JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4732 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2610 times:
I recently purchased an Olympus E-PL1 micro four-thirds camera. I took it out for a spin and ultimately decided it wasn't for me, but the images it produces are good enough for here. Testimony to this is the following shot I took, accepted today inciedntly...
It was taken at 42mm using the supplied 14-42mm kit lens. The original image lacked detail and was a touch grainy compared to what DSLRs can produce, but as long as you're not an avid pixel-peeper (like me!) you should be satisfied with what it can do. The size/quality trade-off is pretty fair against a DSLR in my opinion.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4732 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2597 times:
That was a jpeg, set to large size and super-fine detail. Shot on aperture priority at f/8, ISO100. I processed it in a very similar way to the way in which I process files from my DSLR - in other words, just a couple of minutes' work.
Pixel-peeping is a term used to describe zooming right in on an image to check for sharpness and detail. In reality it's pointless as people view an image as an entire picture, and once resized any tiny flaws are likely to disappear anyway. But it is a concise way of comparing sharpness and detail between two images/cameras/lenses/etc.
Each to their own. Pixel-peepers take a bit of flack for their overly fussy habits but it's everyone's prerogative to be picky. I certainly don't think anyone should be openly criticised for it.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2498 times:
Without question 4/3 cameras can produce A.net quality images. Depending on make/model I would say there is a quality overlap between micro 4/3 sensors and the budget end of the DSLR market, but many micro 4/3 lenses are also superior to many DSLR lenes in terms of sharpness and contrast. The 20mm you have is a case in point - edge to edge sharpness, no vignetting and excellent contrast wide open ... not many DSLR lenses at any price can achieve that!
BUT 4/3 does not stand up so well at higher ISOs - I wouldn't generally use my GF1 above 200 ISO. AF is generally not as fast as most DSLRs, and frame rate (if that matters) is lower. Then of course there is the matter of diffculty of using the LCD in bright light, or, alternatively, the tiny viewfinder.
In short, it is certainly possible to shoot high quality aviation images with a 4/3 camera; but in action situations a DSLR is probably the better tool for the job.
canadiantree From France, joined Jun 2006, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
Thank you both for the very detailed replies. I'm excited in my beginnings of plane spotting photography. Do you recommend using a certain version of Photoshop for post processing?
Yes, I know high ISO is an issue with non DSLR's. On my GH2 I've noticed very little noise up to ISO 1600 but I'm not planning on shooting at night anyways, I live too far away from the airport for it to be convenient.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
Quoting canadiantree (Reply 5): Do you recommend using a certain version of Photoshop for post processing?
Although I'm a dedicated Photoshop user, I wouldn't recommend it unless you are seriously into photo manipulation as 90% of the features you would never normally use.
Photoshop Elements (at a fraction of the price) will deal with all normal photo processing requirements; alternatively many people swear by Adobe Lightroom as the best thing to come along in years.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Jun 2006, 91 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4732 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
