a little bit of everything…(E-5 image test at dpreview)
No sense video: First “weird”(!) E-PL1s test 
Dpreview posted the new Pentax K-5 review and on page 19 you can find a Studio comparison with the Olympus E-5!
“Leica M9.5″ – The Small But Excellent Panasonic GF1 by David Babsky (SteveHuff)
E-PL1 with “film alike LCD screen cover” (DC.watch.impress).
E-P1.net: “We’re offering a $100 prize to the winner, the contest is titled “your best micro four thirds photo of 2010″. Thanks!”
Focus Numerique posted an image gallery.
Apple releases RAW compatibility update which supports the GF2 and GH2!
Panasonic 14mm vs Pentax 40mm size comparison mikkagashi.
Zonkie
3 years ago |The improvement in the new E-PL1s kit lens autofocus is amazing. The original one didn’t do a great service to the great PENs (yes, it’s compact and has decent quality, but still). Really good that the new PENs will have this much improved one.
Regarding the E-5 samples, it seems that Olympus didn’t dare to put the very weak anti-aliasing filter of the E-PL1 on a professional camera like the E-5 and opted for one slightly stronger. I guess it’s a safe decision. Hopefully next week DPR will publish the E-5 review (or the GH2, or both!).
Voldenuit
3 years ago |>Regarding the E-5 samples, it seems that Olympus didn’t dare to put the very weak anti-aliasing filter of the E-PL1 on a professional camera like the E-5 and opted for one slightly stronger. I guess it’s a safe decision.
Definitely a sensible decision.
On a side note, I like what DPR has been doing with regards to shadow noise/detail tests lately, namely racking up +3EV compensation in post and seeing what the results look like.
I think it’s a good way to separate true low read noise (lots of detail to be gained) vs NR algorithms (poor detail gains). The K7 and D7000 are good examples of the former. Guess we’ll see how the E-5 fares when the full review comes out.
Boss
3 years ago |Wow the resolution of the E-5 holds up quite well against many of its competitors, it even holds its own against the D3.
Wife
3 years ago |Wow you need glasses
Boss
3 years ago |The E-5 has a better lens than the D3 in the comparison, but that is the lens I use most and it is very comparable to the D3 results. Maybe you need glasses.
Abi
3 years ago |Hi admin! Any news on E-P3 yet?
DMA
3 years ago |Odd comparision to the E-5 as the focal length on the E-5 seems wider than all the others…
Jonathan
3 years ago |it’s not a question of focal length – what you are seeing is similar size (in pixels) 100% crops. the higher the resolution – the larger the photographed objects appear.
the e5 looks quite good up to ISO 800, but unfortunately falls way behind the competition from ISO 1600 upwards. the RAW files suffer from yellow blotches and JPGs are blurry. having read so many positive reviews and satisfied user comments, i am disappointed. the full review should be interesting.
the pentax is very good!
DMA
3 years ago |Nonetheless it makes it for an unrealistic comparision, one which truly doesn’t demonstrate the IQ of the E-5 under real conditions. In many respects there’s a reverse manification effect, as a result, where the MP is the leading rasion d’etat, when that doesn’t necessarily mean much for actual picture quality.
Boss
3 years ago |The comparison is actually quite good, as you can pick different sections of the photo and compare up to four cameras at once. You obviously don’t understand the point of the comparison. And the Olympus is actually longer than the others, not wider.
DMA
3 years ago |Actually I do understand completely. And I’m not rubbishing the E-5 at all as I own one. The point I’m making is, however, the comparison isn’t fair insofar as the “chopping” is the same for all of them. When making a fair comparison it should be identical.
DMA
3 years ago |Actually I meant to say “the “chopping” _isn’t_ the same for all of them” (sorry about that
)
Jonathan
3 years ago |of course it is a valid comparison, it demonstrates the difference in resolving power.
DMA
3 years ago |Yet that isn’t a fair comparison to actual image quality because it is biased towards MP. So of course the E-5 isn’t going to appear as good, yet without a doubt it produces better IQ than the test would suggest. Furthermore, I would dare argue, that most people (especially Olympus users) are more interested in IQ than the MP resolution
A case in point is the far better overall comparison, done earlier by Colorfoto.de, which was posted here at 4/3 Rumors.
Boss
3 years ago |The Pentax is decent, but not better than the E-5. Same price, but the E-5 has better image quality, especially with the 50mm.
Jonathan
3 years ago |you’re happy with the e5′s performance as demonstrated in this test? good for you!
the fact that most people do not your opinion definitely does not mean you’re not entitled to it.
other than that the k5 is less than $1400 on amazon, $300 less than the e5.
yosemite
3 years ago |Don’t use the OS X RAW update. It’s broken, i.e. produces green rendered images that can’t be converted to normal ones. Apple is aware of the problem but unwilling to pull it for some crazy reason.
WHAH!
3 years ago |whah!!!
My shiny and innovative E5 comes up short!
Oh, will someone just call the F-ing WHAHmbulance already? Sad …
Zaph
3 years ago |So when will it be available outside of Japan? I’m 99% sure that I’ll be buying an E-PL1, but I’d much rather have an E-PL1s.
zizi
3 years ago |but why the samples in comparation table of E5 look like the image from EPL, and others DSLRs don’t? you can look at the image of paper clips. and how they did the pictures if the image from E5 is soft compare to EPL1?