica with Novaflex adapter and then a Nikon with DMW-MA1 and Fotodiox adapters and the camera will not let me select MF with either so I can't get the enlarged image for manual focus. The menu is set to allow AF + MF and the MF Assist is on. It works when the Pana lens is on but not with any legacy lens. What may I be doing wrong?
    Hmmm. I used mine quite a bit with the Pen-F adapter and my 60 f/1.5 Pen-F lens. I also used my Oly 50 f/2 on the 4/3 to M4/3 adapter and my Canon 50 f/1.2 ltm with a John Milich M4/3 to M adapter. I was able to get focus assist. I did have one problem. I got a message several times that my lens was not seated properly (with the Pen-F adapter). I'll get mine out and check it out again. I'll report back.

  21. #21
    nei1
    Guest

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Brian,are you a salesman for olympus or just an enthusiast.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Neil, just an enthusiast...

    Cheers

    Brian

  23. #23
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Brian,
    I guess we can disagree but having both cameras in hand and comparing the LCDs I needed to adjust both the contrast and use the power bright to match up to the OLY LCD in normal use.

    I have the no lens set to yes so I can't figure out what is going on. I may call Panasonic later today. I notice in the user manual it states that their adapter is required to use Leica lenses. On the G1 I had the adaptors I have worked fine.
    V/r John

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    I have run into something I need help on, maybe it's a defective GF1. Today I tried using manual lenses, first a Leica with Novaflex adapter and then a Nikon with DMW-MA1 and Fotodiox adapters and the camera will not let me select MF with either so I can't get the enlarged image for manual focus. The menu is set to allow AF + MF and the MF Assist is on. It works when the Pana lens is on but not with any legacy lens. What may I be doing wrong?
    Did you try 'shoot w/o lens' in menu and you are clicking on left arrow of 4 way and then ok?? I've tried mine with my MF lenses and its fine. You don't need to choose MF--just the 2 button select and then you just rotate your focus ring.

    Ah, you do---hmmm. I now get you are only adjusting LCD. Thanks for clarification.

    Diane

  25. #25
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    Cindy and Dianne, I am only talking about the rear LCD setting, not the in camera JPG processing. This was to make the LCD screen look better with more saturated colors. It doesn't effect the histogram.

    I have run into something I need help on, maybe it's a defective GF1. Today I tried using manual lenses, first a Leica with Novaflex adapter and then a Nikon with DMW-MA1 and Fotodiox adapters and the camera will not let me select MF with either so I can't get the enlarged image for manual focus. The menu is set to allow AF + MF and the MF Assist is on. It works when the Pana lens is on but not with any legacy lens. What may I be doing wrong?
    John, If you put a manual lens on the G1, the screen prompts you to switch to manual. I think the GF1 is just switching to manual since it is a button press, not a dial turn.
    This is what I found:
    When I put on my Oly 50 f/2 with my Lumix 4/3 to M4/3 adapter. I get the choice screen when I push the AF/MF button, It is on MF and will not let me change it. If I have MF assist set to ON in the menu, I get auto MF assist when I turn the focus ring. If I have MF assist set to OFF, I can use the 2 button press as on the G1 to get the assist. This all seems to be working as intended.

    When I put on an M adapter/lens or Pen-F adapter/lens and press the AF/MF buttons, I get nothing. The camera has put it into MF automatically. If I set the menu to MF assist ON, it does not work with either of these adapters. I can get the two button press for MF assist whether the MF assist is set to ON or OFF. I never use MF assist set to ON. I like to control where the focus point is so this behavior has never been noticed and does not bother me. Panasonic may not consider this a bug, since their adapter works as it should.
    John, I don't think this is a problem with your body. Do you have the Lumix adapter to test?

  26. #26
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Hi John, I'm in no position to disagree with anyone! I don't have a GF1 to compare side by side with the E-P1... I'm just trying to see whether a consensus of opinion can be reached.

    See if you can select the MF zoom assist with no lens fitted at all? I can't imagine why it wouldn't work?

    Also, Cindy, make sure you don't accidentally touch the lens release button with your left hand fingers... this could cause the message you mentioned.

    Cheers

    Brian

  27. #27
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Mosley View Post
    ...

    Also, Cindy, make sure you don't accidentally touch the lens release button with your left hand fingers... this could cause the message you mentioned.

    Cheers

    Brian
    Brian, I just tried to make it happen by pressing the release button and I couldn't. I'm not too worried. It may have just been the Pen-F adapter causing the problem. I just got a second Pen-F adapter and haven't seen the problem yet with it. I just mentioned it in case others were seeing that behavior. (Is Panasonic trying to force us to use their adapter by crippling the "Focus assist ON" when we use other adapters--ala the battery situation?...just wondering.)
    Last edited by Cindy Flood; 2nd October 2009 at 10:50.

  28. #28
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    OK. Thanks to you all problem solved. The AF-MF button does nothing when a manual lens is on the camera. Pushing the left arrow button creates the focus assist square then pressing the menu button magnifies the image. I kept thinking I had to put it in manual mode but the button only works for lenses that have AF. Not the most intuitive setup. It seems it should automatically go into MF assist mode when a manual lens is on the camera and only require 1 button to magnify or un-magnify or better yet, 1st press magnify 5x, second press magnify 10x, third press no magnification. Nice and quick that way.

    I will be posting some pictures in a bit. These were taken with the 20mm f1.7, the Lieca/Minolta 40mm f2 and the Oly 17mm f2.8. The lighting conditions were the same, daylight from windows to the right of the scene. Cameras were set AWB, maximum points exposure for each (not spot). The focus point was set via cross hairs on the LCD placed on the same location in the image and the cameras were tripod mounted with the tripod kept in the same location.
    V/r John

  29. #29
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    The following picture series was my attempt to compare the two cameras under somewhat controlled conditions using the three lenses previously described. I had the manual focusing issue I described in earlier posts with the GF1 so when using the Leica 40mm f2 lens the focus is not quite as good on the GF1. This is not the camera's fault by my own.

    Some of my observations:
    You will notice that there are differences in shutter speed selected by the camera for a given aperture with the GF1 usually selecting the faster shutter speed. The RAW files on the GF1 appear slightly overexposed compared to the E-P1 raw taken under the same lighting and on the GF1 it is different for the RAW than the JPG. Another interesting difference is that bokeh with the same lens, same f-stop is different between the two cameras. I can't explain this.

    The last series of shots was taken in a bathroom off of a dark hall way with just a low wattage lamp on in the bathroom to simulate the lighting in a dimly lit bar. Those were shot hand held so that you can see the effect of the in body IS. I tried my best at ISO 400 and ISO 200 to hold the camera perfectly still for all of the shots. The in body IS really adds to the camera's low light capability. More than a couple of stops in my opinion. You will also see here the difference in AWB between the cameras that is not evident in daylight where both cameras performed about the same.

    The good news is that they are both excellent cameras. The bad news is that this review may make it harder for you to pick between them.

    The lens used is shown for all but the 40MM which doesn't show any lens in the EXIF data. If the file name starts with A it is the Olympus with .orf for its raw files. RW2 are the raw files for the GF1.
    Last edited by barjohn; 8th November 2009 at 18:35.
    V/r John

  30. #30
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Here are the remainder of the files from the same series.
    Last edited by barjohn; 8th November 2009 at 18:35.
    V/r John

  31. #31
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    More.
    Last edited by barjohn; 8th November 2009 at 18:35.
    V/r John

  32. #32
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Finally, the low light series. All images are only loaded into LR with no changes to any settings. The default setting are what is being used.
    Last edited by barjohn; 8th November 2009 at 18:35.
    V/r John

  33. #33
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    I welcome comments and any postulated explanations for what the images reveal. The in camera JPG setting on the GF1 is set to film mode =vibrant for all the JPG images from the GF1 and Natural for the E-P1.
    V/r John

  34. #34
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    My brain hurts..

    Focus is a little off on some of the low iso images. Looks like the Oly are more saturated but beyond that the biggest difference is the SR at slow shutters imho.

    Thanks for all the images. This actually makes me miss my E-P1 a bit, and has pretty much turned me against the GF-1. The lack of SR in the 20/1.7 is a deal breaker for me. I'm already dealing with no SR with primes on the Canon. At this point I'd rather go either X1 or Pentax K7 with a small ltd prime.

    I do like the thought of the Leica 45mm macro with IS on the Panny, but the lack of IS on the 20 bugs me.

  35. #35
    OzRay
    Guest

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    An interesting comparison. I wonder what the results would be like if you were to use a fully manual lens set to the same aperture, focus etc for all the tests? I'm wondering whether you're getting the real settings in the EXIF or 'nearest', as the camera makes differing adjustments to the electronic lens. I think the electronics will have a significant bearing on the outcomes, even when using the same AF lens on the two cameras. Looks like the pillow fight just got better.

    Cheers

    Ray

  36. #36
    Subscriber Member Streetshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    John,
    Thank you very much for all your work and efforts....
    Don

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by nostatic View Post
    My brain hurts..

    Focus is a little off on some of the low iso images. Looks like the Oly are more saturated but beyond that the biggest difference is the SR at slow shutters imho.

    Thanks for all the images. This actually makes me miss my E-P1 a bit, and has pretty much turned me against the GF-1. The lack of SR in the 20/1.7 is a deal breaker for me. I'm already dealing with no SR with primes on the Canon. At this point I'd rather go either X1 or Pentax K7 with a small ltd prime.

    I do like the thought of the Leica 45mm macro with IS on the Panny, but the lack of IS on the 20 bugs me.
    What is SR?

  38. #38
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Shake reduction - aka image stabilization. Pentax, Sony, and Oly use in-body SR so all lenses are stabilized. Canon, Nikon and Panny use lens IS. The companies will argue about which is preferable, but in-body gives some real advantages in that any lens is stabilized.

  39. #39
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Well it was a lot of work that is for sure. On the focus being off, with the manual lens, it is as I explained but with the AF lenses, the cameras were set to place the focus spot on the exact same point, tripod mounted so if the focus is off it is the AF system in the camera. I take the blame on the manual lens. None of this explains why the Panny shows a difference in exposure between its JPGs and its RAW image. The cameras were both set to record JPG(Large SF) and RAW. The OLY images whether RAW or JPG were of equal brightness (exposure).

    In body IS is a huge advantage. I think I have pretty steady hands but the cameras are light and small so the slightest shake is transmitted to the image. With the M8 I could usually shoot down to 1/8th and still get a sharp image. On these cameras without IS I can't do it.

    I didn't get into video recording but I can tell you the video I have shot with the E-P1 is amazing and having stereo mics really helps. I never noticed lens noise from the E-P1. I haven't tried with the GF1 so I can't give a fair comparison.

    I also didn't get into the menu systems. However, the Panasonic menu is much more straight forward than the Olympus one. Now that I am familiar with both, I have to say that both companies could and should do a better job. Neither menu is as simple, intuitive and straight forward as it should be. A lot of the crap they put into their software could be left out completely and the cameras would be a big improvement. For example, all of the in camera editing could be eliminated. Do they think anyone really wants to work on a 3" screen to try and edit an image? There are so many PP options that it makes no sense on a camera aimed at hobbyists and semi-professionals. I'm not sure it even belongs in consumer cameras. I know my wife would never use that stuff. Working to tweak an image in iPhoto is as close to editing as she wants to get.

    I keep hoping that someone will get it right. So far, no one has. I thought maybe Leica would once they woke up but alas they missed the boat too. What am I looking for:

    1. Small body GF1 or E-P1 size
    2. In body stabilization (IS) or (SR)
    3. Electronically couples optical view finder or a very high quality EVF in the body, diopter correction and magnification built in
    4. Built in Flash for P&S work
    5. Interchangeable lenses
    5. Mechanical interface for shutter speed, ISO, Exposure comp, WB, possibly aperture
    6. Focus assist light for low light AF
    7. Weather sealed would be a plus
    8. At least 12MP and as large a sensor as possible
    9. High ISO capability to 6400 or 12,800
    10. Fast everything operation

    Both the E-P1 and the GF1 come close but each misses the boat in one or more areas.

    My subjective opinion is that the GF1 wins by a very small margin but for some it could be just the opposite. Image quality is too close to call between these cameras.
    V/r John

  40. #40
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    The first thing I noticed on opening the box is that the GF1 seems smaller than the E-P1. Total volume is probably pretty close but the difference in width really makes it seem smaller.
    Thanks for the tests, it's clear 3200 ISO is a complete waste of time with these 4/3rds sensors, no surprise. People intent on using such speed are much better off going with a Nikon D90. However, 800-1600 is acceptable.

  41. #41
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    I'm not sure I would draw the same conclusion. First, in B&W these files can look pretty good and it really depends on what size you will be printing. Up to about 8x10 these files can print pretty nice with a little bit of post processing. Remember, I did no post processing but these are straight out of the camera and into LR with LR's default settings. With a little work in Bibble Pro 5 and printed at 5x7 you would have a hard time knowing they were ISO 3200 files without serious pixel peeping.
    V/r John

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Hi John
    Thank you very much for this.
    The IS in the EP-1 seems like the killer stroke for me.
    Now I'm wishing I hadn't given mine to Silas

    Just this guy you know

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    The jpeg/raw difference shouldn't be impacted by the size you chose but will most definitely be impacted by your other jpeg settings. I believe you've set the GF1 to vivid and not sure what else you've set.

  44. #44
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Thanks John, the last set of low light shots are pretty convincing.

  45. #45
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Terry, You can correct me if I am wrong but I believe that setting the film mode to vibrant only effects the JPGs and does not effect the raw files on the GF1. Other GF1 settings:
    Aspect Ratio 4:3, Picture size L, quality RAW + FINE, Face recognition off, Metering Mode multi, White balance Auto, Auto Focus Mode 1-Area, Color space Adobe RGBHistogram displayed.

    E-P1 settings:
    Picture Mode Natural (all sub settings at 0), Gradation Normal,Still Picture L SF + RAW, Aspect 4:3, Image stabilizer I.S. 1, AF Area Spot, Exposure metering Area (all), Noise reduction off, Noise filter STD, WB Auto, Color space Adobe RGB, Shading Comp Off.

    I hope this answers any questions remaining about how the pictures were taken.
    V/r John

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    Terry, You can correct me if I am wrong but I believe that setting the film mode to vibrant only effects the JPGs and does not effect the raw files on the GF1. Other GF1 settings:
    Aspect Ratio 4:3, Picture size L, quality RAW + FINE, Face recognition off, Metering Mode multi, White balance Auto, Auto Focus Mode 1-Area, Color space Adobe RGBHistogram displayed.
    But you made the point that the RAW vs Jpeg exposures weren't looking the same on the GF1. If you are messing around with the film modes are you are changing around the basic processing and tone curve the jpeg engine is using and the more you change from standard jpegs the more I would expect the untouched RAW to look different than the jpeg.

    If you are talking about RAW vs RAW between the E-P1 and the GF1 we already know from the G1 that it seems to be more sensitive than the reported ISO. So, if this has carried on to the GF1 I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised. I've heard anything from about 1/2 stop to one full stop difference.

  47. #47
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    I understand what you are saying, but the difference in brightness between the RAW and JPG should not be that significant. Maybe I am wrong about that. I will try a shot setting the film mode to standard and post the results.
    V/r John

  48. #48
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Ok, here is a test shot. The camera is set to standard. I am posting two sets of shots so you can see the histogram first set for JPG and second set for RAW. Even here you can see that the RAW levels are higher.
    Last edited by barjohn; 9th October 2009 at 13:55.
    V/r John

  49. #49
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    Ok, here is a test shot. The camera is set to standard. I am posting two sets of shots so you can see the histogram first set for JPG and second set for RAW. Even here you can see that the RAW levels are higher.

    This seems insignificant to me. We don't know what jpg the camera is using to display the thumbnail for the raw (what tone curve is used). It might be a little different than the jpeg setting that you chose for your comparison (standard). I'd guess that accounts for that tiny difference.
    ....now we need to just go take pictures.

  50. #50
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1 compared to E-P1

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi John
    Thank you very much for this.
    The IS in the EP-1 seems like the killer stroke for me.
    Now I'm wishing I hadn't given mine to Silas

    Different strokes for different folks....
    The lack of an EVF on the E-P1 was more important in my decision to go to the GF1 than the IS (which is important, too. I can't wait till I can have both.)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •