SteveTuerk wrote:
I think I'd pick up a used E-P1 before buying the EP-L1 because of the build of the former. Still, the lens shown, 14-42mm failed me early. The "Parking Pawl" lock on the lens rounded off without any abuse and once it didn't lock firmly anymore the camera refused to work. That and the crummy feel of the 17mm lens got me feeling like I'd spent a good amount for cheaply made gear so I sold all of it in ebay. I've got a G1 now with 20mm, 45-200mm, and 14-45mm and although my wife makes the most use of the little gear it does have a well made feel to it - much better quality. That Canon S90 DOES look small. Is it smaller than an LX3?. Good looking little sucker......Show more →
What do you think of the 45-200? I'm considering it.
kahren wrote:
this is at is0100? why does it look so noisy
I'm hard pressed to see any noise in the image on my 23" color-calibrated Mac. It looks clean when I look at it here and when I print it to 10" X 13" on my Epson 4000. Often when I get comments like this it's because the person viewing has their monitor or even their entire system set too bright ... WAY too bright. I assure you, I would not post an image that looks "so noisy."
kahren wrote:
this is at is0100? why does it look so noisy
I just turned my monitor all the way to "Super Blindingly Bright" and I still don't see any noise. Have no idea what you're seeing. Whatever it is, it isn't even fine grain stuff.
veroman wrote:
I just turned my monitor all the way to "Super Blindingly Bright" and I still don't see any noise. Have no idea what you're seeing. Whatever it is, it isn't even fine grain stuff.
- Steve
there is a kind of speckly pattern most visible in the water on the lower left hand side of the image. i agree that it looks like jpeg compression not noise to me. could also be due to poor color handling by my monitor.
The major difference between the E-P1/2 and the E-PL1 is that the former has an all metal body while the later has a plastic body with metal side trim. This is more for people who likes light cameras, other than that they all have the same sensor with about the same functions and image quality. That is where the $200 goes.
Expect more color for the E-PL1 to come with the ease of color injection plastic moulding.
kahren wrote:
i took your picture and magnified it 3x look at the red color blotches, that is noise which is then jpg compressed. your images is 1.3MB which shouldn't be that heavily compressed. considering out of camera jpg is about 5MB at the highest setting. and your image is only 1MP i dont know if you just have not a very good jpg converter or there really was that much noise in the image. its not my monitor either, i have a calibrated monitor and i know when i see noise and when i don't.
hans98ko wrote:
The major difference between the E-P1/2 and the E-PL1 is that the former has an all metal body while the later has a plastic body with metal side trim. This is more for people who likes light cameras, other than that they all have the same sensor with about the same functions and image quality. That is where the $200 goes. Expect more color for the E-PL1 to come with the ease of color injection plastic moulding.
The EP-L1 is said to have a weaker AA filter than the EP-1 or EP-2. Most users comment on the increased sharpness they're getting from the EP-L1. I have no idea if the "weaker AA filter" stories are true or not, but I do know that many users have noted better sharpness out of the new camera.
kahren wrote:
i took your picture and magnified it 3x
look at the red color blotches, that is noise which is then jpg compressed.
your images is 1.3MB which shouldn't be that heavily compressed. considering out of camera jpg is about 5MB at the highest setting. and your image is only 1MP
i dont know if you just have not a very good jpg converter or there really was that much noise in the image. its not my monitor either, i have a calibrated monitor and i know when i see noise and when i don't.
veroman wrote:
What do you think of the 45-200? I'm considering it.
- Steve
I like it quite a bit - well worth it's cost, small, well built, reasonably fast focus (as in - fast for a m4/3 system). Built in IR that seems to work pretty nicely as the lens has been an easy handhold and gives the 400mm effect.
mortyb wrote:
Looks like noise.
At 300% I could show you some of my processed ISO 100 5D II files that have noise as well, and for sure from my Nikon D2x. Pixel peeping at those sizes can make a lot of files appear noisy. My criteria is how they look at 50% on my Mac and how they look printed at 300 DPI.
The pixel peeping route can only lead to the kinds of comments and criticisms that have little or nothing to do with the image itself. Take a look at the latest book from National Geographic that spans decades of photography. You'll see page after page of noise, soft focus, grain, blown highlights, loss of shadow detail, etc. that would make some in this crowd shriek in horror.
I would maintain that there's a lot about the swan image that's been overlooked ... particularly since it comes from a small sensor camera.
SteveTuerk wrote:
I like it quite a bit - well worth it's cost, small, well built, reasonably fast focus (as in - fast for a m4/3 system). Built in IR that seems to work pretty nicely as the lens has been an easy handhold and gives the 400mm effect.
veroman wrote:
I'm hard pressed to see any noise in the image on my 23" color-calibrated Mac. It looks clean when I look at it here and when I print it to 10" X 13" on my Epson 4000. Often when I get comments like this it's because the person viewing has their monitor or even their entire system set too bright ... WAY too bright. I assure you, I would not post an image that looks "so noisy."
- Steve
I would agree, it looks just fine on my calibrated monitor. Beautiful light, by the way; a very nice photo.
Miserere wrote:
I would agree, it looks just fine on my calibrated monitor. Beautiful light, by the way; a very nice photo.
Yes ... the light! That's why I posted it. I also posted it because I think the Panasonic G1 did a great job capturing the dynamic range of the scene. Lots of very dark to very light, but you can still make out the feather detail and the ripples in the water, among other things. I was pretty surprised when I first looked at the shot because most (all?) of the reviews I'd read of this camera said that the D/R was limited and disappointing. Not by me it isn't!
veroman wrote:
Yes ... the light! That's why I posted it. I also posted it because I think the Panasonic G1 did a great job capturing the dynamic range of the scene. Lots of very dark to very light, but you can still make out the feather detail and the ripples in the water, among other things. I was pretty surprised when I first looked at the shot because most (all?) of the reviews I'd read of this camera said that the D/R was limited and disappointing. Not by me it isn't!
Anyway, thanks for noticing.
- Steve
Interesting you should mention the DR, Steve. I'm reviewing the E-PL1 at the moment, and one of the first things I noticed when looking at pictures from it was the DR. The strange thing is, in the DxO Mark data recently published, the E-PL1 has 1 whole stop less DR than my current DSLR. I'm befuddled here
