I would like some opinions as to which of these seems best to them. Overalll, not just IQ. Is size of E-P1 a huge factor? Ergonomics, which seems handier or more likable? The cost differential is great and I am curious if others took that into consideration when buying. I would appreciate any help.
I really thought the price of the two is in the same ballpark. If you are referring to the GH1 then, yes, there is a significant price difference. I am in the market for a Micro 4/3 camera myself and interested in owners/users opinion myself.
Between the G1 and E-P1 I bought the G1 because I need the EVF and hi res/swivel lcd . Amazon had a special over the holidays for G1 w/ 2 lenses for $695 so I jumped for it. I also like the jpegs out of the G1. I'm also considering the Pan 7-14mm super wide for my next purchase. All you need are 3 lenses and that's it and they're light and small. by the way the 45-200mm is equiv to the canon 100-400 IS L in many respects including IQ.
The G1 does have a fair price advantage these days, with the 1 lens kit being typically priced under the E-P1 body-only (right now in Canada the G1 kit is $100 cheaper than the E-P1 body)
Size-wise it's a wash, the E-P1 being essentially a G1 without VF hump or grip for size. Put a lens on them and the only difference is the G1's taller.
As to ergonomics, I prefer the G1's click-wheel and it's easier to hold. The E-P1 however has a far superior mode dial (the G1 has a noted tendency to change shooting modes if the wheel gets bumped). The G1's flip-twist LCD and EVF make it significantly more flexible to work with and easier to manually focus due to higher-resolution displays (460k LCD and 1.44M EVF instead of 230k LCD) and unlike the E-P1, it takes cheap and widely available Canon/Pentax style phono-jack release cables (the E-P1 uses the standard Oly USB-plug release).
The G1 has significantly better AF, comparable in AF-S to a low-end DSLR. The E-P1 has excellent AF by P&S standards but it's a fair bit slower than any DSLR or the G1. Neither is worth a damn in AF-C. The E-P1 however will AF with all 4/3rds lenses while the G1 requires Imager AF support, rendering all SHG and all but one HG lenses manual focus.
If all you want is a light carry camera, the E-P1's marginally better, especially for low-light use (due to in-body IS and better high ISO IQ). For more general use the G1's the clear winner due to the extra flexibility from the EVF, flip/twist LCD and better AF systems
Thanks for this help. As for price, I checked yesterday and G1 at Amazon with the 14-42 lens is $639 and the E-P1 is $799. Not a huge difference, but a lot to me. But G1 is available at a lot of places and E-P1 is not. Have to wait and see what happens after some users show pics that indicate usage. So far, what I see are good.
If at all possible, find a store that has both and try them in person. The single biggest difference for me is the G1's eye-level EVF (electronic viewfinder). I find composing via LCD frustrating because I need reading glasses to see the screen (and, yes, I tried bifocal reading glasses and even an accessory optical finder with my Canon G9). The EVF on the G1 works very well for me.
If you're OK with LCD composing, then the choice may come down to other considerations such as image stabilization in-body (E-P1) vs in-lens (G1) or something else that perhaps only actual handling would reveal.
JBurnett, thanks. I am thinking the biggest consideration for me is going to be lenses and I will be right back in the place when I sold all my DSLR gear two years ago. The smart thing for me is to use the G10 and wait on a new G series. Much easier and cheaper I have decided.
You can get the G1 with kit lens for 560.00 on Ebay.
The case for the G1 is great as well. I get the G1 with one lens on it, and two other lens in the case, and its a real small package. Plus, the JPG's out of the camera are great.
I owned both, and decided to keep the E-P1, and sell the G1. They are both good cameras, with essentially equivalent IQ. But the ergonomics are different.
The G1 handles more like a DSLR, while the E-P1 handles more like an M8. Different ergonomics, different feel.
Since I already have the 5D Mark II, and wanted a replacement for my M8 (for travel, street, walk-around shooting), the E-P1 fit me better. I still use my Leica M lenses on it, along with the Panny zooms, and the Oly 17 pancake. I've been very pleasantly surprised by this camera - the images are nice, and the handling and shooting is really enjoyable.
It took me a few days to get use to shooting from the LCD (rather than a viewfinder), but once I adjusted, the E-P1 has been great.
One other potential difference - people react differently when having the camera pointed at them. The G1 looks more intimidating (like a DSLR), while the E-P1 looks more 'retro' like an M8. I notice that I can get better street shots, when I'm zone focused and just shoot (without even looking at the LCD) with the E-P1. When I pull the G1 up to my eye, people respond differently, and I sometimes lose the moment.
Russell Smith wrote:
I am thinking the biggest consideration for me is going to be lenses and I will be right back in the place when I sold all my DSLR gear two years ago. The smart thing for me is to use the G10 and wait on a new G series. Much easier and cheaper I have decided.
The G9/G10 are terrific cameras, and the image quality is first rate for their size. I took the G9 on a walking tour in Ireland and was blown away by the prints I was able to produce. OTOH, that trip also hammered home that LCD composition was not for me.
The other creative advantage that a micro-4/3 or DSLR can provide is shallower depth of field (with an appropriate lens, of course). That may or may not be an important consideration.
Mike, thanks for your help. I have no qualms about taking pics of anyone or anything so appearance is not a factor. JBurnett, no, DOF is not a consideration. All this business can be intimidating. I bought and sold cameras and lenses here a few years ago until I was a nervous wreck:-)) I decided it was not that important and I sold out and went to P&S. Keep it simple at my age and ability. It is all fun for me and should be for most of us. If I were making money off the pics it would be different. But I just love taking pictures and all the rest is inconsequential. really. I appreciate all this kind help, and it is helpful. I'll do something, for sure, if it is nothing but stay with what I have.
I have played with G1 and bought the EP1. Using the LCD was no big deal. Using non m43 MF lenses was a bigger deal. The thought of buying another flash other lenses basically creating another kit was the deal breaker and I returned the EP1 and the Nokton 40 1.4. I am waiting for the next editions. There is no reason the ep1 cant have a EVF put into the body in a non conventional location say a pop up screen. A swiveling higher resolution LCD would be nice also as would a small pop up flash. I cant imagine it couldnt be put into a rectangular shaped body. The shape to me is what made the ep1 more compact. I also wish the lens correction could have been performed as a choice in the firmware on RAW photos too. For a first go the EP1 was great. I returned it because I didnt feel I could just take it and cover every situation. I can do that with my PS. In that regard the GH1 I think is a better solution. I just dont want a $1500 baby camera. By waiting Im thinking it might drop in price. !500 for the GH1 kit and the 20 1.7 would be hard to pass on.
Russell I want to add I remember when you sold it all for a PS. It inspired me to only take my PS on 2 trips and I got alot of great images. I am waiting to see what else comes out Canon Gmos camera an EP1 Pro or a Panny version of the ep1. I think I would have kept the ep1 if I could have just bought the body and the yet to be release 20 1.7. MF was to big a pain on non m43 lenses. The IQ on the EP1 wqas great and with a little over exposure 1/3 stop the images at 3200 were excellent.
Mike Hatam wrote:
I notice that I can get better street shots, when I'm zone focused and just shoot (without even looking at the LCD) with the E-P1.
Hi Mike - good to see you here at FM alt - haven't seen you post for a while.
The thing that has held me back from jumping in to the EP1 is that there don't seem to be too many zone focus 35mm equivalents. The 17mm pancake looks perfect, but am I right in saying there are no distance markings on that lens and the focus ring turns infinitely. How do you get around that? The 2x crop means that I would need to use an 18mm M system lens and they seem big and expensive. Do you shoot pre-focus at 35mm equivalence, and if so, how?
hhski, the lens problem, as I said, is an ongoing matter for any camera other than a P&S. I just cannot deal financially with lenses. If my pics from a G10 or its successor are not suitable I will get out. BUT, I think they are and plan to stay with the G series if a new one has reasonable features. We all have our wants and likes and those are mine. Thanks for the kind reply.
I have the G1 and am VERY impressed with the speed of the contrast detect AF. It totally blows any P&S out of the water and is very close indeed to SLR phase detection AF speeds (in single shot mode). What a disappointment that the E-P1 doesn't have the same AF technology. From early D-preview comments it sounds like it is just as sluggish as other P & S, which means forget about trying to capture the moment for candid photography, it will be gone before the damn thing focuses.
Also, a 230K screen in 2009? Are they on drugs? Did they buy cheap stock from Canon? Forget about trying to judge focus on such a low res screen. I know from experience with 3" low res screens on Canon, they were RUBBISH.
So for me the EP-1 misses the mark, especially given the asking price. Its a pity given that I prefer the size and styling over the G1. All show and no go.
Mike Hatam wrote:
One other potential difference - people react differently when having the camera pointed at them. The G1 looks more intimidating (like a DSLR), while the E-P1 looks more 'retro' like an M8. I notice that I can get better street shots, when I'm zone focused and just shoot (without even looking at the LCD) with the E-P1. When I pull the G1 up to my eye, people respond differently, and I sometimes lose the moment.
For street shooting with the G1, I often flip out the LCD and use it as a waistlevel, this works very well in combination with a 15 or 17 and reasonably well with longer lenses.. Using the EVF on the G1 can on occasion be noticeable when shooting street. Nobody seems to notice a waistlevel.
Of course I have the red G1 which I've noted attracts less attention than the black one, one reason I went with the less 'pro' looking coloured model.
andrewd01 wrote:
Also, a 230K screen in 2009? Are they on drugs? Did they buy cheap stock from Canon?
andrewd01 wrote:
Forget about trying to judge focus on such a low res screen. I know from experience with 3" low res screens on Canon, they were RUBBISH.
I have to strongly disagree with that. I use this screen (40D) quite a lot for LV and the description above is not even remotely similar to my experience. It is in fact very good, well at least IMHO.
Yes, the higher resolution screens on the D300, D700, G10 and 50D are indeed better and nicer but the difference is marginal, again IMHO. I have zero desire to upgrade my 40D to the 50D due to the better screen.
I have to strongly disagree with that. I use this screen (40D) quite a lot for LV and the description above is not even remotely similar to my experience. It is in fact very good, well at least IMHO.
Yes, the higher resolution screens on the D300, D700, G10 and 50D are indeed better and nicer but the difference is marginal, again IMHO. I have zero desire to upgrade my 40D to the 50D due to the better screen.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Having worked with the higher-resolution screens in LV mode as well as the 230k screens I have to disagree. There is a large, quite obviously visible difference between the 230k screens (which are visibly pixellated on a 3" screen) and the 460k screens. The difference between 460k and 920k is not particularly visible. I found the 40D's rear screen quite poor for LV, coming from a D300 and its 920k screen. It was difficult to accurately judge focus without zooming in, an issue I've rarely encountered with the G1 or D300.
