Olympus E-M1 vs Panasonic point-and-shoot...notes
Dec 27, 2013 18:44:28 #
Comparing the Olympus E-M1 (16 megapixel) to my Panasonic ZS 19 (14 megapixel) might seem like comparing apples to oranges but there are basic functions that most cameras share....not referring to pin hole cameras, etc.
How do the basics compare. When I shot film I dealt with ISO, shutter speed, aperture opening, and focal length of the lens. The rest was the work of the film developer. Yes, they could "push" or "pull" the development time, but settings were so basic.
I would never have decided to buy more complex equipment had my Panasonic's ZS19 focusing ability been more reliable more of the time and ISO had been sharper at higher end. When things went right that camera took some great photos....absolutely wonderful color without having to fuss with menu settings. Always shot on iAuto.
Yes, backgrounds did not always blur, but most times that didn't matter.
Now I want backgrounds to blur when I choose, want the shutter speed to be fast, want at least the same wonderful color, and now I expect the camera/lens not to give me fits when I'm focusing. Asking too much from a more expensive, elaborate camera?
This camera experience is similar to giving up your favorite humble restaurant to learn to make your own good meals.
No post process adjustments to either photo below. Both photos looked better in Photoshop (for resizing only) than they do here.
How do the basics compare. When I shot film I dealt with ISO, shutter speed, aperture opening, and focal length of the lens. The rest was the work of the film developer. Yes, they could "push" or "pull" the development time, but settings were so basic.
I would never have decided to buy more complex equipment had my Panasonic's ZS19 focusing ability been more reliable more of the time and ISO had been sharper at higher end. When things went right that camera took some great photos....absolutely wonderful color without having to fuss with menu settings. Always shot on iAuto.
Yes, backgrounds did not always blur, but most times that didn't matter.
Now I want backgrounds to blur when I choose, want the shutter speed to be fast, want at least the same wonderful color, and now I expect the camera/lens not to give me fits when I'm focusing. Asking too much from a more expensive, elaborate camera?
This camera experience is similar to giving up your favorite humble restaurant to learn to make your own good meals.
No post process adjustments to either photo below. Both photos looked better in Photoshop (for resizing only) than they do here.
Olympus: ISO 200 F/8 1/400s 200mm zoom
Panasonic: ISO 100 f/5.3 1/640s ??mm zoom
Dec 27, 2013 19:17:13 #
Hmmm. Well, in the digital world "the basics" are no longer all that basic.
You no doubt know from your film experience that larger imaging areas (say,4x5 compared to 120 compared to 35MM) have, all else being equal, shallower depth of field. This translates directly in the divi-cam world because the two cameras you mention use sensors of different sizes; the Panasonic's being the smaller. Thus the DOF is increased, leading to more focused backgrounds (even at the wider aperture, which is another contributor to shallow DOF). At the extreme end, this is why cell phone cameras don't need to be focused; their imaging chips are even smaller than P&S cameras.
Of course, i am assuming that you like the Olympus shot better due to it's background being more out of focus. In addition, the low-light performance of larger imaging chips is generally better since the individual photo-sites are large and less prone to picking up the heat photons given off by the electronics themselves (what we call 'noise').
As for focusing speed; the mirror less cameras in general cannot focus as quickly as true DSLRs (not yet, at least) because they use different technologies to accomplish that. And the EVF in the Olympus might not be quite as crisp as a true DSLR's viewfinder; perhaps that contributes to your dissatisfaction with the focus?
That said, I'm not sure as to what you are asking for here beyond that.
You have obviously invested some more serious money in your Olympus kit, so I hesitate to suggest that, just for kicks, you were to check out a Canon or Nikon DSLR for comparison.
You no doubt know from your film experience that larger imaging areas (say,4x5 compared to 120 compared to 35MM) have, all else being equal, shallower depth of field. This translates directly in the divi-cam world because the two cameras you mention use sensors of different sizes; the Panasonic's being the smaller. Thus the DOF is increased, leading to more focused backgrounds (even at the wider aperture, which is another contributor to shallow DOF). At the extreme end, this is why cell phone cameras don't need to be focused; their imaging chips are even smaller than P&S cameras.
Of course, i am assuming that you like the Olympus shot better due to it's background being more out of focus. In addition, the low-light performance of larger imaging chips is generally better since the individual photo-sites are large and less prone to picking up the heat photons given off by the electronics themselves (what we call 'noise').
As for focusing speed; the mirror less cameras in general cannot focus as quickly as true DSLRs (not yet, at least) because they use different technologies to accomplish that. And the EVF in the Olympus might not be quite as crisp as a true DSLR's viewfinder; perhaps that contributes to your dissatisfaction with the focus?
That said, I'm not sure as to what you are asking for here beyond that.
You have obviously invested some more serious money in your Olympus kit, so I hesitate to suggest that, just for kicks, you were to check out a Canon or Nikon DSLR for comparison.
Dec 27, 2013 20:37:51 #
f8lee
Right now I'm not asking anything specific. I thought I would just make observations about what comes from test driving the Olympus and seeing how my point-and-shoot compares.
There are people who are thinking of buying cameras who like me, don't realize the depths of complexities that camera technology has created. Lots of people would like to pick up a camera, as I have for so long, and just take a photograph that looks good.
Because I started creating pages for a book, I came to realize that I needed a more reliable camera. Well, a camera can't be reliable until you figure out how it works. The greater the technical complexity, the more time it takes to figure it out. It's a left brain struggling with the right brain problem right now. I want to get out and photograph but I have to tinker with settings.....maddening! So to make this tolerable I am making a challenge out of it.
In the process of posting my comparison notes here, I look forward to people like you adding your comments which makes the learning experience much more insightful. By the way, I checked out your website. Really nice job!
Right now I'm not asking anything specific. I thought I would just make observations about what comes from test driving the Olympus and seeing how my point-and-shoot compares.
There are people who are thinking of buying cameras who like me, don't realize the depths of complexities that camera technology has created. Lots of people would like to pick up a camera, as I have for so long, and just take a photograph that looks good.
Because I started creating pages for a book, I came to realize that I needed a more reliable camera. Well, a camera can't be reliable until you figure out how it works. The greater the technical complexity, the more time it takes to figure it out. It's a left brain struggling with the right brain problem right now. I want to get out and photograph but I have to tinker with settings.....maddening! So to make this tolerable I am making a challenge out of it.
In the process of posting my comparison notes here, I look forward to people like you adding your comments which makes the learning experience much more insightful. By the way, I checked out your website. Really nice job!
Dec 27, 2013 21:05:28 #
Dec 27, 2013 21:55:04 #
Maybe I'm just used to olympus's menus (having owned an e500, e620, e5, and epm2)...you may find this post helpful...
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/discussion/75776-setting-up-e-m1.html
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/discussion/75776-setting-up-e-m1.html
Dec 27, 2013 22:36:08 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
The EM-1 is probably one of the most sophisticated and technologically innovative DSLRs (including Nikon or Canon) on this planet. For the money, it definitely is. Olympus makes great glass, no question about it. It does just about everything very well, if not best in class. Enlargements aren't going to be great as large as a 36MP full-size sensor's (D800), but they'll be good, and certainly a lot better than the Panny point and shoot's.
I've had full-size sensor (5DMkii),a few years ago, 1.6x crop sensor (7D) also a year ago, 4/3s (E-3 and E-5) recently, and now the E-1 and EP-5 in a micro 4/3s format. The EM-1 is the most advanced, feels the "slickest" and is very fun to shoot. The 7D was second, but its autofocus system was problematic and caused me to miss too many shots at critical times. But if you want a great system that takes wonderful photos in any situation, any of the major brands have models and lenses that will give you great imagesand years of shooting pleasure, greater than appoint-and-shoot could provide.
I've had full-size sensor (5DMkii),a few years ago, 1.6x crop sensor (7D) also a year ago, 4/3s (E-3 and E-5) recently, and now the E-1 and EP-5 in a micro 4/3s format. The EM-1 is the most advanced, feels the "slickest" and is very fun to shoot. The 7D was second, but its autofocus system was problematic and caused me to miss too many shots at critical times. But if you want a great system that takes wonderful photos in any situation, any of the major brands have models and lenses that will give you great imagesand years of shooting pleasure, greater than appoint-and-shoot could provide.
Dec 28, 2013 09:01:19 #
mossgate wrote:
.....
No post process adjustments to either photo below. Both photos looked better in Photoshop (for resizing only) than they do here.
No post process adjustments to either photo below. Both photos looked better in Photoshop (for resizing only) than they do here.
I think I would like to see the photos with identical ISO, f/stop and exposure. As it stands, I like the colours of the Olympus a bit better. (Could be I'm talking myself into that, as I am seriously considering getting the OM-D E-M1, but haven't yet been able to justify the price to myself...)
Dec 28, 2013 09:28:21 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
The OOC jpegs of the EM-1 will be better, after post-processing RAW files, they'll be a toss-up with some color saturation adjustment and sharpening (my guess only).
Enlarge them to 11x14 or larger and the EM-1 will smoke it.
Enlarge them to 11x14 or larger and the EM-1 will smoke it.
Dec 28, 2013 14:23:43 #
Morning Star
Despite how much of my ego is now wrapped up in this Olympus because of the expense with more expense to come I, too, would like to convince myself that everything about this Olympus camera is going to be better than my point and shoot. Based on my purely superficial operational knowledge of this Olylmpus, right now I would say that there is basically no difference as far as color rendition is concerned...remember I made no effort to color tweak either photo before posting them.
In my above sample the image sharpness was also pretty much the same. The Olympus was a bit less sharp on the left edge of the ceramic ornament but then depth of field was also more shallow so the angle of the ornament would probably have made it a little more blurred on that side.
Perhaps the fact that I am using a Panasonic Lumix lens on the Olympus might have something to do with the similarity in sharpness and color? Both cameras are using Lumix lenses.
My Panasonic point and shoot has such fabulous color with a little tweaking in Photoshop using Image Menu>Adjust>Levels that I think it will be hard to beat. Can't say yet what the difference might be in Lightroom or Photomatrix or other similar software. Both the above images could have used a little value enhancement and I did tweak the Olympus image in Photoshop and got the same richer color that I did with my Panasonic point and shoot.
As far as blurry, shallow depth of field of backgrounds is concerned Olympus definitely wins by a mile.
Much more testing to go. In fact I just pulled out my Canon Rebel, T2i to see how it also compares. It's somewhat lighter in weight but then its body is plastic.
Despite how much of my ego is now wrapped up in this Olympus because of the expense with more expense to come I, too, would like to convince myself that everything about this Olympus camera is going to be better than my point and shoot. Based on my purely superficial operational knowledge of this Olylmpus, right now I would say that there is basically no difference as far as color rendition is concerned...remember I made no effort to color tweak either photo before posting them.
In my above sample the image sharpness was also pretty much the same. The Olympus was a bit less sharp on the left edge of the ceramic ornament but then depth of field was also more shallow so the angle of the ornament would probably have made it a little more blurred on that side.
Perhaps the fact that I am using a Panasonic Lumix lens on the Olympus might have something to do with the similarity in sharpness and color? Both cameras are using Lumix lenses.
My Panasonic point and shoot has such fabulous color with a little tweaking in Photoshop using Image Menu>Adjust>Levels that I think it will be hard to beat. Can't say yet what the difference might be in Lightroom or Photomatrix or other similar software. Both the above images could have used a little value enhancement and I did tweak the Olympus image in Photoshop and got the same richer color that I did with my Panasonic point and shoot.
As far as blurry, shallow depth of field of backgrounds is concerned Olympus definitely wins by a mile.
Much more testing to go. In fact I just pulled out my Canon Rebel, T2i to see how it also compares. It's somewhat lighter in weight but then its body is plastic.
Dec 28, 2013 14:29:26 #
Cdouthitt
Thank you for that link. Will get back to you later on what I find there. I bookmarked it for reading this evening.
Thank you for that link. Will get back to you later on what I find there. I bookmarked it for reading this evening.
Dec 28, 2013 14:57:34 #
mossgate wrote:
Morning Star br br Despite how much of my ego is ... (show quote)
But mossgate, that doesn't address the fact that you used different settings on the two cameras:
Olympus: ISO 200 F/8 1/400s 200mm zoom
Panasonic: ISO 100 f/5.3 1/640s ??mm zoom
I know the settings equated to approximately the same overall, except the exposure time made a difference:
The Olympus had double the ISO, half the f/stop, just over 1 1/2 times the exposure...
I would like to see the same image, taken one right after the other (therefore with the same ambient light), and with identical camera settings - and then without any tweaking at all, but SOOC.
Dec 28, 2013 16:21:51 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
Maybe I'm just used to olympus's menus (having owned an e500, e620, e5, and epm2)...you may find this post helpful...
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/discussion/75776-setting-up-e-m1.html
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/discussion/75776-setting-up-e-m1.html
I also thank you for that link. I'm printing it to refer to. I have an E-M1, too.
Dec 28, 2013 19:46:05 #
mossgate wrote:
Comparing the Olympus E-M1 (16 megapixel) to my Pa... (show quote)
I don't understand, what you mean by comparing apples to oranges while you mention megapixels. Both cameras have about equal resolution, so should show about the same image quality, if used with the same lenses.
Dec 29, 2013 11:59:05 #
Morning Star
Let's see if I can say this right..... Apples vs Oranges= different minimum ISO capabilities, different light sensitivities of the lenses, different processing sensors, different types of image stabilization, different JPEG choices....not comparing to RAW.
All I am looking at is final results based on the cameras indicating that things are sharply in focus and exposure is correct keeping as close to the same settings as possible based on the camera's differences.
The above images are pretty close to the same in sharpness and color quality. The Olympus interestingly does not go below ISO 200. These two images were taken in the same basic time frame. One cannot control precise lighting in a natural setting, however, because exposure can change because of shifting atmospheric conditions....very thin clouds that might not even be noticeable that move under and past the sun.
I didn't do any tweaking of those images above. I just reduced their size to put them on this site. I'm keeping this all as straight forward as I can. It's all on the basis of JPEG files because my point and shoot does not do RAW files, which is where the Olympus starts to gain in comparisons. I should have added that these were JPEGS in my original post.
Here are the two images with minor value (tonal) adjustments in my old Photoshop 6. Yes, the Olympus wins in background blur.
Someone else would be better at explaining how lens focal lengths with differing sensors affect background blur and enlargement of backbround in relation to foreground subject. Longer focal lengths increases it but sensors play into it and there are websites that can explain that.
f8lee made some reference to that in an above post.
Let's see if I can say this right..... Apples vs Oranges= different minimum ISO capabilities, different light sensitivities of the lenses, different processing sensors, different types of image stabilization, different JPEG choices....not comparing to RAW.
All I am looking at is final results based on the cameras indicating that things are sharply in focus and exposure is correct keeping as close to the same settings as possible based on the camera's differences.
The above images are pretty close to the same in sharpness and color quality. The Olympus interestingly does not go below ISO 200. These two images were taken in the same basic time frame. One cannot control precise lighting in a natural setting, however, because exposure can change because of shifting atmospheric conditions....very thin clouds that might not even be noticeable that move under and past the sun.
I didn't do any tweaking of those images above. I just reduced their size to put them on this site. I'm keeping this all as straight forward as I can. It's all on the basis of JPEG files because my point and shoot does not do RAW files, which is where the Olympus starts to gain in comparisons. I should have added that these were JPEGS in my original post.
Here are the two images with minor value (tonal) adjustments in my old Photoshop 6. Yes, the Olympus wins in background blur.
Someone else would be better at explaining how lens focal lengths with differing sensors affect background blur and enlargement of backbround in relation to foreground subject. Longer focal lengths increases it but sensors play into it and there are websites that can explain that.
f8lee made some reference to that in an above post.
Dec 29, 2013 18:53:23 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.