1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Like to see great landscape with E-P3

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by RenaudVL, Oct 14, 2011.

  1. RenaudVL

    RenaudVL Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 21, 2011
    Hello all,

    Any have links to great landscape done with E-P3 or E-PL3?

    Thanks, I am still debating if I am going for it or not...
  2. DIS Ottawa

    DIS Ottawa Guest

    I wouldn't call them great landscapes but here's a couple of recent ones using the E-P3 and Olympus 12mm f2.0. A071648-Edit.
    E-P3    OLYMPUS M.12mm F2.0    12mm    f/8.0    1/320s    ISO 200
    • Like Like x 5
  3. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    I don't know if its great and the EPL3 played a strictly supporting role to the Samyang fisheye lens, and of course its processed to within an inch of its life, but here's one:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/6218047155/" title="Fishin on Neptune by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 179340 "1024" height="683" alt="Fishin on Neptune"></a>
    • Like Like x 3
  4. marto

    marto New to Mu-43

    Nov 25, 2010
    Yambol, Bulgaria
    E-P3 + 7-14/4 @ 7mm @ f/7.1

    • Like Like x 5
  5. RenaudVL

    RenaudVL Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 21, 2011
    Thank you gentlemen,
    These are fine examples. Really great actually and really show the potential of these camera.

    I have two system I am feeding, Canon and Olympus m4/3. Where I am debating is do I want to upgrade my T2i to 7D or my E-P2 to E-P3... I find it difficult to make my mind on this one...

    Thanks, your pictures does help...
  6. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    I would say there is not a great difference between the E-P2 and E-P3 in terms of image quality--you can check DPreview. I don't know the Canon line very well, but a better "upgrade" path would be going from an APS-C to a 35mm size sensor. Going from one camera to another with the same size sensor is not a big jump.
  7. M4/3

    M4/3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 24, 2011
    t2i = T3i = 60D = 7D in landscape image quality

    E-P2 = E-P3 in landscape image quality (though the E-P3 may have a slight edge)

    So with either Canon or Olympus, rather than using money to upgrade the body, you might consider upgrading the lens's to get sharper, more detailed images.

    I personally don't like the colors my T3i delivers when I shoot landscapes so I use strictly Olympus m4/3 gear to shoot landscapes. I think Marto's E-P3 photo above shows how Olympus can deliver rich yet natural looking colors like the film cameras of the past could deliver. I havn't been able to get my T3i to do that reliably and consistently.
  8. DIS Ottawa

    DIS Ottawa Guest


    I also have a 7D and a 5D Mark II. I have been very pleasantly surprised by just how good the E-P3 is compared to the 5D. Clearly the Canon is better, but not by nearly as much as I expected. The 7D is better than the E-P3, its controls are much easier to use, it has weather sealing, shoots at 8 frames/second and so on but the image quality is pretty darn close.

    The E-P3 is my first M4/3 camera so I don't know if it's much better than the E-P2 but I shouldn't think so. As M4/3 said, getting a better lens is probably your best option. If you really want a better body, the 5DII would be the one to get currently, or wait until the 5DIII comes out. But don't forget the size and weight penalty with the dSLRs like the 5D or 7D, not to mention the cost.
  9. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    I have owned 5dMk2 and 7D.. but it took me awhile to admit the Oly EP3 with good lenses is just as good.. You paid more for the 5D mk2 and 7D so you have to adjust your pride level. LOL.. :smile:
  10. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    Clearly the Canon is not better.. I totally disagree.. :smile:
  11. M4/3

    M4/3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 24, 2011
    Check out the Canon DSLR landscape forum:
    Nature & Landscapes - Canon Digital Photography Forums

    I don't see anything there than an Oly M4/3 can't do. And nearly all the landscape photos in that Canon forum have colors that look somewhat artificial whereas the Oly Pen cameras deliver more pleasing natural looking colors like Marto's photo above.
  12. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Mr. Doug... I understand that you are equally happy with the results you are getting from m4/3 as from the full frame sensor in the 5DMkII. But I could not disagree more strongly with the statement that m4/3 is "just as good". I wish it were true, but I shoot a LOT with both and there are significant differences. I'm not saying m4/3 isn't a great format and camera system, because it is and I love it. But it is simply not comparable to the full frame sensor on the 5DMkII in terms of dynamic range, lattitude, and detail at larger sizes. I have applications and situations where I simply cannot attain "equal" results with m4/3, though I wish I could. Maybe some day. I will continue shooting m4/3 for a very long time, I hope... perhaps long enough to see that.

    I love my 5DMkII and I love my m4/3 gear, but they each have separate niches and applications as far as my needs go. For your needs, they may be equal.
  13. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 All-Pro

    I very much disagree that going from one camera to another with the same size sensor is not a big jump. While Olympus users aren't seeing huge sensor improvements, you are seeing it with other companies. With Canon it's not as obvious, but with Nikon there are leaps and bounds advantages to upgrading from, let's say, D70 to D80 to D90 to D7000. Even the D80 to D90, which is a near-identical camera save for the sensor and meter, is a definite upgrade that shows improvements in image quality.

    The handling advantages of a 7D from a T3i for an experienced photographer is worth the upgrade alone. The 10D to 20D to 30D had near-identical image quality, megapixels aside, but the handling advantages were very welcome. Although, Renaud if you are asking this question then the handling improvements aren't probably worth it to you. As mentioned elsewhere, the T3i is identical in IQ to a 7D.

    Also, full frame is another format compared to APS-C (especially seeing how seriously invested the companies are in keeping APS-C alive, with the D7000, K-5, and 7D), even though the two systems share the same mounts and lenses. You might as well tell someone to skip m4/3 and go to APS-C, because at least in that trade-up in image quality, the upgrader is getting more for his money.

    I definitely agree that lenses should be bought before upgrading bodies. Renaud, why do you want to upgrade? Good advice that I got from a mentor was that one should only upgrade equipment to correct a deficiency that currently exists. If there isn't anything wrong with your current equipment, or you don't see a feature that you need, then don't sweat it! Keep your bodies, and invest in lenses like the 7-14 or 12mm (or similar Canon landscape lenses, like the 10-22 or 17-40 L).

    The one large advantage that the 7d has for landscape photography is mirror lock-up. If you're shooting from a tripod, this is a very important feature to squeeze that extra bit of quality from your lenses. And if you don't have a tripod yet, then you're missing out as a landscape photographer! Having rock solid support, along with the capability to correct framing to the smallest degree is wonderful.

    DHart, I absolutely enjoy it when you post. You are always so objective and honest, both with yourself and others on this forum. Compound that with your obvious skill and experience, and it's a treat to have you here.
  14. DIS Ottawa

    DIS Ottawa Guest

    Mr. Doug,

    I'm pleased that you're satisfied with your M43 gear and if you cannot see a difference between that and the results from the full frame 5DII, then you made the right decision to get rid of it. I, and others, can, however, see that difference and so I will continue to use the 5D when I want the best quality I can get and the M43 for when I want to travel light and still get good results.

    We're lucky that today there are so many wonderful choices to satisfy almost everyone.
  15. RenaudVL

    RenaudVL Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 21, 2011
    Thanks every one for your contribution to this thread,

    Here some background.
    I have been shooting with DSLR for a long time, my first was a Canon 300D Rebel. I soon upgraded to a 40D with a stack of big lens.
    My wife and I travel once or twice a year and doing photography is a big part of my enthusiasm to travel.

    One year though I got fed up of carrying the big gear and swore it was the last time...

    So I sold every thing and went M4/3 with the E-P1 and then upgraded to E-P2, went to Netherlands with a much smaller rig and was really happy about it. When I look at my pictures I find the they are missing some spunk. (E-P2, M4/3 14-150 and M4/3 9-18)

    So I went back to Canon with the rebel line a T2i with Sigma 17-70mm OS lens as a walk around setup and not that much more impress with the result. I thought that the smaller body of the rebel line would be a good middle ground.

    So when the E-P3 was announce I thought it would be the answer to my dilemma, better image quality and faster focus, which annoy me a bith on the E-P2.

    So upgrading the the body became the solution in my mind and for a reason the it is eluding me, upgrading the optics was not first in line...

    Need to ad that I a bit of a pixel peeper...:rolleyes: 

    I agree with the idea of upgrading my lens would be a good first step and using a tripod was not considered also due to image stabilization, but I do see the added value....
    I also agree that the full frame body must provide better images with good lens. But the usage that I do of my pictures make justifying the cost a bit difficult for me and my minister of finance...:redface:

    Hope this help understanding where I am coming from.

    Thanks again every one...
  16. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Much faster general operating speed and AF in particular is a very good reason to get the EP3 or EPL3 over an EP1 or EP2. Better image quality isn't. For landscapes, I'd be hard pressed to make an argument to upgrade. But for general shooting which might involve moving subjects, there's a strong argument to be made...

    • Like Like x 1
  17. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    shnitz... many thanks for your kind remarks. It's a joy to be here.
  18. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 All-Pro

    That's fine if you are unhappy with the images at the pixel level, but realistically, what is the most that you do with your photos? Do you ever print them, and if so, what's the largest size that you've printed? If you are printing at relatively smaller sizes, or you're just viewing them on a screen, then don't worry about pixel peeping, because the largest that someone will realistically view the image at is 2560 x 1600, which means your image is scaled down to 4 MP. There's no point in being unhappy with an image at the pixel level if you're never looking at an image at the pixel level.

    Also, what exactly are you unhappy with? Noise, blown highlights, resolution/detail, or what?

    Second, are you unhappy with all of your lenses? Your 9-18mm should be giving you good results. Not the absolute best in the range, but it is a more than capable lens. The 14-150 is definitely a compromise lens: any superzoom is going to sacrifice image quality for the convenience of having such a large range. With the T3i, you have Canon's most up to date sensor and image processor, just in a body with less features and controls. The 17-70 is a more than capable lens as well, so you should easily be getting professional-looking images. If you aren't getting good results, then either you have unreasonable expectations or you have a faulty copy of the lens.

    Look at some image examples on this forum. Are other photographers able to get images with "spunk" from the same lenses as you?

    Third, what quality images are you shooting? Maybe it's time to shoot RAW, if you aren't already. Instead of buying more gear, use your current gear to its maximum potential. Are you processing your images once you get home? Get yourself some software like DXO or Lightroom, and spend some time tweaking the settings. Ansel Adams, for example, didn't become incredibly famous just for his image-capturing capabilities. He was performing Photoshop techniques in the darkroom before there were even computer, which is what gave his photography "spunk." Getting your images to the memory card is only half the battle.

    While image stabilization extends the usefulness of the camera in many situations, it is no substitute to a decent tripod. Get yourself some support, and turn off IS to see if this brings your images around to your liking.

    Last, and an often-overlooked solution: How much formal education have you had in photography? Consider enrolling in a local college's course, or take lessons from a local shop. Maybe your skills just need some refining to reach the potential that you're expecting.
  19. Canonista

    Canonista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 3, 2011
    That sounds like a lot of equipment churning in a relatively short time.

    +1. All of the previously-owned camera gear that the OP has listed should be more than sufficient to get quality images.

    Much of my travel is also motivated in large part by my love of photography (perhaps too much, if you were to ask my family :rolleyes:  ). The challenge with travel photography is that, for us hobbyists, we don't have the luxury of time or knowledge of the destination to be at the right place when the lighting is ideal; i.e., at dusk or dawn. Most of our shooting is done on the run, when the harsh sun is mostly overhead, giving the world a flat perspective.

    You may want to spend some time with your current gear in interesting places closer to home. Scout the locations at different times of the day (and year), looking for the location and perspective that you wish to capture. Come back to it when the quality of light is at its best. Successful landscape photography is more about good planning and technique than about having good equipment.
  20. But is the lack of "spunk" due to the gear you're shooting with or the landscapes you are shooting?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.