Tariq Gibran wrote:
Great point. I expect that when discriminating users communicate to the m4/3rds camp that they do not want to rely on image quality robbing raw software correction of color drift, vignetting, geometric distortion and ca due to lens designs for that short registration and lens size restrictions that the next quality evolution will be with the sensor and optimized edge micro lenses. Seems like that is what is used to some degree in the Leica M8?
Every maker is moving towards using RAW software correction for optical flaws, and then optimizing the lens design towards this. Note this was pioneered by Hasselblad with their 28mm for the H-Series and by Leica. Canon and Nikon both do it in their RAW converters (DPP and CaptureNX), DXO built an entire business on it with DXOptics.
Why would you choose 2x crop as your main system when the 1.6x, 1.5x and full frame are within easy reach? Surely the killer app for m4/3rds is as a second ultra lightweight system rather than the one you shoot the wedding with? Let's be honest, the G1 is great, but it's no 500D, and it's not really small enough either. I want a pocket camera (EP1) and a work camera (5D2). The G1 is an unhappy compromise.
I'd love something like the EP-1 and the 25 1.4 as my "pocket" camera. I agree with Brainiac that it wouldn't replace my 5D and lenses. I want a camera to bring along with my on bike rides and informal occasions where I travel light.
The huge problem for me is the kit I want would cost almost $2000! Sucks for me, that's way out of my price point for a second system. I'd get an 85L if I have that kind of money right now.
Eric Gottesman wrote:
I'd love something like the EP-1 and the 25 1.4 as my "pocket" camera. I agree with Brainiac that it wouldn't replace my 5D and lenses. I want a camera to bring along with my on bike rides and informal occasions where I travel light.
-Eric
That is exactly what I would want to use it for too...too bad it'll be so expensive...I could barely afford my used 5D!
mawz wrote:
Every maker is moving towards using RAW software correction for optical flaws, and then optimizing the lens design towards this. Note this was pioneered by Hasselblad with their 28mm for the H-Series and by Leica. Canon and Nikon both do it in their RAW converters (DPP and CaptureNX), DXO built an entire business on it with DXOptics.
Yes...and good point. Leica went out of their way to state how the lenses for the upcoming S2 are so optically superior that such image degrading software bandaids are not required. The thing is, software correction, particularly when used to correct lens distortion, throws away image quality compared to getting things right with the lens to begin with. Given a choice, and cost no object which is likely the real issue, most of us here would probably opt getting it right before software correction is needed. The image quality of the little Panasonic LX3 suffers due to the huge amount of correction required for that lens as an example.
brainiac wrote:
Why would you choose 2x crop as your main system when the 1.6x, 1.5x and full frame are within easy reach? Surely the killer app for m4/3rds is as a second ultra lightweight system rather than the one you shoot the wedding with? Let's be honest, the G1 is great, but it's no 500D, and it's not really small enough either. I want a pocket camera (EP1) and a work camera (5D2). The G1 is an unhappy compromise.
I could care less about crop factor, I care about whether the IQ is good enough for my needs and whether the FoV's I need are offered, preferably in primes. I don't particularly like P&S ergonomics which the E-P1 mostly shares and the 5D's are too big for my normal use, and when it's not, I'd be shooting MF anyways.
The G1 is small enough for my uses, especially with M mount primes attached. The 500D, even with an adapted pancake, is much larger (the G1 with a CV 35/2.5 is smaller than the 500D body with no lens mounted) and even more significantly more difficult to work with as the viewfinder is crap compared to the G1's EVF, especially for manual focus work, and the 500D lacks a flip/twist LCD which makes using Live View on the LCD far more flexible. I'd have to shoot blind on a 500D for a fair bit of the stuff I use the G1 for. The 500D also lacks anything resembling a compact general-purpose zoom with a decent focus ring. The only advantages the 500D offers over the G1 is a bit of resolution and better high ISO. I'd kinda like the latter, but the 500D handles much worse than the G1. I also prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio, which is a mild advantage to the m43 system. I actually initially bought the G1 to replace my D40, but the size/weight and handling improvements actually ended up shelving my D300 as well. The G1 is right for what I do (cityscape, some street, candid bar shooting) where the 500D just doesn't do well and a 5D is too big to carry everywhere. The E-P1 also lacks the two features that I like the most about the G1, the superb EVF and the flip/twist LCD.
Once Panasonic has the 20/1.7 shipping, I'll pretty much have exactly the kit I want for everyday use. A G1, 20/1.7 and 35/1.4 (Getting the CV Nokton).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes...and good point. Leica went out of their way to state how the lenses for the upcoming S2 are so optically superior that such image degrading software bandaids are not required. The thing is, software correction, particularly when used to correct lens distortion, throws away image quality compared to getting things right with the lens to begin with. Given a choice, and cost no object which is likely the real issue, most of us here would probably opt getting it right before software correction is needed. The image quality of the little Panasonic LX3 suffers due to the huge amount of correction required for that lens as an example. ...Show more →
Note that if Panasonic had not used lens corrections, the LX3 would have been either larger, had an inferior lens or been much more expensive. While corrections do rob that particular lens of edge resolution, using them allowed Panasonic to get the small, fast lens into the body with enough resolution to offset the processing loss. It's doubtful that Panasonic could have delivered better IQ from a processing-free design of that speed, size and price.
mawz wrote:
I could care less about crop factor, I care about whether the IQ is good enough for my needs and whether the FoV's I need are offered, preferably in primes. I don't particularly like P&S ergonomics which the E-P1 mostly shares and the 5D's are too big for my normal use, and when it's not, I'd be shooting MF anyways.
The G1 is small enough for my uses, especially with M mount primes attached. The 500D, even with an adapted pancake, is much larger (the G1 with a CV 35/2.5 is smaller than the 500D body with no lens mounted) and even more significantly more difficult to work with as the viewfinder is crap compared to the G1's EVF, especially for manual focus work, and the 500D lacks a flip/twist LCD which makes using Live View on the LCD far more flexible. I'd have to shoot blind on a 500D for a fair bit of the stuff I use the G1 for. The 500D also lacks anything resembling a compact general-purpose zoom with a decent focus ring. The only advantages the 500D offers over the G1 is a bit of resolution and better high ISO. I'd kinda like the latter, but the 500D handles much worse than the G1. I also prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio, which is a mild advantage to the m43 system. I actually initially bought the G1 to replace my D40, but the size/weight and handling improvements actually ended up shelving my D300 as well. The G1 is right for what I do (cityscape, some street, candid bar shooting) where the 500D just doesn't do well and a 5D is too big to carry everywhere. The E-P1 also lacks the two features that I like the most about the G1, the superb EVF and the flip/twist LCD.
Once Panasonic has the 20/1.7 shipping, I'll pretty much have exactly the kit I want for everyday use. A G1, 20/1.7 and 35/1.4 (Getting the CV Nokton). ...Show more →
Different strokes for different folks; in the end, you like the ergonomics and handling. Same here, for me with the E-P1.
mawz wrote:
Note that if Panasonic had not used lens corrections, the LX3 would have been either larger, had an inferior lens or been much more expensive. While corrections do rob that particular lens of edge resolution, using them allowed Panasonic to get the small, fast lens into the body with enough resolution to offset the processing loss. It's doubtful that Panasonic could have delivered better IQ from a processing-free design of that speed, size and price.
I agree with price probably the main consideration.
brainiac wrote:
Why would you choose 2x crop as your main system when the 1.6x, 1.5x and full frame are within easy reach? Surely the killer app for m4/3rds is as a second ultra lightweight system rather than the one you shoot the wedding with? Let's be honest, the G1 is great, but it's no 500D, and it's not really small enough either. I want a pocket camera (EP1) and a work camera (5D2). The G1 is an unhappy compromise.
Agree with you there. the G1 is just not here nor there in terms of size. I held a G1 recently and if I am going to carry that in a bag, I will carry a 5D in the same bag; neither of them will fit in any pocket other than cargo
I also agree with the crop: as much as I need a smaller camera ( no bigger than the E-P1) in terms of absolute ability, just liike they say about car engines "there's no replacement for displacement!'. Everything you can do with a sensor, you can do better with a bigger sensor.
The only real world drawback of the 2X sensor of me is ruining the FOV of some of the best RF lenses out there
...Just got back from a local store (HENRY's) and they had an E-P1 on the shelf -not a seller, on it's way to someone...
This really is a beautiful camera! It feels very nice, and smaller than it looks like in the photos, but it felt a little..light! Olympus designed the top cover in such a way that it seems smaller than it is -very clever. However, with the kit lens on it, ,even though side-by-side it is much smaller than the G1, it would be too bulky for me. I am glad I ordered the 17mm.
The bad(-ish) news is that the availability date for Toronto at this point is July 17th. I was hoping it would be earlier than that, and the rep did not know if pre-orders were being handled before, or at that date.
I did view a jpeg taken with the zoom kit lens on an apple 20" monitor there and it was surprising sharp and clear!
dasrocket wrote:
...Just got back from a local store (HENRY's) and they had an E-P1 on the shelf -not a seller, on it's way to someone...
This really is a beautiful camera! It feels very nice, and smaller than it looks like in the photos, but it felt a little..light! Olympus designed the top cover in such a way that it seems smaller than it is -very clever. However, with the kit lens on it, ,even though side-by-side it is much smaller than the G1, it would be too bulky for me. I am glad I ordered the 17mm.
The bad(-ish) news is that the availability date for Toronto at this point is July 17th. I was hoping it would be earlier than that, and the rep did not know if pre-orders were being handled before, or at that date.
I did view a jpeg taken with the zoom kit lens on an apple 20" monitor there and it was surprising sharp and clear!...Show more →
The kit zoom lens actually has a better MTF than the pancake but part of that could be down to the zoom being so slow.
The G1 is small enough for my uses, especially with M mount primes attached. The 500D, even with an adapted pancake, is much larger (the G1 with a CV 35/2.5 is smaller than the 500D body with no lens mounted)...
This point interested me. To my mind the only dimension that really matters for pocketability is depth. While the m4/3 register is only 20mm, it seems that the EP1 is about 15mm deeper due to the monitor. The M system register is 27.95mm, so with an M adaptor the depth of the cameras will be around 43mm. I measure my 450D to be about 59mm from mount to camera back. There's the rubber eyepiece and a couple of millimetres of protrusion at the thumbhold, but those aren't significant obstacles to pocketability. That means that the m4/3 cameras with a Leica M adaptor are shedding about 16mm of depth against a 500D IF YOU IGNORE protrusions on the front of the camera, which I do, since normally a lens is mounted and extends further forwards than the flash or finger-grip.
BUT here's the rub: it's 2x crop instead of 1.6x crop, which means that standard focal lengths are in the 17-20mm range instead of the 24-35mm range, so if you are going to use an M lens as a standard lens, you're going to be putting quite a big lens on your M adaptor. For instance, the Leica 21 f2.8 is 46mm deep, whereas the Oly OM 24mm f2.8 is only about 30mm deep (or less) with an EOS adaptor. There goes your 16mm depth saving. There may be some very shallow M system ultrawides that I don't know about, but essentially, unless you use m4/3 lenses, the size saving of m4/3 in the crucial dimension is lost, if you intend to use normal to wide fields of view. It would be interesting to see views from above of the shallowest 500D and G1/EP1 setups for wide to standard focal lengths. I suspect a 500D with shallow Oly OM prime won't generally be much deeper than an equivalent M lens on m4/3. Maybe the fold-away Leica lenses are the answer, but I think they're all portrait focal lengths on m4/3.
Now with regard to the specific claim that "the G1 with a CV 35/2.5 is smaller than the 500D body with no lens mounted", I estimate the depth of the G1/CV/adaptor to be about 75mm, assuming that the CV is about 30mm long. The 500D's depth is probably just less than that if you include the extra 12 or so mm of the flash protrusion, but don't forget that the 12mm of the flash protrusion overhangs the lens, so if you include that then be sure to count your lens as 12mm shorter. In brief, I would like to see that claim proved before believing it, and I would like to see depth comparison between the G1/M-adaptor/CV35, and, for instance, 500D+Oly 40 f2. I don't think there will be much in it, depth-wise.
The next question is this: is the EP1 plus kit zoom deeper than a 500D with Oly 21 f3.5, and by how much? I'm too tired to work it out. And how does image quality compare.
Apparently the AF on the EP1 is quite slow. One thing that has put me off the G1 so far is that there have been no real pancake lenses for it. Maybe the answer is to put the Oly m4/3 17 f2.8 on a G1. Yum.
brainiac wrote:
This point interested me. To my mind the only dimension that really matters for pocketability is depth. While the m4/3 register is only 20mm, it seems that the EP1 is about 17mm deeper due to the monitor. The M system register is 27.95mm, so with an M adaptor the depth of the cameras will be around 45mm. I measure my 450D to be about 59mm from mount to camera back. There's the rubber eyepiece and a couple of millimetres of protrusion at the thumbhold, but those aren't significant obstacles to pocketability. That means that the m4/3 cameras with a Leica M adaptor are shedding about 14mm of depth against a 500D IF YOU IGNORE protrusions on the front of the camera, which I do, since normally a lens is mounted and extends further forwards than the flash or finger-grip.
BUT here's the rub: it's 2x crop instead of 1.6x crop, which means that standard focal lengths are in the 17-20mm range instead of the 24-35mm range, so if you are going to use an M lens as a standard lens, you're going to be putting quite a big lens on your M adaptor. For instance, the Leica 21 f2.8 is 46mm deep, whereas the Oly OM 24mm f2.8 is only about 33mm deep (or less) with an EOS adaptor. There goes your 14mm depth saving. There may be some very shallow M system ultrawides that I don't know about, but essentially, unless you use m4/3 lenses, the size saving of m4/3 in the crucial dimension is lost, if you intend to use normal to wide fields of view. It would be interesting to see views from above of the shallowest 500D and G1/EP1 setups for wide to standard focal lengths. I suspect a 500D with shallow Oly OM prime won't generally be much deeper than an equivalent M lens on m4/3. Maybe the fold-away Leica lenses are the answer, but I think they're all portrait focal lengths on m4/3.
Apparently the AF on the EP1 is quite slow. One thing that has put me off the G1 so far is that there have been no real pancake lenses for it. Maybe the answer is to put the Oly m4/3 17 f2.8 on a G1. Yum....Show more →
I'm mostly looking at M lenses for my longer stuff and the Oly 17 and Panny 20 for my primary wide/normals (either of which would need an ~11mm equivalent to be matched on the EOS body). I've also been considering the CV 15/4.5, which is 38.2mm deep as a wider option. The CV 35/1.4 is even smaller at 28.5mm deep. And a 25/4 Color-Skopar is 29.5mm with hood, with the 21/4 being marginally larger. And remember that those lenses can be critically focused via the VF or the rear LCD on the G1, I wouldn't trust a 500D's viewfinder for critical focus. The G1 is also both shorter and less wide than the 500D, by enough to be noticeable, if not necessarily as significant as the depth.
And the CV 35/2.5 is 23mm long. So I was off by a bit size-wise, but that means the G1/CV35 combo is only 9mm longer than a 500D body-only. I'd forgotten to count the M adapter there.
brainiac wrote:
Apparently the AF on the EP1 is quite slow.
It's ironic that you'd spend so much time making a case against the E-P1 based on size when used with manual lenses, and then bring up a complaint against the AF. Do you really care about AF anyway?
mawz wrote:
And remember that those lenses can be critically focused via the VF or the rear LCD on the G1, I wouldn't trust a 500D's viewfinder for critical focus.
It seems to me that there is no great difference between zooming the viewfinder/LCD on the G1 and using the Liveview zoom feature on the 500D. Both cameras can be critically focussed in more or less the same way. I am not one of those puny FMers who struggle to support a small light camera when using liveview. When it comes to the unzoomed use of the viewfinder, I don't believe the G1 is more accurate than a practiced SLR user. Admittedly the 500D offers no zoom VF mode through the optical VF, but bearing in mind the 1.6 crop advantage and access to a remarkable number of Canon lenses, it's a tough choice. My point really is that m4/3 look very attractive to me now that m4/3 primes are starting to appear, but I don't see it as compelling for off-brand lens use. Perhaps my attitude will change once I have an EOS->m4/3 adaptor and an EP1/G1.
And the CV 35/2.5 is 23mm long. So I was off by a bit size-wise, but that means the G1/CV35 combo is only 9mm longer than a 500D body-only.
Doh! I forgot that the quoted length probably includes the bit that pokes inside the camera. Thanks for that clarification. You win, the G1/M-adaptor/CV35 will indeed be shallower than a 500D body alone.
Sam Bennett wrote:
It's ironic that you'd spend so much time making a case against the E-P1 based on size when used with manual lenses, and then bring up a complaint against the AF. Do you really care about AF anyway?
I don't know how comfortable I'm going to be manually focussing with an EP1. I use Canon's Liveview zoom mode in a small minority of shots. If the EP1's monitor doesn't allow me to manually focus accurately enough, I may be forced to use AF. The crux of this is "will I be able to focus quickly and accurately enough with an EP1". That's why I'm concerned. With EOS SLRs I know where the speed and accuracy limits of manual and auto focus are.
I'm not making a case against the EP1, and an EP1/17mm are on my shopping list, pretty much regardless of how easy/quick/accurate it is to focus. The advantage of m4/3 seems to be size, above all, so it seems a shame to have to put longish adaptors and lenses on it. The excitement that it is the first lens mount which can take adaptors for M system lenses seems to be spoiled a bit by the 2x crop and the lack of any optical focussing method. I'm just thinking out loud and gibbering as usual.
