promocop
Contributor
Any thoughts? Saw the Olympus at the scuba show...nice compact housing...cant decide!
Olympus E-Pl1 vs Canon G11
- Thread starter promocop
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
You are comparing a compact camera with a built-in all-purpose zoom lens and a relatively smaller sensor (the G11) to a camera system with interchangeable lenses and a sensor more than twice the size (the E-PL1).
The E-PL1 is, without question, the better performing camera. The E-PL1 has a better sensor and access to better lenses. For underwater work, I think the 9-18 lens on the E-PL1 is going to outperform the G11 with a wideangle adapter every time. The Olympus FT 50mm macro lens is arguably the best macro lens ever made, and it can be used on the E-PL1 with an adapter that doesn't affect the image quality (there are no optics in the adapter, it's just a hollow tube).
Not so fast--the 9-18 lens is not a fisheye lens. It will have a FOV underwater of about 75 degrees diagonal whereas the G11 in the FIX housing with the Fisheye port/lens will provide about 150 to 165 degrees diagonal FOV.
Frankly, on computers and reasonable size prints, I cannot tell the difference between photos taken with a G/S class P&S vs a dSLR and neither can most of you.
In a few more years when the M4:3 system grows and matures to include full frame fisheye lenses and other options with ports to support them then no doubt that will become the better option, the question is that if it is the better option now to purchase the ELP-1 and the Oly housing which has a fixed port and no wide angle option that has been discussed yet? My thought is no, the G11/FIX would be the better choice. A measly 75 degree FOV is just not enough for me anyways.
N
Frankly, on computers and reasonable size prints, I cannot tell the difference between photos taken with a G/S class P&S vs a dSLR and neither can most of you.
In a few more years when the M4:3 system grows and matures to include full frame fisheye lenses and other options with ports to support them then no doubt that will become the better option, the question is that if it is the better option now to purchase the ELP-1 and the Oly housing which has a fixed port and no wide angle option that has been discussed yet? My thought is no, the G11/FIX would be the better choice. A measly 75 degree FOV is just not enough for me anyways.
N
OP
promocop
Contributor
YES, I realize they are two different cameras..hence the comparison question. Had the G-10..OK cant quite make the leap to either one of these yet
Your FOV assumes the E-PL1 is in an Olympus housing with a flat port. I believe you can get closer to 100 degree FOV with the semi-dome port in a 10Bar housing. Also, since the flat port on the Olympus housings is held in place with a bayonet type connection, I wouldn't be surprised if aftermarket dome ports become available.
I agree that there are certain types of photos whee you can't tell the difference between a cellphone camera, a P&S camera, a low-end SLR, or a high-end SLR. When the scene is well-lit, when there's not a lot of movement, AND you want everything in focus, almost any camera can get an acceptable image. On the other hand, when any of those things is untrue, when you need high ISO settings or a super-fast focus lock or pleasing bokeh, the cameras with larger sensors always seem to do better. Also, the 5X zoom lens on a G11 makes some tradeoffs, and sometimes 2X or 3X zooms are much sharper/better lenses than 5X zooms, although often prime lenses are better than either.
There are people taking underwater pictures with fisheye lenses on M4:3 systems right now. I'm one of them. Here is an image I shot on an E-P1 with an MMF-1 mount adapter and an Olympus Four-Thirds Zuiko 8mm fisheye, behind an Aquatica 6" dome port:
(more information on the photo's flickr page here)
(the white speckles you see are lint on the inside of the dome port from the way it was packed in my suitcase-- those are user error, not an issue with port, lens, adapter, or camera)
There are housings with semi-dome ports for the E-PL1, like the 10Bar housing, that get more than a 75 degree angle of view. There are likely to be more such housings in the future. Right now, the G11 is the older camera with more housing options, but I think we will see more housing options for the E-PL1 coming soon, and maybe even third-party ports for the Olympus housing.
OP
promocop
Contributor
fantastic shot!!! My mind is made up...getting the OLY
The Oly housing does not support removable ports at this time, Olympus said they had no plans for such on this housing in a news release, but we all know that can change in an instant and hopefully will. Maybe it has?
Yes, I am very hopeful that Ikelite and others will soon provide a suitable housing for the ELP-1 with removable ports as I now have a large pile of cash after selling some other items awaiting exactly that and I am chomping at the bit to get one.
The Oly lens you mention is a 4:3 and requires the adapter to Micro 4:3, I would prefer a small zoom lens in M4:3 similar to the Tokina 10-17 in APS format but could settle for a fixed FL M4:3, 6mm or 8mm fisheye lens, full frame.
What housing are you using with the Aquatica port?
You do not need to sell me on the M4:3, I am fully aware of their advantages and I have been going on about then for nearly two years now as being the camera for the future and slowly the future is coming. For all you know I might be holding one right now, I got 650 dollars for two Canon 570s last week, lol. I also have a Tokina 10-17 I might consider selling, then again, never know. It is not a matter of money or willingness, it is a matter of there not being what I want to spend it on--yet.
I am not into the 10Bar stuff yet, maybe someday. I would rather something from Ike, FIX, S&S etc.
Thanks for the updates, v-e-r-y interesting.
N
Yes, I am very hopeful that Ikelite and others will soon provide a suitable housing for the ELP-1 with removable ports as I now have a large pile of cash after selling some other items awaiting exactly that and I am chomping at the bit to get one.
The Oly lens you mention is a 4:3 and requires the adapter to Micro 4:3, I would prefer a small zoom lens in M4:3 similar to the Tokina 10-17 in APS format but could settle for a fixed FL M4:3, 6mm or 8mm fisheye lens, full frame.
What housing are you using with the Aquatica port?
You do not need to sell me on the M4:3, I am fully aware of their advantages and I have been going on about then for nearly two years now as being the camera for the future and slowly the future is coming. For all you know I might be holding one right now, I got 650 dollars for two Canon 570s last week, lol. I also have a Tokina 10-17 I might consider selling, then again, never know. It is not a matter of money or willingness, it is a matter of there not being what I want to spend it on--yet.
I am not into the 10Bar stuff yet, maybe someday. I would rather something from Ike, FIX, S&S etc.
Thanks for the updates, v-e-r-y interesting.
N
Absolutely lovely image, and shows that under the right conditions, with the right gear, one can get stunning images.
One of the difficulties in picking a camera based on pictures is that the scene is part of the image, and can sometimes over weigh the technology.
As far as lens technology goes, the lens on the G11 (which is the same as was on the G10) is some amazing technology. No interchangable lens for any camera has the resolution capabilities of that lens. They took advantage of the really small sensor size to make a lens that is accurate in a really small area. Larger lens do not have than luxury. Several sites have resolution charts that demonstrate this.
Bokeh? Well, one can manage that even with a small sensor, if you know how.
Here's one I did for a photo class:
High ISO, now there is a huge difference, not much one can do with a tiny little sensor.
But if the micro 4/3 ends up costing as much as a standard DSLR to get that DSLR like image, then I think it missed the point.
I would already own the Pany version, if there was a reasonable costing housing for it that worked, but right now the 10Bar is not there, and the Sea Tool, with all the features is not much cheaper than a DSLR.
One of the difficulties in picking a camera based on pictures is that the scene is part of the image, and can sometimes over weigh the technology.
As far as lens technology goes, the lens on the G11 (which is the same as was on the G10) is some amazing technology. No interchangable lens for any camera has the resolution capabilities of that lens. They took advantage of the really small sensor size to make a lens that is accurate in a really small area. Larger lens do not have than luxury. Several sites have resolution charts that demonstrate this.
Bokeh? Well, one can manage that even with a small sensor, if you know how.
Here's one I did for a photo class:
High ISO, now there is a huge difference, not much one can do with a tiny little sensor.
But if the micro 4/3 ends up costing as much as a standard DSLR to get that DSLR like image, then I think it missed the point.
I would already own the Pany version, if there was a reasonable costing housing for it that worked, but right now the 10Bar is not there, and the Sea Tool, with all the features is not much cheaper than a DSLR.
Your FOV assumes the E-PL1 is in an Olympus housing with a flat port. I believe you can get closer to 100 degree FOV with the semi-dome port in a 10Bar housing. Also, since the flat port on the Olympus housings is held in place with a bayonet type connection, I wouldn't be surprised if aftermarket dome ports become available.
I agree that there are certain types of photos whee you can't tell the difference between a cellphone camera, a P&S camera, a low-end SLR, or a high-end SLR. When the scene is well-lit, when there's not a lot of movement, AND you want everything in focus, almost any camera can get an acceptable image. On the other hand, when any of those things is untrue, when you need high ISO settings or a super-fast focus lock or pleasing bokeh, the cameras with larger sensors always seem to do better. Also, the 5X zoom lens on a G11 makes some tradeoffs, and sometimes 2X or 3X zooms are much sharper/better lenses than 5X zooms, although often prime lenses are better than either.
There are people taking underwater pictures with fisheye lenses on M4:3 systems right now. I'm one of them. Here is an image I shot on an E-P1 with an MMF-1 mount adapter and an Olympus Four-Thirds Zuiko 8mm fisheye, behind an Aquatica 6" dome port:
(more information on the photo's flickr page here)
(the white speckles you see are lint on the inside of the dome port from the way it was packed in my suitcase-- those are user error, not an issue with port, lens, adapter, or camera)
There are housings with semi-dome ports for the E-PL1, like the 10Bar housing, that get more than a 75 degree angle of view. There are likely to be more such housings in the future. Right now, the G11 is the older camera with more housing options, but I think we will see more housing options for the E-PL1 coming soon, and maybe even third-party ports for the Olympus housing.
bvanant
Contributor
The Olympus FT 50mm macro lens is arguably the best macro lens ever made, and it can be used on the E-PL1 with an adapter that doesn't affect the image quality.
HUH, based on what specs. I would guess that there are quite a few folks who believe that the Zeiss makro planars are "better" and the MTF plots suggest that may be the case. Since they are full frame lenses and fit on the camera with an adapter and only use the center of the lens, they typically have much better performance on 4/3 system cameras.
Bill
HUH, based on what specs. I would guess that there are quite a few folks who believe that the Zeiss makro planars are "better" and the MTF plots suggest that may be the case. Since they are full frame lenses and fit on the camera with an adapter and only use the center of the lens, they typically have much better performance on 4/3 system cameras.
Bill
Short version: my housing.
Long version: Last summer, I was trying to find a housing to buy to replace my venerable housed Fuji F30. Like you, I had some money, but couldn't find something I really wanted to spend it on. So I designed my own housing. I'm a mechanical engineer and have some patents on things like air cylinders, so that wasn't quite as crazy an idea as it sounds (although it was still crazy).
I kept reading about these Nikonos lenses that were supposed to be unbelievably sharp underwater, so I did some research and discovered that it was theoretically possible to make the Nikonos lenses work with this new digital camer standard called "Micro Four Thirds". I picked the Olympus E-P1 as having the best image quality of any MFT cameras at that time, and designed a housing to hold the E-P1 and an adapter for Nikonos water-corrected lenses.
Then I looked at the lineup of Nikonos lenses and discovered that, with the crop factor of the MFT sensor, I didn't have a really wide angle lens. I looked at a couple issues of Wetpixel Quarterly, and saw that most of the contest winners used lenses like the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye on crop-sensor cameras or the Canon 15mm fisheye on full-frame cameras. The equivalent lens for MFT cameras is an 8mm fisheye, and the highly regarded Olympus 8mm fisheye will fit on the E-P1 with an MMF-1 adapter.
I took my setup to Underwater Photo Tech in New Hampshire, and looked at the dome ports they had in stock. The Aquatica 6" dome port seemed like the best match for my system, and it cost less than the Ikelite 8" dome port they had. So I designed an adapter to fit in my housing and hold an Aquatica 6" dome port at the right place around my 8mm fisheye lens.
Then I had enough parts machined to make 20 housings, because once a machine shop programs the machines to make one housing, they might as well make 20. My wife (the software expert in the family) has made a website to sell the extras to help defray our expenses, but she's a perfectionist and so it's not quite done yet.
Similar threads
