Olympus PEN EP-3

HoppyUK said:
I trying to explain why, if image quality is a priority, that 4/3rds format is never going to be as good as larger format systems.
Click to expand...

I totally agree but surely there has to be a limit at which we, personally, are satisfied - depending, of course, on the end use of our images. How big, I wonder, do you need to print before you see a practical difference between the E-5 and the best APS-C cameras or Full Frame? Low ISO, I should qualify. Anything over 1600 and the differences will start to show at much smaller enlargements, that's accepted.

As image quality is such a priority to you, Richard, may I ask why you don't shoot digital Medium Format?
 
goldenlight said:
Richard, can I ask what format you used in film days? I find that many photographers who dismiss 4/3 and consider "Full Frame" to be a neccessity were happy with 35mm and that strikes me as rather odd. The E-3, not to mention the E-5, easily surpasses 35mm film in quality and Full Frame easily matches or surpasses medium format film. Now I'm quite happy with the results I get from the E-3 but I was not entirely happy with 35mm film, which is why I switched to medium format.

I did not fully trust digital to start with but decided to give up film when I realized that I could not distinguish the E-3 and the Bronica in a 16x12 print. Maybe I would if I printed bigger, but I don't. I assume you regularly produce much bigger prints in which case, of course, you need the appropriate tool for the job.

If you follow the arguement about needing the largest format available to get the best image quality to its ultimate conclusion then we'd all be lugging around 10x8 cameras with digital backs. The truth is we all need different levels of quality as well as different features and I accept that your needs are evidently greater than mine, which is why I'm guessing you used medium or large format film. But if you tried an E-5 I think you'd find the IQ difference, whilst still there, is appreciably less than you believe.
Click to expand...

I have used everything from 110 to 10x8in, through work. Mainly 35mm though, and I agree that 4/3rds is a fair match for that, even Kodachrome.

You can easily distinguish full frame from 4/3rds or crop format on a 16in print. Sharpness, dynamic range, noise - all significantly better, and you really don't have to look to hard at that size. Plus, for smaller enlargements you can still crop hard and pull out a very acceptable print - which I have to do from time to time. A 5D2 is equivalent to an 8.2mp 1.6 crop camera in that respect, pretty much like a 40D.

goldenlight said:
And that's unique to your particular camera? Don't Nikon or Sony offer similar image quality? ("Unique" was your word.) :)
Click to expand...

5D2 has a very high (and unqiue) mix of resolution, dynamic range and noise. You could say Sony or Nikon has a small advantage in one or other of those aspects, and I wouldn't worry to argue with that, but it's a pretty strong set and I don't think many people would disagree.

The other things is, my three main lenses are 17-40 4, 24-105 4 and 70-200 4 - neither Nikon nor Sony has those focal lengths in f/4 versions.

goldenlight said:
I totally agree but surely there has to be a limit at which we, personally, are satisfied - depending, of course, on the end use of our images. How big, I wonder, do you need to print before you see a practical difference between the E-5 and the best APS-C cameras or Full Frame? Low ISO, I should qualify. Anything over 1600 and the differences will start to show at much smaller enlargements, that's accepted.

As image quality is such a priority to you, Richard, may I ask why you don't shoot digital Medium Format?
Click to expand...

I think that misses the point, given the present obsession with sharpness. And other posters have gone much further that just saying 4/3rds is 'good enough' (which is certainly is for most things) and gone on to claim that it is superior to full frame and other misinformed nonsense. It's all on the previous pages.

Digital medium format is not a realistic proposition IMO, and is indeed disappearing fast. Full frame is 'good enough' for just about everything we used medium format film for. DMF is too big and slow and clumsy, and the lens options are seriously feeble. And that's even before we get to the astronomic cost.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
You can easily distinguish full frame from 4/3rds or crop format on a 16in print. Sharpness, dynamic range, noise - all significantly better, and you really don't have to look to hard at that size.
Click to expand...

I fully admit I have not made a direct comparison so cannot say with any certainty, but I would be surprised if the Full Frame advantage could be easily distinguished on a 16x12 print without having to look too hard. Then again, I may be wrong.

Have you seen a 16x12 from an E-5? Have you made a direct comparrison? Or is it based on supposition? If you've made the comparrison then, fair enough, I'll take your word on it. In all honesty I would expect some difference, but not as much as you seem to infer.

If you haven't made a comparrison, the East Midlands isn't too far away from me. How about, if I can arrange the hire of an E-5 and 14-35mm, we meet up and put it to the test? It's the only practical way to settle the matter and don't worry, I can eat humble pie - even if I have to do it in on the forum to the predictable laughs and jeers. It would be even better if we could get a high end APS-C user to join in. What do you think? :)
 
goldenlight said:
If you haven't made a comparrison, the East Midlands isn't too far away from me. How about, if I can arrange the hire of an E-5 and 14-35mm, we meet up and put it to the test? It's the only practical way to settle the matter and don't worry, I can eat humble pie - even if I have to do it in on the forum to the predictable laughs and jeers. It would be even better if we could get a high end APS-C user to join in. What do you think? :)
Click to expand...

All willy swinging aside, that could be a very interesting comparison. I'd be quite happy to drag and APS-C and an -H along and if we could find a PEN it'd complete the set. :D
 
DemiLion said:
All willy swinging aside, that could be a very interesting comparison. I'd be quite happy to drag and APS-C and an -H along and if we could find a PEN it'd complete the set. :D
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me, Mark, let's see what Richard (Hoppy) thinks. If not, we could do the comparison with your APS-C & H anyway (the H isn't far off Full Frame) and also compare DOF. London's not that far from me, either. :)
 
Sorry guys, but I really haven't got anything to prove. I'm just pointing out the differences. No, I haven't done the tests you describe, but I'll tell you how I ended up with a 5D2.

I had a 40D and was temped by the 80% more pixels of the 7D, complete with new generation processing. So I went to Jessops to do a comparison, shot side by side and made 15in prints there and then in store, plus a few blow ups of small sections. Sure enough, the 7D was better, and operationally the 7D really is a fantastic camera, so fast, but IQ was not much better. Nowhere near 80% better, not that I was expecting that, though some people do assume that kind of comparison. Incidentally, 7D has identical pixel density to an Oly E-5.

They also had a 5D2 (similar total pixel count to 7D, 18 vs 21) and almost for fun I thought I'd do the same test. Side by side with their 7D, same lens, same aperture, same ISO, same in-camera JPEG presets, only the focal length adjusted for parity of framing (the shop's 24-105L). The 5D2 was just amazing - lots better sharpness, more detail and colour in the shadows, much less noise.

So I bought it. And since then, I've been constantly amazed at just how effortlessly it turns out sublime quality images. In post, you can pull out big crops, correct under exposure with seemingly little penalty, shoot at crazy ISO. Fabulous camera. Nothing with a smaller sensor comes near.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Thank you. Sadly, some of the pro-Olympus posters don't have a good grasp of physics at all and are making silly and impossible claims, that don't stand up either in theory or practise.
Click to expand...

As does one of the Canon user's on this forum Richard who you corrected yourself, so not just all pro- Olypmus users.:)

HoppyUK said:
You can easily distinguish full frame from 4/3rds or crop format on a 16in print. Sharpness, dynamic range, noise - all significantly better, and you really don't have to look to hard at that size.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you on that on the full frame part and especially on the 20x16 prints I tend to have done but not so much on the 1.6 crop format camera's.

A 16x12 print is exactly the size of a four thirds sensor (4:3 format) and by the time you have cropped away a substantial part of the 3:2 format on a 1.6 crop camera you are left with pretty much the same sensor area as on the 4:3 format.

The 3:2 format has it's advantages for landscapes but for the standard 20x16, 16x12 and 10x8 prints that wedding and portrait customers want you are always cropping away a substantial part of that larger sensor advantage at least with 1.6 crop camera's.:)

Will I get a full frame camera, no, and for the same reason I will never get a E-5 the weight and size are not to my liking, ,maybe if they make a FF the same size and weight as my E-30 but saying that looking at the 20x16 prints on my wall produced by my currant camera, I don't see a compelling reason for me to go full frame.

If Olympus stop making DSLR's then I will very likely go to Nikon (I've owned Canon dslr's and was not a happy camper) but I certainly do not think or expect for my images or photography to suddenly improve by a change of brand, thats down to my own skills not the camera brand.

Any way this is getting a little tiring and most people here seem to forget that the images are more important, and in the real world the photographer makes the biggest difference and if they really think the brand of camera makes them a better photographer they are in for a rude awakining and like you I have nothing to prove.;)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Sorry guys, but I really haven't got anything to prove. I'm just pointing out the differences. No, I haven't done the tests you describe, but I'll tell you how I ended up with a 5D2.

I had a 40D and was temped by the 80% more pixels of the 7D, complete with new generation processing. So I went to Jessops to do a comparison, shot side by side and made 15in prints there and then in store, plus a few blow ups of small sections. Sure enough, the 7D was better, and operationally the 7D really is a fantastic camera, so fast, but IQ was not much better. Nowhere near 80% better, not that I was expecting that, though some people do assume that kind of comparison. Incidentally, 7D has identical pixel density to an Oly E-5.

They also had a 5D2 (similar total pixel count to 7D, 18 vs 21) and almost for fun I thought I'd do the same test. Side by side with their 7D, same lens, same aperture, same ISO, same in-camera JPEG presets, only the focal length adjusted for parity of framing (the shop's 24-105L). The 5D2 was just amazing - lots better sharpness, more detail and colour in the shadows, much less noise.

So I bought it. And since then, I've been constantly amazed at just how effortlessly it turns out sublime quality images. In post, you can pull out big crops, correct under exposure with seemingly little penalty, shoot at crazy ISO. Fabulous camera. Nothing with a smaller sensor comes near.
Click to expand...

That's a shame, Richard, although I take your point that you've got nothing to prove. Nor have I, really. Like you, I'm very happy with what I'm getting from what I've got and in the final analysis that's what really counts. I just thought that it would be an interesting practical exercise, as we've all been talking such a lot of theory, which might be beneficial to other members as well as ourselves.

Mark, are you still up for it? :)
 
At the end of the day it's the image that counts i did some A3 prints a while ago taken with a load of canon digital bodies the first being the D30 which was the 3 million pixel model right through to the 1 Ds mk3 and the 1D mk4 and got people to stand about 4 feet away no one could tell which images came from which cameras. Yes if you pixel peep you can see the differences.
I think the 4/3rds system is bringing something new to the table two advantages for me are one the camera is pocketable and the system is lighter yes the quality may not be as good from the images but the difference won't be noticeable when viewed at arms length the weight issue can come into play if you are flying somewhere.
I shan't be ditching my Canon gear but i shall add one of the new Olympus cameras to my bag for my work in cities and i will keep you all appraised at how it does but i can't see me ditching the 1Dmk4 and the 600mm F4 i.s yet check out the thread for AF performance of the 1D
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=334575
Regards
Richard
 
i've got a EP3 since yesterday. What a fantastic camera!!

Pic of my camera.
6001959503_70cb9f5057_z.jpg


First shot.
6002575527_999b92595f_z.jpg


I'm not using the 12mm yet. Only a voigtlander 35mm F/1.4 and a summicron 50mm f/2.0
 
Last edited:
Looks very good.... apart from the silver VF-2, which looks like a turd in a bed of roses with that body and lens. :runaway:

Nice lenses though! :D
 
Last edited:
Haha, they didn't had the black one and I really needed the VF2. So this is good for a couple of weeks. :-)

Anyone else with the Ep3 yet??
 
Where did you get yours from mr.spaceman? An import I presume? I can't wait for it to go on sale here in the UK. Going to pick one up together with the 12mm f2 as soon as they are released here. Already have a silver VF-2 to go with a silver E-P3 :D
 
chrism_scotland said:
SRS Microsystems and FFordes have the EP3 already
Click to expand...

Silver E-P3
Olympus 12mm f2
Panasonic 100-300mm f4-f5.6

Ordered! :D

Thanks for the heads up on the stock. Can't wait for it to arrive. Now just need to order some spare batteries, filters and leather skin.

Edit; Can anyone confirm that the BLS-5 Battery works in both the E-P3 and E-PL1?
 
Last edited:
Messiah Khan said:
Silver E-P3
Olympus 12mm f2
Panasonic 100-300mm f4-f5.6

Ordered! :D

Thanks for the heads up on the stock. Can't wait for it to arrive. Now just need to order some spare batteries, filters and leather skin.

Edit; Can anyone confirm that the BLS-5 Battery works in both the E-P3 and E-PL1?
Click to expand...

I think the BLS-5 is only compatible with E-PL2 upwards.... BLS-1 is useable in all..... I know you can charge the BLS-1 in the BLS-5 charger, but not the other way around.... time for a Google?

EDIT: Apparently you can use both batteries in both cameras, and also both chargers, but the BLS-5 will just keep charging in the BLS-1 charger and not turn off; the BLS-5 in the correct charger will turn off when fully charged.

Panny 100-300mm? I hope you've been working out.... it's a big, weighty beast of a thing. Did you not fancy the Oly 75-300mm? Much smaller and lighter....
 
Last edited:
DekHog said:
I think the BLS-5 is only compatible with E-PL2 upwards.... BLS-1 is useable in all..... I know you can charge the BLS-1 in the BLS-5 charger, but not the other way around.... time for a Google?

EDIT: Apparently you can use both batteries in both cameras, and also both chargers, but the BLS-5 will just keep charging in the BLS-1 charger and not turn off; the BLS-5 in the correct charger will turn off when fully charged.

Panny 100-300mm? I hope you've been working out.... it's a big, weighty beast of a thing. Did you not fancy the Oly 75-300mm? Much smaller and lighter....
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Will get a few BLS-5 batteries for my new E-P3 and my wife's E-PL1 then. Are there any third party BLS-5 alternatives out there worth considering, or should I just go genuine (despite the cost)?

I did consider the Oly 75-300mm, but the f6.7 on the long end was just far too slow. The Panasonic 100-300 isn't that bad though, it's only 500g. I'm used to hand holding a 300mm f2.8 at 3.5Kg!
 
There are BLS-5 clones on ebay. Work just as well as the originals by all accounts. Have had a good few Oly clones myself and never had a problem.....

The price of the 75-300mm is just absolutely ridiculous.... then they want more money for a lens hood after you've paid them £660 for the slow plastic lens!
 
Last edited:
just looking at the price of this camera...does anyone esle think that £750 is a little bit of a jump from the £500 of the EPL1 (which can be had for £250 new)?
 
matty said:
just looking at the price of this camera...does anyone esle think that £750 is a little bit of a jump from the £500 of the EPL1 (which can be had for £250 new)?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is a bit heavy, but I'm sure it'll come down once the fuss has died down a bit - early adopters always pay a premium anyway, don't they.... :)

E-PL3 seems like it'll be a better buy to me anyway - the thought of holding a camera (E-P3) at arms length and touching a spot on the screen to focus/shoot gives me nightmares, so no point in paying the hefty extra premium for the (non) pleasure of it....
 
Last edited:
DekHog said:
Yeah, it is a bit heavy, but I'm sure it'll come down once the fuss has died down a bit - early adopters always pay a premium anyway, don't they.... :)

E-PL3 seems like it'll be a better buy to me anyway - the thought of holding a camera (E-P3) at arms length and touching a spot on the screen to focus/shoot gives me nightmares, so no point in paying the hefty extra premium for the (non) pleasure of it....
Click to expand...

I have only had my E-P3 for a couple of days now. I have been a DSLR user for many years, so I have always laughed at the whole holding your camera at arms length thing of p&s cameras.

But the touch screen focusing/shooting of the E-P3 is actually really usable! It allows you to compose a shot, then really quickly focus wherever you want. Sure, I won't use it all the time, but it is actually a feature that works and works very well.
 
the price has put me off, ive already got a very expensive camera i dont use often, im not keen on spending another £750 just yet.
 
I am still unsure how much benefit the m4/3 format offers over something like a K-5 with a pancake lens. Especially at the prices of the new Olympus/Panasonics. Add the EVF and you are over the K-5 prices by quite a bit.

Arguably something like th 50-135 on my K-5 is bigger and heavier than a similar lens on the m4/3 format but it is 2.8 and the the m4/3 equivalent will be just as awkward to carry around because of the length anyway.
 
matty said:
the price has put me off, ive already got a very expensive camera i dont use often, im not keen on spending another £750 just yet.
Click to expand...

I am impressed with the E-P3, it's a very responsive camera with super fast focusing and it handles beautifully. However, like you the price is a killer for me. It'll still be a great camera in about 2 years time when it will cost about £250 - I can wait! :D
 
chrism_scotland said:
Olympus VF3 EVF seems to be available at SRS Microsystems now, temped to pick one up for my EP2, although at £180 its only £20 cheaper than the VF2 so I'm not sure what to try!
Click to expand...

The VF-2 is superb - no way would I buy something with a far lower resolution to only save £20.....
 
chrism_scotland said:
Is there any advantage of the VF3 at all?
Click to expand...

Apparently it has a locking mechanism to keep it more securely attached to the body. I think that's the only advantage, the resolution is actually lower than the VF3. If the difference is just £20 to me it would have made more sense for Olympus to have kept the same resolution but charged £20 more!
 
im still looking at this, im waiting patiently...i love the idea of these cameras, i might even get back the fun i used to have shooting
 
matty said:
im still looking at this, im waiting patiently...i love the idea of these cameras, i might even get back the fun i used to have shooting
Click to expand...

Absolutely liberating for me, mate - it had become a chore to take the heavy and bulky D-SLR kit anywhere, and your enthusiasm drops off a cliff as a result of it. The gear becomes more important than the end result it's intended for.

Great image quality, half the size, a third of the weight.... if you need FF quality, don't bother, but if you just want to take the thing places and actually use it, there's nothing like them - the newer EVF's are actually fantastic as well and will only get better - seeing everything in real-time is a revelation - WYSIWYG taken to the extreme.

Would I use it for sports or Pro work? Na, not a chance. But for anything else, definitely. A nice set of prime lenses and pancakes available now as well, and more goodies on the way. I don't doubt we'll see a 'Pro' body of some kind either, perhaps in the next year.

Mine literally goes everywhere with me now - the old kit went nowhere unless it was prearranged, and even then it was a bit of a drag.

Different strokes for different folks though; it won't suit everyone. :)
 
I felt really guilty when I bought mine as well. Seems like so much money for something so small.... never regretted it though, and it actually gets better the more you use it. Initially you just don't appreciate how good it is....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top