Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 29, 2010, 11:15 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

ISO 3200 tests from Imaging Resource. EPL1 first and then Pentax Kx. Obvious who the winner is.

Copyrighted Images removed by moderator

JimC
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2010, 11:17 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The epl-1 is not great at that high of a iso setting. 2000iso is max. The strength of the epl-1 is 100-1600iso.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2010, 10:36 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pboerger View Post
ISO 3200 tests from Imaging Resource. EPL1 first and then Pentax Kx. Obvious who the winner is.
What makes you think that comparing the two IR's images are more acceptable then the images I posted? Just because they do camera reviews? If you have been around photography for a while, you should know that many many times the reviews do not reflect true reality and real life experiences.

I have two comments to make about IR images.

1. the lighting is very different between the two shots with the Pentax shot being a lot brighter. This has not been my experience at all with these cameras. The Kx does shoot brighter images (over exposes) than the EPL1. The difference in brightness in the IR shots are at least by +0.3 but it could very well be +0.7 and it explains why the Kx shot has less noise (the exposure of the shots I took are much more consistent bewteen the two cameras). However, it does not mean the Kx is an OBVIOUS winner. If you follow the edges of the model's face specially around the mouth/lips, you'll see that the EPL1 offers better resolution. Even with less light the EPL1 image will clean up better.

2. Where's the EXIF data of the IR images? You can see ALL my camera settings from the images I posted but their images have no EXIF information, so I can't look at the camera settings used for those shots (i.e. what white balance setting was used? A/S values? Ev? etc.). I'm not suggesting they set the cameras differently but we all know that an improper white balance setting for instance can affect the outcome of a shot big time. I adjusted the WB appropriately on both cameras rather than shooting in AUTO. The reason is because I was not testing the camera's capabilities to handle WB in AUTO mode and adjusting WB is what we do in real life anyway (at least I do).

So, if you think the whole purpose of my post was to bash Pentax, then instead of spending three days trying to figure out a way to get back to me (and then come up with a comparison that is not even yours), why don't you get your Kx, go out and shoot in low light at ISO 3200 and post the results (with full exif info.)? I'd never under-mind anyone's tests simply because I don't like the results.

I have both the EPL1 and the Kx. I took some pictures with both cameras in the same location, under the same exact lighting conditions, of the same exact subjects with the same camera settings and with the camera's kit lenses. I posted both OOC and (identically) edited versions of the images. I also provided FULL EXIF information. Explain to me why my tests are not valid but IR are.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2010, 11:21 AM   #24
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

pboerger:

Please do not embed images in posts here, unless you took them yourself and you still hold the copyright for them.

If you want others to see images that you did not take, please just post a link to the page you found them on.

Thanks.

Tullio:

The lighting imaging-resource uses is identical for their test images like that.

Here's a page that shows their setup and test methodology for the photos from the INB sets from both cameras that were posted.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/INBGUIDE.HTM

If you want to compare images from two cameras taken in identical lighting, you can use their comparometer feature:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

I do see that the exposure was a bit different (1/80 second at f4 for the Pentax, 1/100 second at f/4 for the Oly) for that ISO 3200 INB photos. So, the Pentax was exposed a tad brighter for the test shot they chose for the comparometer. They try to find the best looking shots from the series they take with each camera for use with that feature.

But, if you look at a given camera's review and go to the Thumbnails page (go to the Samples tab in each review and you'll see a link to Thumbnails), you can see more photos with different exposure settings.

Here's that page for the K-x:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/KX/KXTHMB.HTM

Here's that page for the E-PL1:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EPL1/EPL1THMB.HTM
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2010, 11:56 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
...
I do see that the exposure was a bit different (1/80 second at f4 for the Pentax, 1/100 second at f/4 for the Oly) for that ISO 3200 INB photos. So, the Pentax was exposed a tad brighter for the test shot they chose for the comparometer. They try to find the best looking shots from the series they take with each camera for use with that feature....
I like the word "try". This is exactly what I mean when I say that just because they are camera reviewers it does not mean they are always 100% accurate. I'd never have posted those shots, specially not for comparison purposes because they can not be compared. The exposure difference between the EPL1 and the Kx is too grate and it affects the outcome big time, particularly when comparing high ISO performance. The darker the image, the more noise you get. So, between my test and their test, I think mine is more representative (at least in this case).
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 4:27 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Looks to me like there is something wrong with the KX or .....I dunno ?

A lot of your submitted pix from the KX are obviously out of focus.

I have a KM and it doesn't have anything in the finder to denote focus points...except the central lines.

I'm not sure what the issue is, as my old 35mm or medium format film equipment (Mamiya) were pretty well the same. I have no difficulty...after 1000's of pix...just using the central part of the viewfinder as the focal point. I also listen to the beep to confirm that the focus is spot on.

The KM is precise and the clarity of the pictures is spot on.

I also have a K10D with all the bells and whistles re; focal points...I switch continuously between the 2 bodies with no difficulties.

At first I had to adjust to the different system. But, after a short while it's second nature.

It might just be the same deal with you and the KX.....a case of getting used to how a different camera functions.

Last edited by lesmore49; Oct 29, 2010 at 4:30 PM.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 7:36 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Thanks for your comments, lensmore. Actually, I sent the Kx back. The lack of AF confirmation light really bugged the heck out of me. I also noticed that the camera was not metering accurately with MF lenses and the focus assist (focus trap - hold the shutter half way while turning the focus ring...the camera beeps when it thinks it reached focus)) did not work very accurately either. Oh well, if the Kr receives the same reviews as the Kx, I'll give it a try once prices start to come down.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 11:23 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Thanks for your comments, lensmore. Actually, I sent the Kx back. The lack of AF confirmation light really bugged the heck out of me. I also noticed that the camera was not metering accurately with MF lenses and the focus assist (focus trap - hold the shutter half way while turning the focus ring...the camera beeps when it thinks it reached focus)) did not work very accurately either. Oh well, if the Kr receives the same reviews as the Kx, I'll give it a try once prices start to come down.
sounds like you got a lemon....every time I buy something new...I wonder if it's a good one or not.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2010, 9:47 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

It could very well be. After all, it was an open box from Amazon, so who knows why the camera was returned in the first place. But, that does not change the fact that I was bothered by the lack of focus point. The Kr may be the way to go.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2010, 1:49 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
It could very well be. After all, it was an open box from Amazon, so who knows why the camera was returned in the first place. But, that does not change the fact that I was bothered by the lack of focus point. The Kr may be the way to go.

You could be right. I always ask for an unopened box, but some clerks are very good about repacking...I never know.

I agree with you about waiting for the KR. Although I like my KM very much, I wished I had waited for a year and a half for the KR. Lot's of better technology in this new camera, compared to my KM.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:32 AM.