OM PEN E-P2

[teddillard]

"Olympus Introduces New PEN E-P2"

http://bit.ly/3uWGdY

...can't wait to see the files on this baby!  Not to mention the focus speed.

[Atlasman]

Wow, 5 months or so after the release of the EP-1!

Was this in answer to the cries of the market?

[stever]

if the focus speed matches the GF-1, then i'll be ready to buy.  black, high res finder, IS -- close enough.  sure would be nice to replace the rear screen with a built-in EVF, but that's probably not going to happen

[DarkPenguin]

if the focus speed matches the GF-1, then i'll be ready to buy.  black, high res finder, IS -- close enough.  sure would be nice to replace the rear screen with a built-in EVF, but that's probably not going to happen

DP review's Simon Joinson notes ...

"Having used an E-P2 and spent half a day recently with the guys from Olympus Japan, I can assure you that the AF speed is the exactly the same as the E-P1."

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=33603145

[BJL]

Wow, 5 months or so after the release of the EP-1!

Was this in answer to the cries of the market?

[Edit: about four months from the E-P1 announcement.]

My first guess is that the EVF panel from Epson was not ready in time, so rather than wait until 2010 to release its first m4/3 model, Olympus went with the E-P1.

But maybe the plan all along was to start with the basic model aimed at the many digicam switchers who are happy composing on the LCD and refer to avoid the extra cost and the larger size and/or smaller LCD (if EVF is built-in) that adding an EVF requires. My bet is that amongst the compact m4/3 models (E-P1, GF-1, E-P2), the great majority will be bought and used without an EVF.

So many online comments on Micro Four Thirds come from DSLR users thinking of it as competing with DSLR's or serving as a second smaller camera for DSLR users ... but us DSLR users are under 10% of the camera market, and it seems that the majority of buyers of the compact m4/3 models are coming from small sensor compact digicams instead, and have different priorities for size, VF type and such.  I short, many are happy composing on the LCD, and use it only for framing and review, not for precise focus checking, and for such people, most complaints about LCDs and their resolution are irrelevant.

[douglasf13]

[quote name='BJL' date='Nov 5 2009, 09:24 AM' post='322825']
[Edit: about four months from the E-P1 announcement.]

My first guess is that the EVF panel from Epson was not ready in time, so rather than wait until 2010 to release its first m4/3 model, Olympus went with the E-P1.

But maybe the plan all along was to start with the basic model aimed at the many digicam switchers who are happy composing on the LCD and refer to avoid the extra cost and the larger size and/or smaller LCD (if EVF is built-in) that adding an EVF requires. My bet is that amongst the compact m4/3 models (E-P1, GF-1, E-P2), the great majority will be bought and used without an EVF.


  It seems to me that, if Olympus was waiting for the EVF panel, they could have still included the data port for it in the EP-1, and just called the EVF "coming soon."  I think you're second scenario is more likely.

[teddillard]

It seems to me that, if Olympus was waiting for the EVF panel, they could have still included the data port for it in the EP-1

My impression was that they did include an accessory port with the EP2, but I'm confirming with the guy who met with OM right now.

update- yes, confirmed.  The EP-2 has an accessory port on the back for both an electronic viewfinder and microphone.

This is from the OM site:

ADAPT AND ACCESSORIZE

The E-P2 includes a port for new accessories including EMA-1 Microphone adapter and the VF-2 live-finder, a detachable electronic viewfinder that comes with the E-P2. The viewfinder easily slides onto the camera's accessory port and hot shoe to provide 1.15x magnification for a 100% field of view. The VF-2 rotates up 90 degrees which is useful when shooting subjects from challenging angles. Its diopter can be adjusted to allow most photographers to see subjects in perfect focus without wearing glasses. The external accessory port also allows for connection with the new EMA-1 external microphone connector for enhanced audio capture.

[MarkL]

DP review's Simon Joinson notes ...

"Having used an E-P2 and spent half a day recently with the guys from Olympus Japan, I can assure you that the AF speed is the exactly the same as the E-P1."

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=33603145

Oh dear, Oly should have waited until they had all the major shortcomings sorted before releasing a new model imo.

[Atlasman]

It seems to me that, if Olympus was waiting for the EVF panel, they could have still included the data port for it in the EP-1, and just called the EVF "coming soon."  I think you're second scenario is more likely.

I agree that Oly should have put the port on the EP-1.
Actually, they should be putting the port on all their DSLRs--possibly get rid of the swivel LCD!

[BJL]

Oh dear, Oly should have waited until they had all the major shortcomings sorted before releasing a new model imo.

Another voice from the perspective of "serious DSLR users", who are I suspect not at all the main target market for the E-Px cameras. (The G-1 and GH-1 are a bit more oriented to the DSLR crowd, maybe.)  For those stepping up from a compact with a far smaller sensor and on which the LCD is the preferred composing tool, I doubt that AF speed comparisons, to SLR's in particular, are a major deciding factor. Evidence? Mainly reports of good sales.


P. S. I am reminded of the early days of the iPod, when it was often said in forums that the iPod would fail miserably, due to alternatives like the Rio player offering more storage capacity for a lower price, and options of higher quality audio. What was dismissed as unimportant was that the iPod was far smaller and lighter ...

[feppe]

P. S. I am reminded of the early days of the iPod, when it was often said in forums that the iPod would fail miserably, due to alternatives like the Rio player offering more storage capacity for a lower price, and options of higher quality audio. What was dismissed as unimportant was that the iPod was far smaller and lighter ...

It was the UI and Apple marketing which made iPod the killer gadget.

[Wayne Fox]

"Olympus Introduces New PEN E-P2"

http://bit.ly/3uWGdY

...can't wait to see the files on this baby!  Not to mention the focus speed.

Must have missed something.  Why would the files be much different then the EP-1?  Sounds like it uses the same sensor ... is there that much magic they can do with the firmware?

[teddillard]

Must have missed something.  Why would the files be much different then the EP-1?  Sounds like it uses the same sensor ... is there that much magic they can do with the firmware?

uh, I'd argue that it's more about the firmware than anything else...  sensors are sensors...  but like I always say, show me the files.

[Wayne Fox]

uh, I'd argue that it's more about the firmware than anything else...  sensors are sensors...  but like I always say, show me the files.

Really?  Sensors are sensors?  I find it hard to believe the improvements in image quality achieved by newer cameras is primarily due to firmware. Sure new firmware to take advantage of new sensor designs and capabilities, but just firmware? If firmware had this much of an impact, you would think firmware upgrades to improve IQ would be somewhat common place, yet the only time I've seen anything like this is to fix an issue.

I see nothing in any information anywhere that they have done anything to the EP-2 that would have an impact on RAW image quality. I've heard the EP-1 already performs very well, but you would think this would be worth mentioning in the press release.  They've done some things that can affect in camera jpegs but that's all that is mentioned.

I guess we'll know soon enough.  I'm sure someone will shoot some side by sides.  Maybe the marketing and PR departments just don't think it's important enough to mention - I'll admit that is a possibility.

[John Camp]

DPR calls this a very mild upgrade...Olympus pretty much added the viewfinder and a couple of "filters," and that was about it. Increased the price, of course. As Leica called their M8 upgrade the M8.2, this is sort of the E-P1.2. I wouldn't expect a real upgrade for a while, yet.

JC

[teddillard]

Really?  Sensors are sensors?  I find it hard to believe the improvements in image quality achieved by newer cameras is primarily due to firmware.

Yes, and I know it's considered heresy in many corners, but after following sensor design for quite a few years there's very little that has actually changed.  The biggest change has been noise and color work at the analog level before the A/D converter, at least as far as I'm aware.  I'm not even sure how that ended up being utilized, my impression was that it was a big buzz in around 04, but failed pretty dramatically.  There has been a lot of work over the years in filtration type and color, and there's some stuff in the works with an entirely new RGB filtration that I believe Kodak is working on, but the bottom line is it's a device that collects the RGB and luminance data and then depends on the firmware to process color and noise.  

The developments in the last few years that I'm seeing are about working with smaller pixels and processing them for better noise and color control.  There haven't been any big changes in the basic chip design, correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm always slightly amused by the claims that a certain chip gives you a certain look- like, oh, that's a Kodak chip, that's what they do...  I've seen files from many different sensors for about a decade now - well, virtually every pro-level sensor actually - and never been able to characterize a sensor's "look".  The sensor ain't like film, in that respect.  I have, however, seen some remarkable improvements in file quality from a sensor with a firmware change.  

So anyway, that aside, and from another angle, Olympus has never seemed to consider ISO performance a serious priority, and my disappointment in the EP1 was essentially around that issue.  I'd be really surprised if their response to market demand is addressing that, so, no, I don't really expect there's going to be much of an improvement...  but it would be really sweet if they snuck a little FW upgrade into the thing for both the focus speed and the noise.  I can dream...  

Oh, as far as a side-by-side goes, yep, you can bet on it, and it'll be me!  

[Wayne Fox]

Yes, and I know it's considered heresy in many corners, but after following sensor design for quite a few years there's very little that has actually changed.  The biggest change has been noise and color work at the analog level before the A/D converter, at least as far as I'm aware.

I would tend to agree with your assessment that perhaps the biggest change has been noise.

I am skeptical the change in noise characteristics from a 20d to a 7d, or a 1Ds to a 1Ds Mark 4 (most likely coming soon) is mainly attributed to firmware.  I doubt very much you could put a 20d sensor in a 7d body and get much more out of than the 20d.

  I think advancements in chip design are the key element here.  shrinking the on chip electronics so individual photosites are larger, improved electronics so noise is less, improved micro lenses to direct more light into each photosite, and better technology in chip manufacturing.  This provides major improvements in S/N ratios before the A/D convertors, add to the far less noise contributed by the A/D electronics and a substantial improvement in usable raw data.  I assume there is some "on chip" noise reduction, which I believe is part of chip design and not part of firmware.

If we are to believe the data is actually being delivered "RAW" when saved as such, then the camera firmware shouldn't be messing with it much.

Of course, with these advancements it also means you can make the photosites smaller and yet yield similar or even improved noise performance.

Bottom line, same chip ...  same results.  I've already seen a few early reports that IQ on the EP-2 is identical to the EP-1, as is the focusing characteristics..  I look forward to your assessment.

[schrodingerscat]

One part of the whole model upgrade equation is that most consumer electronics, which is what most of this stuff is after all, are single batch produced. Canon started this with the original Sureshot.

As the warehouse empties, there better be a new product waiting in the wings. If they underestimate the production volume or the item sells faster than anticipated, figure out what can be crammed into the current unit with the least amount of retooling.

Incremental model upgrades could also be a means of giving them wiggle room between major redesigns as new technology matures to the point of practical commercial application.

[teddillard]

I would tend to agree with your assessment that perhaps the biggest change has been noise.

I am skeptical the change in noise characteristics from a 20d to a 7d, or a 1Ds to a 1Ds Mark 4 (most likely coming soon) is mainly attributed to firmware.  I doubt very much you could put a 20d sensor in a 7d body and get much more out of than the 20d.

  I think advancements in chip design are the key element here.  shrinking the on chip electronics so individual photosites are larger, improved electronics so noise is less, improved micro lenses to direct more light into each photosite, and better technology in chip manufacturing.  This provides major improvements in S/N ratios before the A/D convertors, add to the far less noise contributed by the A/D electronics and a substantial improvement in usable raw data.  I assume there is some "on chip" noise reduction, which I believe is part of chip design and not part of firmware.

If we are to believe the data is actually being delivered "RAW" when saved as such, then the camera firmware shouldn't be messing with it much.

Of course, with these advancements it also means you can make the photosites smaller and yet yield similar or even improved noise performance.

Bottom line, same chip ...  same results.  I've already seen a few early reports that IQ on the EP-2 is identical to the EP-1, as is the focusing characteristics..  I look forward to your assessment.

Here you go- in a great explanation of the Digic processor, Canon does talk a bit about what is happening, and where.  A snappy illustration of bit depth, too.  Gonna have to bookmark this one.  
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...;articleID=2748

What I take from this is that the sensor readout circuitry does contribute to the noise: "Several factors may affect the strength or purity of the analog signals reaching the A/D converter, such as electronic noise generated by the image sensor or its readout circuitry,..." so that certainly is a factor I guess.  You have a sensor that makes less noise in readout, you get a better file.  Still, I'd argue straightout image quality depends much more on the A/D processor, ie firmware, than the sensor, and that the look and feel of the file is in the firmware, not the chip.

...back to the EP2, yeah, I'm getting to the same point.  Not much in the way of expectations.

[DarkPenguin]

Here you go- in a great explanation of the Digic processor, Canon does talk a bit about what is happening, and where.  A snappy illustration of bit depth, too.  Gonna have to bookmark this one.  
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...;articleID=2748

What I take from this is that the sensor readout circuitry does contribute to the noise: "Several factors may affect the strength or purity of the analog signals reaching the A/D converter, such as electronic noise generated by the image sensor or its readout circuitry,..." so that certainly is a factor I guess.  You have a sensor that makes less noise in readout, you get a better file.  Still, I'd argue straightout image quality depends much more on the A/D processor, ie firmware, than the sensor, and that the look and feel of the file is in the firmware, not the chip.

...back to the EP2, yeah, I'm getting to the same point.  Not much in the way of expectations.

If they haven't changed the sensor and they haven't changed the oly equivalent of the digic chip I doubt there is a whole lot you could do in firmware.