m4/3 Anyone? Refurb EPL-1+14-42 $349

K6AZ wrote in post #11946639
I think that's asking a little much for one of these. Compared to a standard DSLR I think any of these mirrorless cameras are going to seem slow.

As far as the Sony, I had some bad experiences with their color reproduction early on in the digital era (particularly reds being too hot) and from what I understand they still have an issue with the colors.

Well... one can be fixed in PP, the other cannot Not being able to focus in time is a massive dealbreaker for me. It's not like I'm asking for 7d-level tracking capabilities...

MOkoFOko wrote in post #11946651
Well... one can be fixed in PP, the other cannot Not being able to focus in time is a massive dealbreaker for me. It's not like I'm asking for 7d-level tracking capabilities...

Tell you what if you want good AF speed in this type of camera - buy a M9.

K6AZ wrote in post #11946650
This isn't the E-P1. The m43 14-42 isn't the best kit lens. If all you used on it was the kit lens you probably didn't get an accurate idea of the camera IQ.

I believe you've missed some details in my last posting, which you actually referenced previously. I have thoroughly tested an E-p1 with 14-42mm, Lumix 20mm, and 45-200mm. I have a pretty good idea what it was capable of. I already said the 14-42 was crappy. However, this deal is for an E-PL1 with 14-42mm kit lens. So for the sake of an accurate comparison, I said the E-P1+14-42 didn't outshine my s95 in testing.

From the reviews I've read, AF performance for the e-PL1is only slightly improved from the original e-P1. The saving grace for the E-pen series so far has been the large assortment of high-quality lenses. I would have liked to try a Panasonic m4/3 body instead. Too bad.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #11946668
I believe you've missed some details in my last posting, which you actually referenced previously. I have thoroughly tested an E-p1 with 14-42mm, Lumix 20mm, and 45-200mm. I have a pretty good idea what it was capable of. I already said the 14-42 was crappy. However, this deal is for an E-PL1 with 14-42mm kit lens. So for the sake of an accurate comparison, I said the E-P1+14-42 didn't outshine my s95 in testing.

From the reviews I've read, AF performance for the e-PL1is only slightly improved from the original e-P1.

I read it, but in the post I quoted you only referenced the 14-42.

I wasn't speaking of AF performance. I was speaking of IQ. I wouldn't even think of using one of these for any type of serious action. They're good for times/places where you can't use a full size SLR.

K6AZ wrote in post #11946676
I read it, but in the post I quoted you only referenced the 14-42.

I wasn't speaking of AF performance. I was speaking of IQ. I wouldn't even think of using one of these for any type of serious action. They're good for times/places where you can't use a full size SLR.

AF performance concerns me more than IQ, when it comes down to a choice. I found the 20mm to have snappy focusing, but STILL not fast enough. All in all, I was disappointed. In terms of AF performance, my S95 was better, which is why I let my m4/3 kit go.

The 20mm is a really impressive lens. However, in comparing images, I still decided to go with the s95. The e-pen bodies provide "cheat" results, since they're PP'd before they even hit the memory card. Both jpeg and raw. After PP with my s95 images, I preferred the Canon.

As I suggested, if you're looking for AF performance similar to a full size SLR you might want to look at the M9.

As far as the IQ goes, that's subjective. A P&S camera is still a P&S camera and that includes the fact that you can't change lenses on one.

You are using the slower lenses, the panny lenses were never really fast. The fastest lenses for m4/3 are currently the olympus msc lenses. But the AF speed will not match the phase detect of the dslr. The is why the sony slt uses that translucent mirror to use the phase detect AF for speed.

And the nex 18-55 is also not that sharp, it is better then the sony pancake. But having shot around with it, they are no where near as sharp.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #11945662
I had the E-P1, the Panasonic 20mm, the kit 14-42mm, and the 45-200mm lenses. I sold everything off about 2-3 months ago. I had everything updated to the most recent firmware prior to sale. AF speed was abysmal. My standard for testing is sitting shotgun in a car and snapping pics of objects as they pass by (ie signs on the side of the road). The Nex5 with 18-55 lens gets stellar marks from me, only slightly worse than my canon rigs. The E-P1 with lenses however... poor is the only way to describe it.

I can only assume they've improved the most recent generations of lenses and the E-pl1/2 and E-p2


This is true. In any case, I'm enamored with the 18-55mm lens--not the pancake. It really is superb. I was shocked by how snappy the AF was.

Here is the thing about the telescope lens. You do not walk around with it extended until you are ready to shoot. And after you shoot, you close it back down.

It does not matter if the panny 14-45 or the olympus 14-42 are poor optically. The m4/3 correct system takes care of the problem. And between the panny and only kit lens, the oly is optically better by a tad.

Sony does not correct for the softness of their lens nearly as well as either panny or oly. So the OOC photos are way soft vs the m4/3. I wanted to buy the sony kit, but the OOC were no were as good.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #11946327
^^^ Sadly, the olympus kit is rather obtrusive and ugly when extended--and it's not exactly intuitive. It's awkward to say the least. The 14-42 can't compare with the 18-55--it's poorly reviewed. If you're addicted to the pancake though, m4/3 is the way to go.