m4/3's vs higher end p&s?

[watered down]

thank you under water for the quick response and thank you everyone else who contributed, it helped a lot. it looks like i might be picking up an epl1 today!

 

[slowhands]

.... my understanding is that the sensor in the epl1 is much larger than most point and shoots (g12 and others too?) so in effect it takes noticeably better quality pictures? is that correct?

i would probably be sold on the epl1 except for the fact that i was reading how its autofocus was relatively slow in comparison to others which for me, could be an issue because im a freediver so i dont have an unlimited amount of bottom time. i have gotten my hands on most of these at the store but haven't had practice with them to know what kind of pictures they take.

so i guess the underlying question for me is, will i be disappointed by the image quality of say the g12 in comparison to the epl1 despite the the epl1's rumored slowness?...

The early reviews of the E-PL1 used cameras with old firmware. The latest firmware sped up the autofocus quite a bit. Then you can swap in the newer 14-42mm II lens for even faster autofocus. That is much faster, but the reviews were never updated. The E-PL1 is just as fast as the E-PL2, as I discovered when I had one for a week to poach the lens. The new lens is much quieter during video too, a side effect I love.

To go faster, don't auto focus. Preset the focus on manual, use manual exposure and there is essentially no delay.

I would have thought a free diver would want a more compact rig though. Do you dive with a strobe too? Seems like quite a bit of rig to haul freediving...

 

[watered down]

thank you slowhands. i actually just received my epl1 yesterday so i've had a little bit of time to play with it and so far im ready to get in the water with it housing or not haha! i will be in the keys in june so i should have the housing at least before then or as soon as i can afford it really.

i weighed my options and i thought that the size of the epl1 was probably worth it when comparing image quality to some of the smaller cameras out there. i dont have plans to be using a strobe as of now, mostly because i am still beginning to acquire knowledge about all of this.

 

[Puffer Fish]

In general bigger is better than smaller and newer is better than older.
Take a look at
DxOMark Sensor For Benchmarking Cameras
and see the results for sensor quality as a function of size/cost/time on the market.

Note these are sensor quality only, NOT PHOTO QUALITY which depends on the thing pointing the camera. You can take good pics with small cameras (ask Jim Lyle, who was LAUPS photographer of the year with an OLY 5050) but it is easier with cameras with bigger sensors.

The main advantage to me of shooting with P&S cameras is that you can get wide and macro on the same dive. The disadvantage is that it is harder to get just the shot you want (at least for me, Pufferfish will have a different take on this of course). I am currently shooting both the 7D and the NEX-5. I love the size and simplicity of the NEX-5 (other than the software) but for shots that I want to print or put into a competition I will take the 7d. The Nex-5 doesn't yet have all the lenses that I want to shoot.

As for shutter lag, the NEX is quite good (yes I know it isn't 4/3, but rather APS) so you won't be disappointed with that aspect.

Bill

Bill, been meaning of addressing the issue of DXOmark...that is a very questionable evaluation of a sensor.

It is just an evaluation of dynamic range and noise in raw.


It measures the sensor's ability to capture a wide range from light to dark.... the second is essentially the ability of the sensor to capture a uniform color, as that same uniform color (pixel to pixel variation).

It is a raw evaluation, meaning that one may never be able to actually see the results.

One of the older camera's that has very high marks is the Fuji S-5. A camera I have used professionally a lot. It had the best dynamic range, but more importantly, the lowest noise level of any camera I have every used....and at best, you could make an nice 8 x 10 with it...perhaps an 11 x 14, but you would start to see issues. I used it to capture calibrated images, and accuracy was far more important than resolution.

I've compared G10 images to the S-5, and there is no contest. The G10 resolution is almost twice that of the S-5. But the G10 image is not as accurate (in an absolute sense), nor does it have as low a noise level.

Problem is, the jpeg we end up looking at does not always show any of those issues...but we do see resolution.

There is a famous evaluation web site that used to rate video cards... brand A could do 256 frames per second versus brand B that could only do 212...problem was, the computer was only running at 60 frames per second. After years of doing it, one day they realized that it was a waste of time, and stopped. Truth was, if the card never went below 60, no one would ever see any difference.

There is absolutely no question than bigger sensors have better dynamic range, and have less noise (don't know why one needs to measure the obvious).. but underwater images tend to not have high dynamic range, and noise, below the jpeg translation level is converted back into a smooth look.

The real issue of resolution (which is somewhat at odds with dynamic range and noise) gets completely lost.

You may note how well the current Nikon results are on that site.. and you make also note that if you go to a site that has identical images to down load, that canon images tend to have better resolution. This is no accident as one company's focus is not the others. Is one better? Well, yes and no, as it depends on what one wants...

If you have a large format printer... just down load one of the many comparison images (dpreview has lots of very nice ones) and print them, then compare. I don't bother any more, but the last ones I did were the G10 versus the D300. Every "expert" I could find either could not tell or picked the wrong one.

I suggest anyone that believes they can tell the difference between an Dslr and a highend point and shoot just do the same thing (11 x 14 works really well for this)...and then do a blind comparison.

G11's and G12 are no where near as good, but they have far better higher iso images.

I only do 11 x 14 to 13 x 19 prints. And at that size, any really good camera, with a sensor 10 meg or larger, with a good lens will make excellent images.

One of the really interesting issue here is the difference in lens quality between a high end point and shoot and any DSLR lens...there are several issues that make it impossible to make a really accurate SLR lens...and most Good Point and shoots are several times more accurate. The G series lens is more than 3 times better than any slr lens ever made...but size, large movement and the mount system all introduce issues that the tiny point and shoot does not have.

A D7000, for example, can resolve between 2,600 and 2,800 lines per image, which is pretty darn good... that is roughly 110 lines per mm..the G10 was 2,500... with a 7.6mm wide sensor, or just under 330 lines per mm....no slr lens can come close to that number. The nex-5 is identical to a G10 (again, not bad for an interchangable lens)...

So is a Nex-5 images better than a G10? Well it depends on if you use ISO 80 to 100, and if you are not shooting a hight dynamic range image (say underwater with a strobe), and you are not using one of the lens that the canon cannot duplicate... if that is the case then the images are pretty much identical.

Where the Nex-5 is a ton better is all the neat things one can do with lens and housing and other "stuff".

Bill, PM me your addess, and I will send you two large prints.. one from a nice DSLR and one from a very nice point and shoot...show them to your friends, experts... and then announce which is which... and I will be happy to then send the file with the actual info...as a point and shoot cannot do a good large print, this should be really easy.