Topic: A quick note on the new Olympus Pen F introduction. (Read 15257 times)

John Camp · « **Reply #20 on:** January 29, 2016, 06:02:59 pm »

The Pen F looks a lot like a GX8 to me -- Oly finally got rid of the pentaprism housing on a non-pentaprism camera, which makes me happy from a design standpoint. I'm also interested in all those knobs and dials. The other day I had to shoot the inside of a house with my GX8s, in a very big hurry and with rapidly changing lighting conditions (from brilliantly lit rooms to quite dark rooms, bathrooms and laundry rooms, etc.) My right thumb kept changing the white balance because of the button location on the back of the camera and I didn't notice until I pulled the shots up in Lightroom. Not a big problem, I just had to tinker with the white balance, but since I'd taken 89 shots and my wife was waiting rather impatiently for them, it was annoying. I kind of don't like those tiny buttons on the back of the GX8, although the camera itself is now my go-to. (And I have a D800 and a full Nikon system.)

Here's a question: since I'm in the Panasonic system and don't pay too much attention to Oly (though I have bought some of its m4/3 lenses): Is the Pen-F not their top-of-the-line m4/3? Is the M1 their more advanced camera?

And another: Are all Panasonic lenses *fully* functional on Oly cameras?

BobDavid · « **Reply #21 on:** January 29, 2016, 10:29:29 pm »

Quote from: b_rubenstein on January 29, 2016, 04:37:37 pm

The minimum diameter of the image circle is equal to the diagonal of the 17.3 square, which is 17.3mm x square root of 2: 24.4659mm. I understand people being a little weak in quantum mechanics when discussing sensors, but this???

Sorry for being glib, Mr. Rubenstein. If I'd been more careful with my wording, I'd have elaborated. Image circles of mft lenses certainly have the optical integrity to cover a 17.3mm X 17.3mm square. The Pythagorean theorem only tells part of the story. Additionally, various optical designs determine both the sharpness and the light falloff from center to edge. Iris size is another variant.

Lloyd Chambers measured some mft lens image circles. Here are his findings.

Panasonic 25/1.4 has a 27mm image circle
Panasonic 45/2.8 macro has a 25mm image circle
Olympus 45/1.8 ED has a 31mm image circle
Olympus 75/1.8 ED has a 29mm image circle

He arrived at these numbers by rigging a camera obscura and measuring the diameter of the image circles. The lenses were wide open. He did not measure light falloff and sharpness from center to edge. I do not know whether the lenses were focused on infinity or closer up.

A lot of photographers like the 1:1 aspect ratio--probably millions.

I spit my coffee across the room in reaction to your incredulity, 'I understand people being a little weak in quantum mechanics when discussing sensors, but this???' Whether or not Spinoza (a great philosopher and a highly regarded lens maker) kept cats, he knew nothing about quantum mechanics.

razrblck · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:08:37 am »

One could rig a m43 lens holder and use a Sony A7 to capture the full image circle of the lenses. Sony's flange distance is 18mm and m43 is 19.25mm, so there's definitely room to put the lens in front of that sensor and see what happens. If sharpness is pretty good in the edges and light falloff isn't too bad (as in difficult to correct), a square sensor might be possible.

But Olympus will probably never do that unless there's clear demand for it. I would like a square sensor in a compact body, and I've stated many times that I would like a digital system along the lines of the Olympus M-1 (OM) prototype.

Guillermo Luijk · « **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:11:19 am »

Even if this PEN will be a formidable tool for any demanding RAW shooter to produce high quality images, Olympus seems to have gone one step beyond in customisation for the JPEG shooter, including specific knobs and software tools to produce polished OOC images (contrast curves, colour saturation wheel, vignetting, grain, monochrome):

This could be an attempt to introduce a new paradigm and shooting philosophy in such a >1000 EUR body: enjoy the camera itself rather than relying on RAW postprocessing.

Regards

Enviado desde mi GT-I9195 mediante Tapatalk

b_rubenstein · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2016, 08:32:42 am »

For most of my own work I shoot JPGs. I use very bland in camera JPG settings: Neutral/Natural color, not too much contrast (the E-M1 is one of the few cameras I don't set lower than default), or sharpening, and I set Olympus cameras to show high lights and low lights and Panasonic cameras for Zebras. I want to make sure I don't clip any channels. Auto or custom WB as needed. (Really weird color is done in RAW.) I get files I can do corrections and enhancements as required on a decent sized calibrated monitor so I can see what I'm doing. I just can't see what I'm doing working with a camera's LCD. For me, It's just easier, quicker and better to tweak later using good image editing tools.

I just find it interesting that camera makers think people will spend serious money on gear, but then not put much effort into getting images just right.

BobDavid · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2016, 10:57:24 am »

Olyumpus cameras utilize a superior jpg engine. My wife shoots jpgs with her EPL-1. I shoot RAW on my EPL-5 and EM-5 II. At base ISO, the files are spectacular.

BJL · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2016, 03:43:27 pm »

On specs alone, I am attracted the novel combination of:
- Micro Four Thirds
- Compact "flat-top" form (as opposed to the "bump-top" of the OMD series: I avoid the specious references to "range-finders" and "SLRs".)
- Eye-level viewfinder (EVF)
- Olympus' class leading five-axis IBIS, for all my non-stabilized lenses.
- The new higher resolution sensor: all the better for my macro and telephoto cropping and on-scree zooming into the details of an image, not because I have ever wanted 20MP on a print.

I could happily live without the retro styling (the Panasonic GX8 wins there to my eyes) but that does seem to be done without impairing the functionality wanted by a user-interface modernist like me.

BJL · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2016, 03:54:07 pm »

Quote from: b_rubenstein on January 30, 2016, 08:32:42 am

I just find it interesting that camera makers think people will spend serious money on gear, but then not put much effort into getting images just right.

Do you think the camera makers are wrong, or are you disappointed that they are right?

Also, do you assume that a camera offering the option of getting some things done more quickly and conveniently necessarily means worse quality? I say option because raw is still there.

For me, many convenience options instead often mean having more time and energy to work on other more important aspects of the task. That is why JPEG + raw is my belt-and-suspenders approach, since in most but not all cases the right in-camera settings give me a completely satisfactory JPEG.

b_rubenstein · « **Reply #28 on:** January 31, 2016, 08:59:01 am »

As I said, I generally shoot JPGs and will add, or switch to RAW as needed. Either file will almost always require some tweaking, but a well shot JPG takes less time. The issue I have with trying to get a finished image via in camera settings, is that a camera is not a very good platform for image editing, because you can't really see what you're doing. It could also require making several setting adjustments based on different subjects and lighting. About the only thing I watch is exposure while shooting and that's only turning the exposure compensation dial.

I still can't figure out who is going to do lots of in camera tweaking. Most casual users (the 95% of the population that takes pictures and aren't on internet forums) leave their cameras set in some iAuto or Program mode. Most of the remaining lunatic fringe 5% can manage to stumble their way around an image editing program. The one JPG feature that has some real attraction, thanks to Fuji, are film simulations. Fuji does this really well and the film experience is also deeply ingrained in their cameras. So, I guess Olympus is now going after the same market as Fuji. This is a literally a shot lived market since it's full of old guys who are getting ready to retire on a fixed income, or just getting old and dying. (At 62, I'm in that market.)

Ranger Rick · « **Reply #29 on:** January 31, 2016, 09:28:04 am »

Here's a question: since I'm in the Panasonic system and don't pay too much attention to Oly (though I have bought some of its m4/3 lenses): Is the Pen-F not their top-of-the-line m4/3? Is the M1 their more advanced camera?

And another: Are all Panasonic lenses *fully* functional on Oly cameras?
[/quote]

Since it looks like this got lost in the shuffle, I'll take a shot. Pen F is tops of their Pen line; E-M1 is probably their" top" "pro" body (likely to be refreshed this year with Mk II), has more capabilities, but those may/may not be important to you. All those dials on the Pen F are not currently implemented on the E-M1, functions re there but accessed differently via multi-function dials etc. Right now, Pen F and E-M1 each have certain more advanced features (but are they specific benefits to you?)- just part of the constant updating cycle. E.g., Pen F has 20mp sensor, that will likely go into the next E-M1 version. Reviews of Pen F seem to say it is noticeable but not significant change.

All Panasonic lenses are functional on Olympus, but not fully in certain areas. Those with internal stabilization can conflict with Olympus internal system, so usually need to be turned off. The only "significant-ish" thing I find is that Panasonic lenses with aperture setting capability on the lens work on Panasonic bodies, but not on Olympus bodies (where they do nothing). For me, I consider them interchangeable; some say Panasonic lenses work better on Panasonic bodies and Oly on Oly bodies, but I have not found any problems in real life.

Hope that helps!

BJL · « **Reply #30 on:** January 31, 2016, 10:46:08 am »

Quote from: John Camp on January 29, 2016, 06:02:59 pm

Here's a question: since I'm in the Panasonic system and don't pay too much attention to Oly (though I have bought some of its m4/3 lenses): Is the Pen-F not their top-of-the-line m4/3? Is the M1 their more advanced camera?

Judging which is "Top of the line" and "more advanced" is a bit tricky. Overall the EM1 might still take that title (and the expected EM1 Mk II probably will), but with Olympus, differences between models are mostly on secondary aspects rather than core image quality potential, so it can come down to the user's priorities. The EM1 has advantages like a more rugged environmentally sealed body, a larger EVF image, and on-sensor PDAF, so is better for using adapted lenses (including Four Thirds SLR lenses) and with moving subjects. The Pen F might offer some advantage from its newer, slightly higher resolution sensor, and several years' of technological refinement might give it advantages like better IBIS and less EVF lag, but I would wait for the reviews – and maybe wait for the EM1 Mk II!

BJL · « **Reply #31 on:** January 31, 2016, 10:54:35 am »

Quote from: b_rubenstein on January 31, 2016, 08:59:01 am

I still can't figure out who is going to do lots of in camera tweaking. Most casual users (the 95% of the population that takes pictures and aren't on internet forums) leave their cameras set in some iAuto or Program mode. Most of the remaining lunatic fringe 5% can manage to stumble their way around an image editing program.

For all I know you might be right, but the success of Instagram and the filters and image manipulation features and third party manipulation apps offered on smart phones suggests that there are many photographers outside that obsessive lunatic fringe 5% who still like to manipulate some images. And if the impatience of my family and friends to see my photos from an outing or vacation trip is any guide, there can be a strong motivation to get it done quickly in-camera, so that the JPEGs can be dumped straight onto the computer or tablet for the evening's slide show. Or even previewed on the back of the camera over a meal during the day.

b_rubenstein · « **Reply #32 on:** January 31, 2016, 08:36:20 pm »

What people do with phone images is very different from someone spending $1,200 (not counting lens) on a purpose built image capture device (formerly known as a camera). Also, editing files on a phone to be seen by someone else on a phone renders the need to work on a calibrated platform irrelevant. By the same token, doing something fast and dirty to share images isn't prepping a file for final use.

BTW, the lunatic 5% pertains to people who participate in internet forums, like camera gear ones, not people who edit photos. There are lots of folks out there who take and edit pictures without caring how many angles can boogie in the well of a pixel.

DanLehman · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2016, 02:43:23 pm »

Quote

I spit my coffee across the room in reaction to your incredulity, 'I understand people being a little weak in quantum mechanics when discussing sensors, but this???' Whether or not Spinoza (a great philosopher and a highly regarded lens maker) kept cats, he knew nothing about quantum mechanics.

Esp. today, one can chide folks for their math, or else for their research, skills!
(And I'm vulnerable either way, though on some nearby shelf have something by Spinoza (alas, osmosis just isn't working ...

).)

Quote from: BobDavid on January 29, 2016, 10:29:29 pm

Image circles of mft lenses certainly have the optical integrity to cover a 17.3mm X 17.3mm square. The Pythagorean theorem only tells part of the story. Additionally, various optical designs determine both the sharpness and the light falloff from center to edge. Iris size is another variant.

But are we then still talking about "4/3" insofar as the standard is concerned (which has a 21.6mm diagonal)? Calculating from the standard size, I come up with square-side size 15.3mm --2mm smaller, just within APS-C short side 15.7mm. But just as (per Wikip.) actual size of 4/3 sensors exceeds the 15.3mm, will actual APS-C ensure more than 15.7mm? Are those lenses built such that the used portion of their larger coverage ensures better IQ, losing edge distortions? What of hoods w/taller framing : might one need to shave away some of the usual short-side shielding?

I more or less concur in the advocacy of implementing a fuller "multi-aspect" --fuller to include square, and also 5:4 (a common print framing)-- presented e.g. here http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2014/01/put-aps-c-sensors-in-micro-four-thirds.html.
From which I quote:

Quote

Regarding the number of megapixels, the APS-C sensors come in many variants. Most Sony NEX cameras have 16MP, and cropping a Four Thirds sensor size from this one would yield 10MP, probably too little for today's market. However, using an APS-C sensor with 24MP, for example the one used in Sony SLT 65, would give 15MP in 4/3 crop mode, which I think is an ok image size. The added benefit of getting better resolution in non-native aspect ratios would certainly make up for it.

... and suggest that Samsung's 28mpx sensor would yield 17.6mpx for 1:1 and 16.8mpx for 4:3.

Quote

A lot of photographers like the 1:1 aspect ratio--probably millions.

+1
I've found myself "seeing" square imagery increasingly often, among other framings also taken.
And, when compared w/cropped-to-square APS-C images, there'd be little difference in capture resolution.

--dl*
====

BJL · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2016, 03:32:19 pm »

I am skeptical that there will ever be sufficient demand for a square sensor, and a camera with the oversized square EVF or OVF needed to see the whole square with the same magnification.

But about image circles:
- On one hand, if a lens is designed with an image circle just big enough to cover a 4:3 or 3:2 shaped rectangle, it will not cover all the way to the corners of a square matching the long side of that rectangle.
- On the other hand, this is mostly only an issue with wide-angle lenses, and maybe normals. For the narrower angular field of view of longer lenses, lens designs naturally produce an abundant image circle, which is then "cropped" by the sensor, and maybe by anti-flare baffles and other parts of the lens. Some data in an earlier post in this thread illustrate that.

And if you want the square format simply to avoid rotating the camera, intending to crop to a vertical or horizontal oblong shape later, the square sensor will be fine. (And that is the only reason that square formats arose in the first place: the inability to rotate the early roll-film cameras with "top-down" viewfinders, before eye-level SLR viewfinders took over.)

TonyVentourisPhotography · « **Reply #35 on:** February 04, 2016, 12:17:45 pm »

The Pen F is interesting. It does throw in the best of what olympus currently offers in a nice small body. Then again, so does the E-M5 mkII. I think their pricing should have been a lot closer together. It's more of a style preference.

The E-M1 is still the top dog, no matter what features or options it lacks. The ergonomics and feel are on a completely different level. It's a camera I know I can depend on. It also takes weather like the best of them. I've used all their cameras, less the new Pen F, and I have to say the E-M1 is hands down my favorite in use. Next is the E-M10 if I need a viewfinder, and E-Pl7 if I dont.

The Pen F seems like a great solution for the shooters who prefer to shoot JPG regularly. It makes it convenient to actually use the color editing features, toning, and art styles. Having the wheel in the front and the switch on the back for this makes their intention obvious. Their vintage and monochrome art filters are rather good. A lot of people will have a lot of fun with this camera, beyond what the E-M5 can offer. The price is just too high for a mid level camera.

Olympus is like old school BMW. Same car, three different lengths. Performance & features improve with length...but not necessarily. Depends on what you value. The Pen F is like the 5 series starting with a base price higher than the 7. Just hard to justify.

I honestly believe if the camera was weather sealed, there would be a lot less debate about this point. Then it would be the top camera. It would then also leave room for the E-M1 to take it a step further with more dedicated pro body features.

I greatly look forward to the E-M1 replacement...

Stephen Girimont · « **Reply #36 on:** February 04, 2016, 12:56:04 pm »

I've really been wanting an interchangeable-lens version of the Fuji X100s and I think the Pen F is just the thing. The X-Pro 2 looks really large to me.

I've never owned Olympus products before. Do any of their 4/3 cameras offer Raw+Jpeg? I don't see it in the specs for the Pen F and I'm hoping that a firmware update might change that down the road (then again, maybe I've just missed it in the specs).

SZRitter · « **Reply #37 on:** February 04, 2016, 12:58:31 pm »

Quote from: Stephen Girimont on February 04, 2016, 12:56:04 pm

I've really been wanting an interchangeable-lens version of the Fuji X100s and I think the Pen F is just the thing. The X-Pro 2 looks really large to me.

I've never owned Olympus products before. Do any of their 4/3 cameras offer Raw+Jpeg? I don't see it in the specs for the Pen F and I'm hoping that a firmware update might change that down the road (then again, maybe I've just missed it in the specs).

Almost all m43 cameras should have RAW + Jpeg. I would be extremely surprised if this one didn't.

razrblck · « **Reply #38 on:** February 04, 2016, 01:05:22 pm »

Quote from: Stephen Girimont on February 04, 2016, 12:56:04 pm

I've really been wanting an interchangeable-lens version of the Fuji X100s and I think the Pen F is just the thing. The X-Pro 2 looks really large to me.

I've never owned Olympus products before. Do any of their 4/3 cameras offer Raw+Jpeg? I don't see it in the specs for the Pen F and I'm hoping that a firmware update might change that down the road (then again, maybe I've just missed it in the specs).

Page 59 of the Pen-F manual states it is possible. Like Ritter, I would've been surprised if this wasn't the case. Anyway you can check out the manual for more info on its features before making a final decision.

http://download.aws.olympus.eu/consumer/manuals/cameras/PEN-F_MANUAL_EN.pdf

Internaut · « **Reply #39 on:** February 04, 2016, 04:41:12 pm »

Quote from: b_rubenstein on January 31, 2016, 08:59:01 am

As I said, I generally shoot JPGs and will add, or switch to RAW as needed. Either file will almost always require some tweaking, but a well shot JPG takes less time. The issue I have with trying to get a finished image via in camera settings, is that a camera is not a very good platform for image editing, because you can't really see what you're doing. It could also require making several setting adjustments based on different subjects and lighting. About the only thing I watch is exposure while shooting and that's only turning the exposure compensation dial.

I still can't figure out who is going to do lots of in camera tweaking. Most casual users (the 95% of the population that takes pictures and aren't on internet forums) leave their cameras set in some iAuto or Program mode. Most of the remaining lunatic fringe 5% can manage to stumble their way around an image editing program. The one JPG feature that has some real attraction, thanks to Fuji, are film simulations. Fuji does this really well and the film experience is also deeply ingrained in their cameras. So, I guess Olympus is now going after the same market as Fuji. This is a literally a shot lived market since it's full of old guys who are getting ready to retire on a fixed income, or just getting old and dying. (At 62, I'm in that market.)

I'm comfortable enough with the JPEC centric aspects of the design, and I do like the Olympus JPEGs. The large-super-fine files, if made optimally in the camera, respond nicely to a bit of tweaking (the basics - levels, saturation, sometimes clarity, and sharpening). However, I also enjoy shooting in challenging light, and the ORF files, from the current generation of Olympus cameras, stand up to quite a bit of pushing around.

Author Topic: A quick note on the new Olympus Pen F introduction. (Read 15257 times)