Olympus PEN E-PL1 vs 2

[PHIL RUDIN]

The PEN (Olympus) and others now from several manufactures fall between the Point and shoot and DSLR styles of cameras. These mirrorless or EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens) cameras use a different type of auto focus than a DSLR. For me the upside to these cameras is the quality of the images V. total system cost. I don't think that the EVIL cameras will (at this time) replace the quality of a DSLR's optical viewfinder with an external enlarging viewfinder like the ones from Nautican, Inon, Aquatica and others. The cost of some of these external viewfinders alone can be as high as a Pen camera and housing combined. So cost is a large factor in making a choice of equipment.

Regarding EVIL lenses, they are coming soon. The numbers of these cameras being sold has not been overlooked by the industry and the lens range will soon be enlarged. At this time in the m4/3 lens range you have the 8 mm fisheye, 7-14 and 9-18 W/A zooms, 14-42 and 14-45 mid range/macro/close-up and the 45 macro. These lenses would cover 95% of all my underwater work needs. ZEN Underwater makes high quality ports for all of these lenses for the Olympus housings. More lenses are also coming for the Sony NEX line with ports from Nautican, Aquatica and others for their housing systems.

Phil Rudin

Our next photo workshop.

 

[Peter Guy]

I don't think that the EVIL cameras will (at this time) replace the quality of a DSLR's optical viewfinder with an external enlarging viewfinder like the ones from Nautican, Inon, Aquatica and others.

Phil, would you agree this only becomes a significant issue in favor of the dSLR when one uses manual focus? OTOH, if using autofocus, the advantage of the optical viewfinder, enlarged or otherwise, should be dramatically decreased.

Or am I wrong again?

 

[under water]

Peter, I will let Phil answer of course, but the DSLR's still do have more elaborate focusing methods available than the mirror-less systems. So, that should translate into a better and quicker autofocus capability as well.
I am actually getting a VF-2 viewfinder for my E-PL1 as I do believe that it is more comfortable to shoot some land photos with a viewfinder, especially when using zoom lenses. I will of course try it underwater too.
I like the E-PL1, as is, for my primary U/W camera, but willing to entertain additional options.

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

I have used SLR and DSLR cameras with 100% viewfinders like the Nikon F-3, Nikonos RS (for fifteen years) Olympus E-3, Hasselblad H4D and others for over thirty-five years. In no way does live-view of any kind in manual or auto-focus out resolve a quality optical viewfinder with or without an external finder. If they did every pro and high-end user would be using live view. The longer the lens, think super macro the more important it becomes for critical focus.

I love the mirrorless cameras for the size, compactness for travel, image quality V. much smaller P&S sensors and overall cost. I think they work great for every skill level and that in the next two years the lens set will include about any lens you would want for U/W photography. I do not however feel that they will replace DSLR cameras for overall quality. Just is I don't think the current DSLR cameras, even with the 35 mm sensors will soon replace the 40-60MP 16bit depth quality of cameras medium format cameras like the Hasselblad H4D, Phase-One and others. You get what you pay for and for me I find the mirrorless cameras to be a great value but not on par with the current crop of medium to high end DSLR's.

U/W I have a like new VF-2 for sale if you are interested send me an E-mail at tropicalone@bellsouth.net

Phil Rudin

 

[slowhands]

Phil, I saw you apparently moved from Olympus M43 to Sony NEX5 (or do you use both?) I know you were getting great results with the Oly, and wondered why the move. I'm interested in what you see at the pro's and con's of either. Not trying to get a religious debate started, just curious.

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

My reviews on the Olympus and Sony systems appeared in these issues of uwpmag.com and on several other sites.

http://www.uwpmag.com/subscribe/download_issue.php?issue=56

http://www.uwpmag.com/subscribe/download_issue.php?issue=57

They are there for you to use to help draw your own conclusions as to which equipment might be right for you. I have pro photographer status with OlympusUSA which allows me to ask for equipment I do not own for testing and field use. I am also offered other equipment for testing by several manufactures world wide. This allows me to review and test products for the various publications I work for. I am also allowed to barrow equipment from several sources for the workshops I teach around the world. While I am an currently an Olympus owner, (E-3 with SeaTool housing, Olympus lens set with assorted ports), I attempt to offer as unbiased a review as I can on all the equipment I test based on over forty years of U/W equipment use. I have owned several of the Olympus products I reviewed in the past but have access to many more systems and have just finished up testing the Panasonic GF-1 and Inon housing system.

Please keep in mind that my comments in this and other forums is as member of the industry media and that while I do own some of the equipment I review much of it comes from my other sources.

I do not at this time own the Olympus E-PL1 or the Sony NEX-5 systems.

My next workshop will be held in Cozumel April 16-23, 2011.

Phil Rudin

 

[Peter Guy]

Underwater and Phil -- back to manual focus vs. auto-focus. Phil, we've had this discussion before and you've said you use manual focus and that means optical with the enlarger is THE WAY to go. No questions asked.

HOWEVER, I know many dSLR people who don't use manual focus but, to the contrary, use autofocus while UW and they do so for many reasons (old, bad eyes (like me), surgey conditions, don't have the optical enlarger). So IF you are using autofocus on a dSLR, is the autofocus system on the dSLRs more precise than the contrast based system of the EVILs? I understand it is faster, but is it more precise?

Also, do any of you know exactly how MUCH faster a low end dSLR will focus over an EVIL (say the Pen E-PL1 or E-PL2) -- AND how much faster the 2 with the new lens is than the 1 with the old lens. Obviously, such a comparison would have to be done under the same/similar conditions! The reason I'm asking is that, of course, sometime, "fast" is good enough!

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

Peter, you are not following what I said. I shoot AF 98% of the time these days with all types of cameras. When I want to be sure that a the lens is fully extended for max magnification shooting macro/close-up I will extend the lens all the way out and lock in manual. Then I move the camera in and out to focus in the view finder or on the LCD screen. AF is always in motion so if you move back an inch or two from your subject the lens will move as well. When manual is locked in this does not happen. The low end DSLR is likely to be faster than the current EVIL cameras. We already know from the reviews at DR Review and others that because of the new 14-42 zoom the new EPL2 is faster than E-PL1. We also know that the E-PL1 firm ware upgrades improved AF speed over what had first been reported widely on the internet.

I use the manual focus with both DSLR's and the EVIL cameras so it can be done with both without any lens gear if you lock max focus on a rock or other static object. Using manual has nothing to do with viewfinder V. live view. The viewfinder is better for both AF and manual. I have had the eye problems and dial in the correction I need to get sharp focus on the optical viewfinder which can be done with all but the worse vision problems. I can assure you that if you can't see the subject well through a quality optical viewfinder you will not see the subject well on a live view screen that can not be optically corrected like the optical system. If you want to point the camera and let the auto focus do all the work without knowing what you will end up with then live view is fine.

And yes the auto focus is more precise on DSLR's but the EVIL cameras are quite good for the cost.

You just can't keep trying to compare an under $500.00 camera to the current crop of quality DSLR's which start around $1000.00 and up range.

Phil Rudin

 

[Peter Guy]

Phil, thank you -- BUT (yes, there must be a "But") your response has me confused.

a. You wrote you do 98% of your shooting using auto-focus. If so, then aren't you just using the viewfinder/live view for composition and the system is doing the focus? And if I understand that correctly, how would one system be better than the other for composition?

b. I certainly understand the concept of focus lock using auto-focus and then locking in that setting. When done using focus lock, I would certainly imagine that an optical viewfinder, especially a magnified one, would result in a superior image since you would move the camera back and forth until YOU were satisified with the image you saw. IF that is what you mean by saying you use auto focus 98% of the time, then, yes, the optical would be superior.

c. And as I wrote earlier, doing a "true" manual focus (i.e., twirling the knob) then of course the optical would be superior.

It just might be that "We have a failure to communicate."

BTW, I understand that the new kits lens for the PEN is faster -- my question is merely, what does "faster" actually mean? For example, several years ago I was comparing shutter lag speeds for several cameras for use in shooting images of horses going over jumps. Making some estimates of horse speed, in turned out that the difference in lag could mean the horse moved 4 inches from the time you pressed the shutter button to over 18 inches. This had a real world significance in how to take the shot.

Here, we know the dSLRs focus faster; the new Oly kit lens not as fast but faster than the old -- but again, how much faster/slower? I'm unaware of any real world tests but I was hoping, being the expert you are, you might be aware of some. Just because something is faster doesn't necessarily mean it has any real world significance because "slower" may be fast enough.

Last comment -- I wish your class in Coz was a week later -- I'd be there. Do you do any classes in Palm Beach? I was there a few weeks ago and found the diving to be lovely.

 

[Greenbriel]

I bought an E-PL1 (about 2 weeks before they announced the PL2, of course), and have no regrets. I have been shooting topside for years, occasionally professionally, with DSLRs, and when I wanted to move up from my P&S for UW use, I was thrilled to learn about M43. I would rarely take my DSLR with me on vacation, preferring the portability of a P&S, but missed the snappy response and image quality, of course. The PL1 with VF2 is unbelievable topside (always on my hip or in my bag with the Panny 20mm), and I just got back from a week in Cozumel (at Casa Del Mar, Phil - nice place, great folks there), and for my first time out with the rig, I was happy with several of the shots.

More here: cozumel 2011 picks - a set on Flickr

I bought the PL1 in the kit with the 14-140 lens, and will be getting the new 14-42 mkII this weekend. I also have the 9-18mm and Zen dome. Several of the macro shots at the link above were shot with a borrowed mkI kit lens and the INON 67mm closeup lens.

Thanks to Phil and all here on SB who steered me toward what I consider a high quality, great value, flexible, and portable system.