Which mirrorless system for UW..e-pl3 vs gf2 vs sony nex-5n?

[cheetohcat]

Thanks for all of the great info! Really appreciate all the hands on POVs for UW use, and you all have given me a lot more to think about!

As an aside, I've considered dSLRs, but I they just aren't for me for two main reason: size + expense. I know I'm giving up the ultimate flexibility in lens options and the largest sensor sizes and the host of other dSLR advantages, but I'm ok with that. I'm out diving locally nearly every weekend, and travel with with my photography gear several times a year so having something I think is manageable is important to me.

Between full dive gear, photo gear, laptop, and land clothes, toiletries etc, it sure isn't a light load! I do try to pack light, but I am just not one of those people that can survive a week with just 1 pair of shorts and 2 tshirts. I accept my weakness! :blinking:

I doubt I would have ever moved up from the advanced compacts to a dSLR, but now that we are now seeing so many more of these solid mirrorless compact options available and with UW housing options, the timing feels right.

I do think with any of them I will see a dramatic improvement in picture quality, noise etc over my little s90. I already have sunk costs in my strobes, arms, tray and lights, so it's really all about the camera + lenses & Housing + ports/diopters at this point.

I am hoping to try out a few of them in person later this week, and check out housing options.

 

[tarjan]

Bullshark, check out dpreview in the m4/3 section. I'll go search for it later if you cant find it but someone did a bunch of investigating and using third party tools to get objective results. Not to mention you will find a bunch of information describing why those objective results are also potentially misleading if taken out of context.

The long and short is that the sensors are pretty close to being equiv in the g2 vs ep2 series of cameras and the iso is just marketing. The newer panasonic sensor seems to be similar but realistically they are hitting on megapixel limitations due to the sensor size and had to trade away some sensitivity. The long and short of it is that, in the current cameras, iso 200 in oly is basically the same thing as iso 100 in panasonic if you look at the end result. They both will have equal amounts of noise (not much) and have similar light sensitivity.

cheet: The jump from the s90 (which I also have) is pretty big. Not absolutely mind blowing mind you, but definitely a big step up. I notice faster lock-on and can pull more out of the raw images. Very rarely do I have to deal with the camera hunting around and the ability to hit moving objects is hugely improved. Not to mention the metering seems to be better.

For stationary objects.. it depends. If you are in a current the m4/3 is a big difference because of the speed, if you are floating still the s90 is a great camera.

video is no comparison. The m4/3 cameras are incredible.

 

[bullshark]

Bullshark, check out dpreview in the m4/3 section.

I did exactly that. It confirmed all my suspicions and settled itonce and for all. No MFT camera for me until they stop this absurd race for ever-higher ISO sensitivity.

Another thread with more technical details.

In the thread above, very experienced (and monied) photographers are discussing this and time and again, the assertion is made that lower ISO results in higher Image Quality, and in every case I read, the assertion was uncontested.

Paraphrasing (and perhaps oversimplifying ): Think of the camera's ISO range as electronic Window that is range bound by physics. Beneath the window is list of ISO ranges. When you move the top of the window, the bottom comes with it. So opening up new, higher ISOs sacrifices lower ISO's.

The fact that IQ is improved with lower ISO is undisputed in this thread. If you are patient and read enough you will see examples which highlight the need for lower ISO.

The MFT forum in DPReview has 876 pages of topics. I obviously didn't find the one you read, but I doubt seriously that anyone will refute the fundamental claims:

• Lower ISO = Higher Image Quality
• Lower ISO = Lower Noise (Same as above)

Until such time as they stop this nonsense of marketing by virtue of the highest ISO(at the expense of lower), MFT's are off my table.

 

[a_squeakycat]

I have been following and enjoying this thread since I also am about to upgrade from a P&S. I consider myself a recreational diver and while I want "good" pictures in the end they are merely my vacation snapshots. They will never make it to Nat'l Geo and that's okay with me. That being said I think a lot of folks like myself want as good a camera setup as we can afford and if it has shortcomings (and they all do) well it's a matter of taste. I won't go to a DSLR because of cost & size but I will switch to mirrorless. More $ than the compact I have but easier to carry on.

 

[gsk3]

I did exactly that. It confirmed all my suspicions and settled itonce and for all. No MFT camera for me until they stop this absurd race for ever-higher ISO sensitivity.

So to summarize, you think that:
1. You should just ignore a potentially awesome system because it doesn't offer low enough ISOs and you would rather not purchase a $30-50 Neutral Density filter.
2. Manufacturers are incorrect in focusing on lowering image noise at every given light level, which is what allows high ISO sensors.
3. Lower ISO always equals higher image quality, which is why we see so many ISO 10 cameras out there. The handful of manufacturers who have come up with camera-integrated ND filters just like spending money unnecessarily while delivering lower image quality than if they had just gone with the digital solution of lowering ISO.

 

[bullshark]

Perhaps if you were more sarcastic, you could actually contribute to the discussion. I'm guessing you're 5K on the other side of my choice and can't tolerate anyone thinking differently from you. Despite your undeservedly nasty attitude, I'll respond to your vapid attacks in order received.

1) I said I'm not buying a MFT. A neutral density filter is not an acceptable solution underwater and it will never improve image quality or DR; it will only cure the exposure problem topside. The expense of MFT is enormous, both in $, complexity and weight. I might as well go DSLR.

2) MFR's are playing marketing games. They don't want pros giving up their DSLRs. Next year they'll introduce ISO100 like its new technology and you'll buy a new camera. Noise reduction doesn't allow high ISO, it makes it marketable. Its done with software. Go ahead. Dazzle us all with your ISO12800 photos. I'm sure they're your finest.

3)Yes, on any given camera or sensor lower ISO always equals higher image quality. Further more, it also always increases Dynamic Range.

They don't make ISO10 cameras because it would require unreasonably long exposures, but if they did, IQ and DR would both be higher and noise would be lower. Ansel and Clyde might be using them if they existed, though.

Better cameras always offer lower ISO ranges. Heck even my G11 goes to ISO80 and with CHDK I can drop it to ISO50 (meaning it is already in the firmware). Heres another camera that offers ISO50 , Heres another (offers ISO80/likewise the Leica S2). Nikon, Canon and Olympus high-end DSLRs all shoot ISO100. But then according to you, it serves no purpose. I wonder who's right? Not.

MFT: not ready for prime time.

 

[gsk3]

Perhaps if you were more sarcastic, you could actually contribute to the discussion. I'm guessing you're 5K on the other side of my choice and can't tolerate anyone thinking differently from you. Despite your undeservedly nasty attitude, I'll respond to your vapid attacks in order received.

1) I said I'm not buying a MFT. A neutral density filter is not an acceptable solution underwater and it will never improve image quality or DR; it will only cure the exposure problem topside. The expense of MFT is enormous, both in $, complexity and weight. I might as well go DSLR.

2) MFR's are playing marketing games. They don't want pros giving up their DSLRs. Next year they'll introduce ISO100 like its new technology and you'll buy a new camera. Noise reduction doesn't allow high ISO, it makes it marketable. Its done with software. Go ahead. Dazzle us all with your ISO12800 photos. I'm sure they're your finest.

3)Yes, on any given camera or sensor lower ISO always equals higher image quality. Further more, it also always increases Dynamic Range.

They don't make ISO10 cameras because it would require unreasonably long exposures, but if they did, IQ and DR would both be higher and noise would be lower. Ansel and Clyde might be using them if they existed, though.

Better cameras always offer lower ISO ranges. Heck even my G11 goes to ISO80 and with CHDK I can drop it to ISO50 (meaning it is already in the firmware). Heres another camera that offers ISO50 , Heres another (offers ISO80/likewise the Leica S2). Nikon, Canon and Olympus high-end DSLRs all shoot ISO100. But then according to you, it serves no purpose. I wonder who's right? Not.

MFT: not ready for prime time.

Apologies on the sarcasm. Just one of those days. I'll try again:

- Manufacturers, generally speaking, do not play marketing games with pros in relation to high ISOs. I shot extensively in college, and have a few good friends who went pro (some of whom I trained). None of them has ever complained about having lower noise at higher ISOs.

-I do not shoot underwater. Just don't have the budget for it currently. I have owned over the years: Nikon N65, Nikon F4, Nikon D1h, Nikon D200, and Olympus E-P1. The first four were consecutive upgrades. Then the D200 I sold eventually because it was so big that I didn't take it on trips any more. The E-P1 was supposed to fix that, but it proved too slow in use (I'm picky). I have a Panasonic GF3 on order, mainly as a slightly-better-than-compact camera. I'm hoping it combines what I liked about the E-P1 (small size, near-full control over image parameters) with faster operation. There's full disclosure. So you can see I don't have $$$ in any system, and have substantial experience with Nikon (have put 10's of thousands of frames through quite a bit of their great glass), as well as a little bit with m4/3. I'm definitely not wedded to any system at the moment, and expect that in 3-4 years I'll be in something different. I do think that small format cameras have something to offer, however.

-They don't make ISO10 cameras because doing so would either require losing high ISO performance by redesigning the sensor, or would be unacceptably noisy.

-You still have not addressed why certain manufacturers have historically included internal ND filters (costly!) rather than just lower the ISO in software.

-Canon chose not to make ISO50 available without a firmware hack because it offered lower performance.

-Nikon cameras offer ISO100 but generally have a "base ISO" of 200. There's a reasonable attempt at an explanation here: Why do some DSLRs have a base ISO of 200, yet offer 100 in an "extended' mode? - Yahoo! Answers . Tests to confirm here: ISO 100 vs. ISO 200 on D300 sharpening test - Photo.net Nikon Forum . There are bunches of these tests with Nikon cameras, and they all basically say the same thing: ISO100 has higher noise than ISO160-200.

-MFT cameras have smaller sensors and generally less good noise correction, so they are higher noise to begin with. Plus they are generally aimed at non-professionals. Therefore, it makes perfectly good sense that they would not offer ISO100, since people might unknowingly use ISO100 and then complain about the noise. That said, I'd like it at least as a menu option.

In short, I think it'd be nice if they offered lower ISOs, but there are other things I'd fix about them first. I am genuinely curious why you would want lower ISO underwater, though. Can't you just turn down the strobes? I guess maybe in shallow, high-vis water there might be enough ambient to matter if you really wanted shallow DoF....

 

[spencerjb22]

I have just started using the E-PL3 and have posted a collection here The Maldives - Below - a set on Flickr
It's a great little system and very flexible too.

 

[DSR-3]

>The expense of MFT is enormous, both in $, complexity and weight. I might as well go DSLR.

>MFT: not ready for prime time.

Thanks to all for the interesting reading.
However as an MFT convert, I will add that I disagree with these 2 points.
1. Complex- not really. Cost- I built my MFT setup for ~less~ than a DSLR housing costs. Weight (and just as important, size)- I can fit my entire rig, plus a laptop & more in a Tamrac carry-on backpack, which is not much more space than a similar P&S rig takes.
2. MFT can well be an economical upgrade path, and the results are worth the investment. P&S to DSLR is just too big of a step for many.

 

[Tigerman]

You spent less than $1500 on a MFT with an UW housing? I guess you didnt buy any strobes or other "optional extras"..