2 weeks with E-PL1 and GF1

[ravinj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok...so I thought I will see what this MFT hype is all about and bought:

 

- E-PL1 with 14-42 kit lens (eBay)

- GF1 with Panasonic 20mm pancake lens (craigslist)

- Olympus 14-54 F2.8-3.6 Mark II lens (eBay)

- Panasonic 4/3 to MFT adaptor (eBay)

 

In other words, I decided to walk the walk and put the money where the mouth is.

 

I wanted to see how much better were these MFTs compared to the lowly and often bashed X1. I spent a total of 14 days shooting with these 3 cameras in a variety of conditions including a trip last week to take fall pictures.

 

In a nutshell: In the 1000 or so combined shots taken, most of my keepers were from the X1.

 

What was most surprising to me was the fact that even the OOC jpg of X1 was superior to the other two. Surprising because X1's OOC jpg has been bashed in many reviews (DPR, for example). GF1's OOC was pathetic. E-PL1's OOC was acceptable after careful tweaking of the camera settings but was also prone to blown highlights quite often.

 

X1's RAW was miles ahead compared to RAW from the other two. Simply no comparison. At ISO 800, both E-PL1 and GF1 were pathetic. Even at ISO 400, their output lagged behind the X1.

 

E-PL1 with 14-42 kit lens: for the price, I would say it is quite a good camera so long as you stick to ISO 200. The ability to pull the flash back on E-PL1 and bounce it, as opposed to microwaving the subject is a great feature and for this reason alone I would say it is superior to the GF1. This is one area that E-PL1 is superior to the X1. Another area where E-PL1 seems better is the ability to preserve details in the shadows where X1 simply makes them dark. This applies only to OOC jpgs as X1's DNG allow you to pull out details if needed.

 

GF1 with 20mm pancake: Very snappy, but disappointing jpgs. Also, 40mm field of view is neither here nor there. I would take 35mm any day over 40mm.

 

E-PL1 with Olympus 14-54 F2.8-3.6 Mark II (used with Panasonic 4/3 to MFT adaptor): This lens is pretty good and I quite liked the colors that this camera/lens combination produced. I have not used any Olympus camera in the past and I must say that the colors are quite natural and smooth. Obviously, you need a tripod as the combination is not lightweight.

 

E-PL1 with 20mm pancake: I got some good results here but encountered some focus issues where the lens simply refused to focus correctly.

 

X1: Produced the most natural looking images, crisp and clear with colors that had a glow without looking artificial. After using the other two cameras, the brilliance behind X1's simplicity, focus on one and only thing (IQ) and light weight becomes more apparent. My wife, who doesn't care about cameras, picked most images from X1 as being the ones that she liked.

 

Result: GF1 and 20mm have been sold for a small profit on eBay. Olympus 14-42 lens sold on Amazon for a modest profit. E-Pl1 with Oly 14-54 will be kept for now as a backup to X1 for wide landscape shots and close-ups. 28mm versus 35mm does make a difference for landscape. Perhaps I will get the Oly 9-18 if it seems good. 12-60 is another option.

 

I am not posting any pictures on the web for comparison as it is pointless to look at them in the browser, nor am I interested in looking at someone else's GF1 or EPL1 pictures. I have done enough comparisons in the past two weeks to know how they look.

 

In case it helps anyone, here are the camera settings I use for X1's jpg and I found them to produce good results: Preset film: standard, Sharpening: Medium Low, Saturation: Medium High, Constrast: Medium High.

 

If you are looking for a camera that produces output better than the X1 in a comparable size or smaller, then as of today there is none. If you were thinking of getting a MFT to replace X1, don't do it if picture quality matters to you: I have spent the money and done the research for you, so you don't have to spend your $$s.

[davidhunternyc]

Nice review. We have all been wondering how the X1 would compete to the micro 4/3rds cameras. In the end, you are right, image quality is the only thing that matters. The X1 came out on top of the heap. With that said, I hope Leica does not rest on its laurels. I am crossing my fingers that the X2, (or whatever the next step in the X-line is) will have better build quality too. 'Leica' and 'plastic' should never be mentioned in the same breath.

[h00ligan]

I have a different view after owning both I suppose. What the x1 has in iq, the gf1 has in usability. Anything that isn't a group shot is a wash to iso 1600, where the 1.7 counters the iso advantage. The x1 makes better photos for sure...the gf1 is miles ahead in usability. I've shot side by side extensively and even native sharpness is only a hair above for the x1. That said the x1 has some lens characteristics that are not duplicated or improved upon by the electrogoodness of the gf1, but are hard to quantify..maybe I'm psyching myself into that but I don't think so as friends regularly comment more positively on the x1 shots.

 

I've had the gf1 just about a year and the x1 4-5 months. I have done a lot of testing. At smaller apertures in good light..presented at anything less than full print size shooting things like landscapes or scenery, good luck spotting the diff.

 

Low light, people shots, the leica wins hands down.

 

I borrowed an epl1 for a month, it had the nicest looking jpgs out of cam, although not always realistic they looked fantastic.

 

Just a small counter opinion.

[phancj]

I'm sorry, Ravinj, much as I respect you as a photographer you're too hardcore a Leicaphile!

 

Here's the contest for you!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[NZDavid]

Interesting, I shall tweak the settings. Sometimes I prefer the jpgs to RAW, no idea why.

 

But I feel posting some pictures would have greatly helped in demonstrating your points. Big differences are apparent, even on screen.

 

As for the "necessity" of a tripod with E-PL1 and Oly 14-54 -- you cannot be serious! These are lightweight cameras and lenses. How does anybody manage a Leica M, let alone a DSLR? A little bit more weight adds stability in any case.

[Guest stnami]

As for the "necessity" of a tripod with E-PL1 and Oly 14-54 -- you cannot be serious!

.............. limp wrist

[ravinj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As for the "necessity" of a tripod with E-PL1 and Oly 14-54 -- you cannot be serious! These are lightweight cameras and lenses. How does anybody manage a Leica M, let alone a DSLR? A little bit more weight adds stability in any case.

 

Not exactly lightweight. Without a tripod, at 54mm, you would be counting on luck to get sharp pictures every time. The combination of E-PL1's light weight body compared to the relatively heavy 14-54 lens does not help as the weight is shifted forward.

 

It is not just the weight - it is about the balance too. Heavier DSLRs and M's are better balanced. E-PL1 with 14-54 is not well balanced. Try holding a hammer horizontally for 5 seconds 1) with its head and 2) with the edge of its handle. Then post here which one is better balanced.

 

As I said, I actually tried it. No theories here.

[ravinj]

That said the x1 has some lens characteristics that are not duplicated or improved upon by the electrogoodness of the gf1, but are hard to quantify..maybe I'm psyching myself into that but I don't think so as friends regularly comment more positively on the x1 shots.

 

Counter opinions are always welcome. GF1 is a definitely a versatile tool. BUT, as you mentioned, X1's lens' character is very different in a pleasing way. It is not just the sharpness. It is the overall "look" of the picture. And you are not psyching yourself - I let others in my family select what they liked best and X1's pictures were almost always the favorite. This reminds me of high end audio - systems with same specs but of different brands have a different tonal quality and some are simply better than others. Based on charts, 20mm pancake is much sharper than X1's lens. The real world result is however very different.

 

I go for the picture quality every time. For me, the main difference is this: GF1 (in RAW) and E-PL1 (in jpg and RAW) can produce very good results. But they lack the "wow" factor that you get when looking at X1 output.

 

I would however rate the E-PL1 higher than the GF1 due to two reasons: very good OOC jpgs and ability to bounce the flash.

[phancj]

I agree Ravinj, if set and done correctly the X1 photos even the OOC jpegs can be very pleasing and many possess that sought-after "wow" factor...my wife has hinted more than a dozen times that I ought to upgrade to an M9 so the X1 is hers...hmmm....but I still like my X1...

 

Today I was back from a meeting and passed by a cinema, took a quick snapshot NO sharpening and zero PP other than resizing the file is nice and has a "clean" look like many commented when looking at X1 OOC files. There is a distinct look about the files which I like and this opinion of the "cleanliness" is shared by many who see my photos shot with the X1.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[phancj]

Here's another shot of the "Cylon" in Battlestar Galactica taken in the theme park few days ago, from OOC jpeg. When printing travel albums you can literally use the OOC jpegs without reservation unless for more serious purposes in which case X1 DNG files are very pliable.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[len_gee]

Ok...so I thought I will see what this MFT hype is all about and bought:

 

- E-PL1 with 14-42 kit lens (eBay)

- GF1 with Panasonic 20mm pancake lens (craigslist)

- Olympus 14-54 F2.8-3.6 Mark II lens (eBay)

- Panasonic 4/3 to MFT adaptor (eBay)

 

In other words, I decided to walk the walk and put the money where the mouth is.

 

I wanted to see how much better were these MFTs compared to the lowly and often bashed X1. I spent a total of 14 days shooting with these 3 cameras in a variety of conditions including a trip last week to take fall pictures.

 

In a nutshell: In the 1000 or so combined shots taken, most of my keepers were from the X1.

 

What was most surprising to me was the fact that even the OOC jpg of X1 was superior to the other two. Surprising because X1's OOC jpg has been bashed in many reviews (DPR, for example). GF1's OOC was pathetic. E-PL1's OOC was acceptable after careful tweaking of the camera settings but was also prone to blown highlights quite often.

 

X1's RAW was miles ahead compared to RAW from the other two. Simply no comparison. At ISO 800, both E-PL1 and GF1 were pathetic. Even at ISO 400, their output lagged behind the X1.

 

E-PL1 with 14-42 kit lens: for the price, I would say it is quite a good camera so long as you stick to ISO 200. The ability to pull the flash back on E-PL1 and bounce it, as opposed to microwaving the subject is a great feature and for this reason alone I would say it is superior to the GF1. This is one area that E-PL1 is superior to the X1. Another area where E-PL1 seems better is the ability to preserve details in the shadows where X1 simply makes them dark. This applies only to OOC jpgs as X1's DNG allow you to pull out details if needed.

 

GF1 with 20mm pancake: Very snappy, but disappointing jpgs. Also, 40mm field of view is neither here nor there. I would take 35mm any day over 40mm.

 

E-PL1 with Olympus 14-54 F2.8-3.6 Mark II (used with Panasonic 4/3 to MFT adaptor): This lens is pretty good and I quite liked the colors that this camera/lens combination produced. I have not used any Olympus camera in the past and I must say that the colors are quite natural and smooth. Obviously, you need a tripod as the combination is not lightweight.

 

E-PL1 with 20mm pancake: I got some good results here but encountered some focus issues where the lens simply refused to focus correctly.

 

X1: Produced the most natural looking images, crisp and clear with colors that had a glow without looking artificial. After using the other two cameras, the brilliance behind X1's simplicity, focus on one and only thing (IQ) and light weight becomes more apparent. My wife, who doesn't care about cameras, picked most images from X1 as being the ones that she liked.

 

Result: GF1 and 20mm have been sold for a small profit on eBay. Olympus 14-42 lens sold on Amazon for a modest profit. E-Pl1 with Oly 14-54 will be kept for now as a backup to X1 for wide landscape shots and close-ups. 28mm versus 35mm does make a difference for landscape. Perhaps I will get the Oly 9-18 if it seems good. 12-60 is another option.

 

I am not posting any pictures on the web for comparison as it is pointless to look at them in the browser, nor am I interested in looking at someone else's GF1 or EPL1 pictures. I have done enough comparisons in the past two weeks to know how they look.

 

In case it helps anyone, here are the camera settings I use for X1's jpg and I found them to produce good results: Preset film: standard, Sharpening: Medium Low, Saturation: Medium High, Constrast: Medium High.

 

If you are looking for a camera that produces output better than the X1 in a comparable size or smaller, then as of today there is none. If you were thinking of getting a MFT to replace X1, don't do it if picture quality matters to you: I have spent the money and done the research for you, so you don't have to spend your $$s.

 

Sorry, but:

Fairly useless and biased subjective report. You did not mention the settings you used for the GF1/EPL1 jpgs.

Perhaps too much of a Leica fanboy?

BTW: Proud owner of Leica Digilux 2, Leica VLux1, CLux1, M8.2, and Panny GF1.