Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: DarkPenguin on June 16, 2009, 07:58:51 pm
-
What? No E-P1 discussion?
Preview with samples ...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061601olympusep1.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061601olympusep1.asp)
I want one. I want that 17mm lens even more. (Even if it does look like it has more than a little CA.) Curious how the external finder works with a relatively slow focusing device. (Although I'm not sure just how slow focusing it is.)
-
Sounds like a very interesting entry indeed. At 406 gr the E-P1 + 17mm combo might be the pefect replacement for the Canon G10 my wife is now using. The price is a bit steep though... might need to wait a few months until it goes down 30% or so.
The camera and new lenses will be availbale in Tokyo on July 3rd.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah, I'm looking to replace the G9. I have a Panny G1 so I have some additional lenses for this thing now. The E-P1 (crappy name) with 17 would do some nice things for me around town.
-
perhaps the G10 replacement is an appropriate target for the EP-1. i had hoped for a bit more. the lack of EVF and likely slow autofocus (combined with no practical way to manual focus except zone) are probably deal killers for me. i would have preferred they left out the medium res lcd in favor of a really good EVF - or even provided a hot-shoe EVF option.
a step in the right direction, but not as big a step as i had hoped. i still believe there is a market for a serious compact camera.
-
Oh for some money! The real question for me though is which colour? I like thw white but I'm worried the novelty may wear thin.
-
perhaps the G10 replacement is an appropriate target for the EP-1. i had hoped for a bit more. the lack of EVF and likely slow autofocus (combined with no practical way to manual focus except zone) are probably deal killers for me. i would have preferred they left out the medium res lcd in favor of a really good EVF - or even provided a hot-shoe EVF option.
a step in the right direction, but not as big a step as i had hoped. i still believe there is a market for a serious compact camera.
As the DPR preview says, the AF speed is slow because they haven't got the final firmware. It should be no slower than the same contrast detect AF of the Panasonic G1, which is lightning quick. As for MF, you would do it with the focus ring, and you can also call up a magnified image to help with critical work.
Steve
-
The lightning-quick autofocus of the Pana G1 is only so when it gets focus, and only half the time then, which requires good light in any case. I read the reviews, and think it's way overrated. Based on the specs and preliminary tests of the Olympus, I'd suggest buyers consider that manual focus may be required a lot more often than what the reviewers are saying.
-
As the DPR preview says, the AF speed is slow because they haven't got the final firmware. It should be no slower than the same contrast detect AF of the Panasonic G1, which is lightning quick. As for MF, you would do it with the focus ring, and you can also call up a magnified image to help with critical work.
Steve
Do they actually know that the firmware will speed things up in any meaningful way?
My understanding is that the panasonic lenses on the E-P1 are quick to focus. Not so much the Oly ones.
-
See? I did mention a week or so ago that this mini-DSLR segment was going to be the hottest thing...
It looks like it might be a great digital rangefinder alternative. Maybe give the M8 a bit of competition as well.
-
They should've just made it a rangefinder, period, and skip autofocus all together.
-
The lightning-quick autofocus of the Pana G1 is only so when it gets focus, and only half the time then, which requires good light in any case. I read the reviews, and think it's way overrated. Based on the specs and preliminary tests of the Olympus, I'd suggest buyers consider that manual focus may be required a lot more often than what the reviewers are saying.
I've not had this problem with my G1, it misses focus every now and again like any AF system, but not half the time. I use daylight mostly, often coming in through windows.
Steve
-
Hi,
I have two issues:
1) It seems that the sensor is exposed during changing of lenses. In a DSLR the sensor is normally protected by both shutter and mirror. Does sensor cleaning protect against water droplets?
2) An electronic viewfinder would be nice and much more useful in many circumstances than an auxiliary viewfinder.
Best regards
Erik
What? No E-P1 discussion?
Preview with samples ...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061601olympusep1.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061601olympusep1.asp)
I want one. I want that 17mm lens even more. (Even if it does look like it has more than a little CA.) Curious how the external finder works with a relatively slow focusing device. (Although I'm not sure just how slow focusing it is.)
-
I've not had this problem with my G1, it misses focus every now and again like any AF system, but not half the time. I use daylight mostly, often coming in through windows.
Steve
I mostly do opportunistic shooting on walkabouts - animals, birds, scenery. Before the G1, I used the FZ-50 P&S, and several pocket cameras. While the G1 focuses faster when it focuses, the focus success rate is little or no better than the P&S models.
-
I've not had this problem with my G1, it misses focus every now and again like any AF system, but not half the time. I use daylight mostly, often coming in through windows.
Steve
My experience is the same. The 45-200 has occasional misses extended/tele, but I've never had problems focusing with the 14-45. I also love the MF assist--once one uses it its tough to try manual focus (ala a TS for instance on a 5D) on a DSLR. Live view may make this an easier thing, but full time MF assist is just a breeze.
Diane
-
I mostly do opportunistic shooting on walkabouts - animals, birds, scenery. Before the G1, I used the FZ-50 P&S, and several pocket cameras. While the G1 focuses faster when it focuses, the focus success rate is little or no better than the P&S models.
That seems odd to me. I've been much happier with my G1's AF compared to my (ex-)D40's AF. With center point, they seemed basically equivalent in speed and success rate. And with the G1's face-detection, it was much more often successful with our toddler. He doesn't hold still and I didn't have as much of a problem of him moving while doing focus-recompose with the D40. I've also been very impressed with the G1's accuracy when using the 25mm f/1.4, and that's not even a real micro-4/3 lens.
-
That seems odd to me. I've been much happier with my G1's AF compared to my (ex-)D40's AF. With center point, they seemed basically equivalent in speed and success rate. And with the G1's face-detection, it was much more often successful with our toddler. He doesn't hold still and I didn't have as much of a problem of him moving while doing focus-recompose with the D40. I've also been very impressed with the G1's accuracy when using the 25mm f/1.4, and that's not even a real micro-4/3 lens.
I use the 45-200 lens exclusively, and at least 70 percent of my shots are at full zoom. I use the smallest focus setting (spot?), and when shooting a bird in a tree, the camera more often than not just can't focus. That's with no obstructions like leaves and branches between camera and bird. Shooting great blue herons flying from their nests to feeding places and back, or turkey vultures overhead, both large birds at no more than 100 to 150 feet distance, the camera can't focus on them most of the time, even though they're slow moving and you can see the camera attempting to focus. Then again, I have the same problem with a lot of static objects. Last night, watching a group of Canadian geese from about 25 feet away, a sparrow landed on the grass in the center of that group and started moving slowly from place to place, pausing every few seconds. I got off about 8 shots, not a one was focused, and that with hazy sunlight on the lot at 45 minutes before sunset.
-
I use the 45-200 lens exclusively, and at least 70 percent of my shots are at full zoom. I use the smallest focus setting (spot?), and when shooting a bird in a tree, the camera more often than not just can't focus. That's with no obstructions like leaves and branches between camera and bird. Shooting great blue herons flying from their nests to feeding places and back, or turkey vultures overhead, both large birds at no more than 100 to 150 feet distance, the camera can't focus on them most of the time, even though they're slow moving and you can see the camera attempting to focus. Then again, I have the same problem with a lot of static objects. Last night, watching a group of Canadian geese from about 25 feet away, a sparrow landed on the grass in the center of that group and started moving slowly from place to place, pausing every few seconds. I got off about 8 shots, not a one was focused, and that with hazy sunlight on the lot at 45 minutes before sunset.
Yeah, the G1 has issues at the long end of the 45-200. The 14-45 is plenty quick. The 45-200 is okay on the wide end.
I really do not care for that lens much above 150mm. By 200 it is decidedly in the really not good category.
-
I use the 45-200 lens exclusively, and at least 70 percent of my shots are at full zoom. I use the smallest focus setting (spot?), and when shooting a bird in a tree, the camera more often than not just can't focus. That's with no obstructions like leaves and branches between camera and bird. Shooting great blue herons flying from their nests to feeding places and back, or turkey vultures overhead, both large birds at no more than 100 to 150 feet distance, the camera can't focus on them most of the time, even though they're slow moving and you can see the camera attempting to focus. Then again, I have the same problem with a lot of static objects. Last night, watching a group of Canadian geese from about 25 feet away, a sparrow landed on the grass in the center of that group and started moving slowly from place to place, pausing every few seconds. I got off about 8 shots, not a one was focused, and that with hazy sunlight on the lot at 45 minutes before sunset.
You're shooting the equivalent of a 400mm lens handheld on moving subjects. I'd say that chances are about 95% that your focus problem is actually blur -- *nobody* can handhold a 400mm with a high rate of success. Just the the fact that you have to press the release will jerk the photo around. *Any* vibration will blur it. Put it on a study tripod on a windless day and fire it with the timer, and I bet your focus problems will largely disappear.
-
i would expect the type of focus used in the G1 to have problems following a bird in flight - and 100-150 ft is really pretty far away resulting in a pretty small bird image
for a stationary object you should be able to shoot 400mm at 1/200 handheld -- if sensor based stabilization works at this long a focal length
shooting birds in flight you need to be at 1/600 or faster which will be fine with or without stabilization -- if the camera can focus
i regularly shoot shoot birds in flight handheld with a 40D and 100-400 at 640 equivalent -- the success rate is far less than 100% but much more often for focus issues and framing than motion blur
-
You're shooting the equivalent of a 400mm lens handheld on moving subjects. I'd say that chances are about 95% that your focus problem is actually blur -- *nobody* can handhold a 400mm with a high rate of success. Just the the fact that you have to press the release will jerk the photo around. *Any* vibration will blur it. Put it on a study tripod on a windless day and fire it with the timer, and I bet your focus problems will largely disappear.
Blur isn't the problem at all - I have hundreds of photos like these from Bolsa Chica (taken with the PanaFZ-50), and I'm accumulating quite a few from Ohio with the Pana G1. The FZ-50 is clearly inferior, with IS and a 420 mm equiv. lens, yet the focus success rate was about the same as the G1. In fact, with the G1 set to the default of not allowing the shutter to trip when the camera thinks focus can't be achieved, I was constantly pushing the shutter release and the camera wouldn't take the picture, so I turned that "feature" off.
After tens of thousands of photos with the Nikon 8800, Pana FZ-50, and now the G1, I have a really accurate idea of what the problem is, and the problem is that the G1 with the 45-200 just isn't much better (if any) than the 3 year old FZ-50.
And the point for prospective Olympus users is - use a short lens, or wait for good light.
-
The lightning-quick autofocus of the Pana G1 is only so when it gets focus, and only half the time then, which requires good light in any case. I read the reviews, and think it's way overrated. Based on the specs and preliminary tests of the Olympus, I'd suggest buyers consider that manual focus may be required a lot more often than what the reviewers are saying.
Interesting you have a 50% miss. On a recent trip, I took some 600 shots in various lighting conditions and had 35 out of focus shots at the end.
Dave S
-
As the DPR preview says, the AF speed is slow because they haven't got the final firmware. It should be no slower than the same contrast detect AF of the Panasonic G1, which is lightning quick. As for MF, you would do it with the focus ring, and you can also call up a magnified image to help with critical work.
Steve
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?fo...essage=32185405 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32185405)
They have the final firmware. It is still slow.
FYI
-
Interesting you have a 50% miss. On a recent trip, I took some 600 shots in various lighting conditions and had 35 out of focus shots at the end.
Dave S
I can shoot certain genres with a 95 percent or better hit rate, but some are so bad the camera won't autofocus, period. It's just that the genres I do have all the problems with are so common, I'm surprised more people haven't fessed up. Probably most of them are afraid they'd look bad if they did.
-
Tonight's mostly failures at the heron site reminded me of Panasonic's own reticence about auto-focus on the G1. They have a default setting in a non-obvious place (not on the menu) that prevents the shutter operating at all if the camera thinks it's not in focus. So for the first three weeks I had the G1, I was getting really aggravated by the shutter not operating. After figuring that out and disabling it, the shutter operates all the time now, but with bad photos.
The settings on today's shoot were mostly f5.6 @ 1/250 to 1/320, ISO 100, and with Panasonic's very good IS, that's plenty good for sharp photos for most people, and good enough for me with other Panasonic cameras. So movement blur from handholding was not the problem. And BTW, focus on most shots, in reduced daylight about 45 minutes before sunset, took about 4 to 5 seconds. Not exactly "lightning fast".
So why won't the G1 focus? On some shots I could guess that panning a flying bird, large and slow, might be a problem for the IS at the normal setting. But the same problem occurs when not panning, so that seems to be a small factor.
-
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?fo...essage=32185405 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32185405)
They have the final firmware. It is still slow.
FYI
Well I've read through the DPR preview again, and I may have missed it, but the only place I can see about slow AF is when using regular 4/3rds lenses. Are we sure the 'slow AF' rumour isn't mis-representing the dedicated m4/3 lenses?
Steve
-
Well I've read through the DPR preview again, and I may have missed it, but the only place I can see about slow AF is when using regular 4/3rds lenses. Are we sure the 'slow AF' rumour isn't mis-representing the dedicated m4/3 lenses?
Steve
I'm sure it's great.
-
I'm sure it's great.
Penguin, I'm sure it will be fine as well, but there are so many myths that people are happy to conflate about the 4/3 system it is difficult to know where clarity starts and over zealousness ends.
Dale, just a thought about your 50% focus failure. The focus on my G1 failed today when I was trying to make a photograph while still holding on to the dogs lead. Fingers and thumbs everywhere. At first I couldn't think what was wrong, then realised I was pressing on the lens release button, which on 4/3 cameras is a switch. Accidentally press it in and communication with the lens stops. It is why people shouldn't keep it pressed in when mounting a lens, because the lens doesn't snap into place and can go a fraction beyond the stop and exhibit the same AF problem. I know you are an experienced photographer and this may not be the cause, I just add it FWIW.
Steve
-
Dale, just a thought about your 50% focus failure. The focus on my G1 failed today when I was trying to make a photograph while still holding on to the dogs lead. Fingers and thumbs everywhere. At first I couldn't think what was wrong, then realised I was pressing on the lens release button, which on 4/3 cameras is a switch. Accidentally press it in and communication with the lens stops. It is why people shouldn't keep it pressed in when mounting a lens, because the lens doesn't snap into place and can go a fraction beyond the stop and exhibit the same AF problem. I know you are an experienced photographer and this may not be the cause, I just add it FWIW.
Steve
They really warn you about that - no chance of missing that. It's still pretty clear watching the focus attempts through the viewfinder that the camera can't deal with even moderately low light with the 45-200 lens at maximum zoom. The FZ-50 P&S was no better at this, but the implications in the reviews, that the G1 would be a *lot* better than other contrast-focus cameras, were obviously directed at some other kind of camera, not the FZ-50 P&S variety.
The possible good news here is that people wanting the Olympus for the smaller body size will also be wanting a smaller lens, which will probably do a much better job of focusing than the Panasonic 45-200.
-
I have a meeting with the Olympus people on Friday to go over the new camera - I'll have a look at the autofocus speed.
-
Nick - would be good to know about composing through the external vf and focussing on the screen and also about any focus scales/stops/other things those of us hoping for a baby leica would want. Alternatively, it would be good to know how Olympus suggest we use the gear in street/documentary situations.
-
i would like to think that Olympus thought about using the camera in street and documentary situations, but it seems from the preliminary reviews that size and style trumped substance - another missed opportunity.
i'm still optimistic that something useful will get here one day -- just not as soon as i hoped
-
i would like to think that Olympus thought about using the camera in street and documentary situations, but it seems from the preliminary reviews that size and style trumped substance - another missed opportunity.
i'm still optimistic that something useful will get here one day -- just not as soon as i hoped
Something useful? When you need a good SLR body and virtually any lens you like, it's already here. When you want that sort of picture quality and size is a problem, the E-P1 adds something useful we never had before. It's a none compromise solution, true, and I am sure compromises will come but this is the best place to start for me.
Don.
-
Does anyone know if you can manually focus it? If I can't zone focus it, it is next to useless to me as a street camera!
-
Does anyone know if you can manually focus it? If I can't zone focus it, it is next to useless to me as a street camera!
Of course you can manually focus, and then, a specific focus would work the same more or less as an equivalent film camera, but outside of that, I wouldn't trust zone focus on a digital camera like the Olympus to be as reliable as that of an equivalent film camera.
-
I wouldn't trust zone focus on a digital camera like the Olympus to be as reliable as that of an equivalent film camera.
Why? What does the capture medium have to do with zone focus? Are you saying you expect the manual focus indicators to be inaccurate?
-
Why? What does the capture medium have to do with zone focus? Are you saying you expect the manual focus indicators to be inaccurate?
It's not intuitive, is it? You would expect when you manually focus on (for example) a 20 feet distant object, then you would get the same effect as with a film camera. I'm betting against that. With a film camera, everything is physical, and as long as you don't bump the camera and lens, or change the focus, you'll know exactly where your zone of focus is at all times. With digital, there are a plethora of things going on you're not aware of. I tend to think of manual focus on digital cameras as "manually assisted electronic focus." I've already experienced anomalies with the G1 - I can't wait to hear about the Olympus.
-
Does anyone know if you can manually focus it? If I can't zone focus it, it is next to useless to me as a street camera!
Actually it will be considerably better than a film camera for zone focusing. One advantage of the four thirds format is that you shoot at half the focal length to give the same angle of view, giving a significantly greater depth of field at the same aperture/shutter speed. This would translate to a much more forgiving experience. Just look up what you can cover on a 17mm lens at, say, f8. It's huge.
Of course we never looked at our film pictures gigantically enlarged on a computer screen, so shortcomings may seem more obvious with the digital format. However, in print, the E-P1 will be much better in this respect.
Don
-
Here's an example of what I was talking about with the Pana G1 autofocus problem. This is the original reduced in size, no cropping etc. The bird was about 20 ft. from the camera, 45-200 lens at max. zoom (400 mm effective focal length), Panasonic "Mega OIS" setting #1, 1/160 second. There may be a slight subject blur here, but no problem - the camera found the focus this time.
I attempted this shot about 10 times but could not get the camera to autofocus on the bird at all, until this one. The sun was about one hour from setting, so the light was strong and the contrast is obvious. My focus setting was the narrowest offered - Pana's G1 equivalent of spot focus. It's interesting, though frustrating, to watch through the EVF while the camera hunts for focus and fails. So you press the shutter halfway again, and watch another hunt-and-failure. And on it goes.
-
Of course you can manually focus, and then, a specific focus would work the same more or less as an equivalent film camera, but outside of that, I wouldn't trust zone focus on a digital camera like the Olympus to be as reliable as that of an equivalent film camera.
Am I right in thinking the micro 4/3 lenses don't have any positive focus control / subject distance scale / DOF markings? This is going to make street use difficult.
-
Am I right in thinking the micro 4/3 lenses don't have any positive focus control / subject distance scale / DOF markings? This is going to make street use difficult.
Shouldn't matter too much. Just focus manually on something at an appropriate distance, stop the lens down to give you an idea of your depth of field and carry on as you did before. I appreciate the technique of hyperfocal distance is easier if you use a lens with a scale but few autofocus lenses give much detail on the barrel anyway. As compensation, the increased depth of field the four thirds format offers will make it easier and compensate for slight errors. I would bet that most people who shoot like this will adjust very quickly.
I note someone early doesn't trust zone focus on a digital camera but I don't get the difference. You set the aperture and the focus manually and leave them alone, just the same. I'm betting we start seeing a whole new style of street photography as new possibilities this format offers get discovered.
-
Am I right in thinking the micro 4/3 lenses don't have any positive focus control / subject distance scale / DOF markings? This is going to make street use difficult.
The reason the Pana G1 focus ring doesn't have markings is because (and note this is the same behavior as the FZ-50 P&S camera) it's an infinite twist. That is to say, you can turn it in either direction infinitely, since it's not a "real" manual focus, just a manually-assisted electronic focus.
I don't know yet if the Olympus follows this logic or not. If they do, you may find that focusing manually will work as you expect (or similar to a film camera) in certain situations, and perhaps not in others.
-
Actually it will be considerably better than a film camera for zone focusing. One advantage of the four thirds format is that you shoot at half the focal length to give the same angle of view, giving a significantly greater depth of field at the same aperture/shutter speed. This would translate to a much more forgiving experience. Just look up what you can cover on a 17mm lens at, say, f8. It's huge.
Of course we never looked at our film pictures gigantically enlarged on a computer screen, so shortcomings may seem more obvious with the digital format. However, in print, the E-P1 will be much better in this respect.
Don
As well as the small physical size, this is a big reason for looking at smaller sesnor cameras for street use. As long as there is a focusing ring I ccan manually focus on something an appropritae distance away and shoot. No ideal but useable.
EDIT: just noticed that manual focus OM lenses can be used with an adapter. I guess the dof markings will be off but I guess the distance scale will still be accurate?
-
Had a play with the Pen today, briefly. Very nicely made, a quality feel but I'm a bit concerned it's neither compact enough to go in the pocket not a full dSLR. The 17mm pancake lens with the external viewfinder is nice but no focus assistance - you have to trust the AF or guess.
I'll look again tomorrow but the camera does not excite me much. I've not seen images so can't comment on that side of things.
-
There are samples at the end of the dpreview preview...
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep1/ (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep1/)
-
There are samples at the end of the dpreview preview...
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep1/ (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep1/)
ISO 800 looks pretty impressive to me. I'm hoping somebody makes an underwater housing for it ... it might make an excellent u/w system.
-
ISO 800 looks pretty impressive to me. I'm hoping somebody makes an underwater housing for it ... it might make an excellent u/w system.
They don't have any raw samples up so it is hard to tell. There is some CA with the 17mm.
-
Had a play with the Pen today, briefly. Very nicely made, a quality feel but I'm a bit concerned it's neither compact enough to go in the pocket not a full dSLR.
That, my friend, would depend on the size of your pockets. After all my experience of jamming thick paperback thrillers into cramped jeans pockets, I think those of us who really want that camera in their pockets will get it there.
-
They don't have any raw samples up so it is hard to tell. There is some CA with the 17mm.
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-92/oly...ronique-12.html (http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-92/olympus-e-p1-test-bruit-electronique-12.html)
http://fourthirds-user.com/2009/06/olympus...to_download.php (http://fourthirds-user.com/2009/06/olympus_pen_ep1_sample_images_to_download.php)
-
They don't have any raw samples up so it is hard to tell. There is some CA with the 17mm.
http://www.photographyblog.com/articles/olympus_e-p1_photos/ (http://www.photographyblog.com/articles/olympus_e-p1_photos/)
-
It this page (http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Ref/E-P1/index.html) doesn't contain all the info you need to evaluate the E-P1, please let me know what's missing. The 1.0 firmware production camera has been in select hands (not including my own) for about a week, yet there's a surprising amount of objective data already available.
-
I've read pretty much every preview and review out there, and looked at countless samples, here my recap: while certainly capable with very impressive sensor and optics, the user experience seems to be a typical 1.0 version.
The best and most important factor is that all the in-focus and non-blurry sample shots look good (the zoom) or great (the 17mm). The camera is small and light, and looks great. UI seems to be ok, except for the very clunky and slow AF/MF interface (http://www.ukphotosafari.org/e-p1-team-review/2009/6/23/how-to-get-maximum-speed-from-e-p1-cdaf.html).
There are a lot of bad factors thrown in. AF is slow, especially for those used to dSLRs. Battery life is not great. There is no flash, and the external flash is pretty large. LCD is very low resolution, and FPS drops with certain filters - and same happens with video. Low-res LCD makes manual focusing difficult, although some say that's not the case. Olympus apparently made some pretty serious shortcuts in order to keep size and/or power consumption low. They certainly didn't make shortcuts to keep price low...
Most of the favorable reviews seem to be from passionate people who love the concept, and justify the poor user experience with poor excuses: slow low-res LCD is inexcusable on a camera lacking an optical viewfinder. To me this and other main complaints can be fixed in future iterations: at least one website speculated about a future "pro" version of the E-P1.
Bottom line seems to be that the camera is not a compact, nor a dSLR. That results in some quite serious compromises - whether those are deal-breaking shortcomings or acceptable depends on the user.
I've been looking at a compact camera for a while, and even the best reviewed compacts produce images which I just can't stand - especially bokeh is awful on most, with disgusting shadow noise and digital artifacting. I'm still considering pulling the trigger on the Oly, as the image quality is stunning, and form factor for travel photography is just too much to pass. If they release a fast 100mm (FF equivalent) portrait lens, it would make the Pen a pretty complete system for me, with all its shortcomings. I'm convinced the 2.0 or pro version will be unmissable.
And who came up with the name? It's only marginally better than calling a camera "PEN," and certainly an entirely forgettable moniker for a camera which Olympus and many users consider to be nothing short of revolutionary.
-
Bottom line seems to be that the camera is not a compact, nor a dSLR. That results in some quite serious compromises - whether those are deal-breaking shortcomings or acceptable depends on the user.
With the wide availability of a Pana G1 with lens at $629 U.S., and the short-supply Oly price-with-lens at $1050 U.S., they had better rush these to market really quick to get the price down, else it'll wind up in a very narrow niche, given the shortcomings. That's a $421 difference.
-
With the wide availability of a Pana G1 with lens at $629 U.S., and the short-supply Oly price-with-lens at $1050 U.S., they had better rush these to market really quick to get the price down, else it'll wind up in a very narrow niche, given the shortcomings. That's a $421 difference.
Indeed. Don't forget the 1080p video -enabled GH1 being released any day now in Europe/US, though it is even pricier than the Olympus. With it, Oly's only advantage remains in-body image stabilization. While this is pretty big advantage for many shooters, Pana's advantages - fast AF, EVF, built-in flash, rotating high-res LCD - are far more numerous. Even the G1 beats the E-P1 at a much lower price, as long as you don't need video.
If only the Panasonic wasn't so ugly and designed so conservatively, and there was more than one (1) prime lens (goes of course for the Oly). There's not even announcements of new primes, yet!
It might be worthwhile to pass this generation, and wait a year or two for the next versions.
-
When I got my G1, I put the 14-45 lens in the closet, never to be used, since I use the 45-200 only. Anyone who's buying the Pen EP1 body and wants to save on a lens and take a chance on the G1's 14-45 (I assume it would work), can have mine for $50 plus shipping (about $25 u.s.). Don't reply here - private message only.
-
As well as the small physical size, this is a big reason for looking at smaller sesnor cameras for street use. As long as there is a focusing ring I ccan manually focus on something an appropritae distance away and shoot. No ideal but useable.
EDIT: just noticed that manual focus OM lenses can be used with an adapter. I guess the dof markings will be off but I guess the distance scale will still be accurate?
Why would the depth of field markings be off? Depth of field is dependant on absolute focal length and aperture (a lens function), not relative or equivalent focal length. Sensor size will dictate angle of view with a given lens but not depth of field.
-
It's becoming increasing frustrating to continue to wait for a well sorted camera of this type, each time we seem to get closer but so far every attempt has some serious flaws. The G1 was a big advance but we are still not yet there. Sensor technology seems to be there now, price is acceptable but a proper solution for viewfinder allowing manual focus and decent af system still need to be worked out.
My ideal camera would be rangefinder (leica M8-esque) with AF. I can but dream
Why would the depth of field markings be off? Depth of field is dependant on absolute focal length and aperture (a lens function), not relative or equivalent focal length. Sensor size will dictate angle of view with a given lens but not depth of field.
You are right of course, I wasn't thinking! CoC would be different I guess but that isn't a huge issue.
-
[quote name='MarkL' date='Jun 29 2009, 10:45 AM' post='294326']
It's becoming increasing frustrating to continue to wait for a well sorted camera of this type, each time we seem to get closer but so far every attempt has some serious flaws. The G1 was a big advance but we are still not yet there. Sensor technology seems to be there now, price is acceptable but a proper solution for viewfinder allowing manual focus and decent af system still need to be worked out.
My ideal camera would be rangefinder (leica M8-esque) with AF. I can but dream
I'd bet everything I have that Olympus is listening. They have a head start on everyone but Panasonic and already said they chose to start with this model to make the most of the small size possible with the micro four thirds concept. They have also said they will produce models with electronic viewfinders. As the reaction to the "Pen" shape has been so strongly positive, it seems certain that a slightly larger version with viewfinder is just around the corner.
For me, though, this is my idea of a second camera, where size is important. I have an SLR for jobs and enthusiastic days. For general carrying around, the E-P1 is already perfect for me. I'm just not rich enough to leap out and buy one until the dust settles a bit!
Don.
-
Had a play with one of these things yesterday. I would have bought one if they had the 17mm available. Nice little camera.
-
And who came up with the name? It's only marginally better than calling a camera "PEN," and certainly an entirely forgettable moniker for a camera which Olympus and many users consider to be nothing short of revolutionary.
[/quote]
The name comes from a series of 1/2 frame 35mm cameras Oly had in those dim and dusty days of film. The E-P1 even looks like one, too bad no optical viewfinder.
The store that I contract with got in the 17mm and are waiting for the cameras. The lens is nicely engineered and constructed, so it will be fun to put it through it's paces.
BTW - I take it "zone focus" refers to hyperfocal, correct? Used it most of the time with an M and 35/1.4.
-
I played it for awhile and can't say I want it. The piano finish is interesting but not nice enough, the entire assembly gives a little "cheap" feeling, although it should be OK, but it needs to be better when introduce at this time that many compact cameras are well built. AF is in fact quite good, I like it, and the shutter is a real mechanical feel, besides the image quality, it is perhaps the best feature.
The lens built quality is not good, very light and feels plastic, regardless what material it is use, it feels quite cheap. I play around the 17mm, it is slightly better than the kit zoom lens, but not good enough. On the hand, I would say by DP-2 is a bit nicer in built quality. And certainly G1 is in my point of view, a lot better.
However, image quality comes first and I did not tried enough to conclude. I think it is a nice camera, wish it to build with better quality, size is not really compact. But compact camera today has different definition as in the past, the EP-1 tried to carry the tradition from the original PEN, and in similar size, to me is considered large. Before more interesting lens (perhaps something like the Hologon for Contax), I would say it is and should be a nice camera, but not for me yet.
Brgds/K
-
Anyone tried this with a Voigtlander or Leica M lens yet? Not sure how the live view focusing would work with a non-proprietary lens.