mawz wrote:
If you look at the smaller text, say the K in Scott Kelby's name, it's pretty clear the Sigma isn't delivering anything close to the same resolution as the other two. Otherwise the Sigma does quite well in the comparison. The Olympus seems softer than the others. The Sigma also appears to deliver less dynamic range, it goes to black much quicker than the other two.
Yes, I agree for the most part. But to my eye, even at ISO 100, the Sigma looks flat and dull in comparison with the Olympus and Pany.
TWoK wrote:
I went and tried this out and I absolutely hated it and on top of that it's not available in black.
Too bad too for me, I would like a black body with a black 17mm pancake, they have neither.
I would like to buy a white version for my wife, but they do not have a white lens to go with it? What's the point of having a white body without white lenses.
Justin D wrote:
Anyone know if the Oly 12-60 will AF with the EP1? I know it's enormous, but...
Yes, it will with the MMF-1 adaptor and only in S-AF or C-AF, not with CD-AF
Only a couple or so of 4/3 lenses can use the CD-AF (Contrast-Detection Auto Focus)
mawz wrote:
If you look at the smaller text, say the K in Scott Kelby's name, it's pretty clear the Sigma isn't delivering anything close to the same resolution as the other two. Otherwise the Sigma does quite well in the comparison. The Olympus seems softer than the others. The Sigma also appears to deliver less dynamic range, it goes to black much quicker than the other two.
I'm not able to make out any difference in the "K" of Scott Kelby's name at ISO 100 so I don't see that at all. The E-P1 looks really good at ISO 800 regarding detail and color I thought. The tester used default RAW settings for each converter so things like WB, dynamic range and even sharpness could be better or worse for any of these cameras than what we are seeing. If you have shot the Sigma's, I doubt you would find their DR lacking at all. In fact, as you know, I find that DR is one of the areas where the Sigma's actually sing.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'm not able to make out any difference in the "K" of Scott Kelby's name at ISO 100 so I don't see that at all. The E-P1 looks really good at ISO 800 regarding detail and color I thought. The tester used default RAW settings for each converter so things like WB, dynamic range and even sharpness could be better or worse for any of these cameras than what we are seeing. If you have shot the Sigma's, I doubt you would find their DR lacking at all. In fact, as you know, I find that DR is one of the areas where the Sigma's actually sing. ...Show more →
On the Sigma shot, the K looks more like an H, the E-P1 and G1 shots are visibly a K.
mawz wrote:
On the Sigma shot, the K looks more like an H, the E-P1 and G1 shots are visibly a K.
It must be my eyes then. I do not see a clear, obvious "K" in any of the ISO 100 shots. The only way I know it should be a K is that I know Scott Kelby's last name starts with a K. That is what I might expect from the Sigma image as it has been interpolated up in size but I would think the Olympus and Panasonic images would render a clear K. I will say that the "K" looks much better (the best of the three cameras) in the ISO 800 Olympus image than it does at ISO 100 (which is terrible). That is one reason I think this degree of scrutiny might be going beyond the testers methods and other variables are at play here.
picnic wrote:
My understanding is that that the 17 kits haven't shipped yet, but the 17 f/2.8 lenses are in stock some places. I have one coming from Precision Cameras in TX.
Diane
Have had the 17mm kit preorderd with Amazon since day one. I'm twitching.
That slooooww AF is a deal breaker. I'd take the Panny GH1 despite the size.
My god how sharp and detailed are those Sigma results. Imagine if they could build a 24MP (3x8) sensor and put it in a good body. It'd trounce a 24MP Bayer IMO.
I really like the looks of the Pen--and I liked handling it for a short time, but am not sure how much I'd like it in the long run with lenses that make it larger, that require MF (I did try it with 2 of my adaptors and MF lenses for a very short period). When you take off the EVF and reduce the grip of the G1/GH1--its not much bigger--actually about same size, though not as 'classy'. When I put the 17 f/2.8 on the G1 it became a quite small/light package also. I understand the head/heart conflict --but decided, for myself, to wait until there are more choices and enjoy the G1 for the time being.
