View Full Version : Olympus EP-1 First Impressions from a store demo
I'm now shooting with a Leica M8.2, and for me, it's perfect (or as perfect as any camera can be) as every camera has it's trade-offs.
I found myself looking for a backup for the M8.2. Something a bit smaller, something that had more 'substance' than all of the 'technoplastic' point-and-shoots out there. It also, has to be able to shoot very clean images up to at least iso 400. I had an Olympus OM-1 in the 70's, and also an Olympus Pen F, and was always pleased with both the mechanics as well as the Zuiko optics.
When I heard about the Olympus EP-1, a Micro 4/3 format, interchangeable lens, all-metal body with 'SLR-brains', it definitely peaked my interest. One of the local camera shops here in MA (well, not so local, it took me an hour and a half to drive there), had one to demo, so I drove off to check it out.
Here were some of my impressions:
When I picked it up, I noticed that it felt very dense. Not necessarily heavy, but very solid. There must be more metal in this camera that just the exterior body panels. The top is made of aluminum, and the body panels are a brushed stainless steel. It may prove to be prone to scratches, but to someone who is just a little careful, it should be very durable. The Olympus 14-42 M.Zuiko Digital zoom lens felt a little 'light' when compared to the body, but it felt tight, no wobble, and featured some ED elements. Remember it is a kit lens, and can't be compared to the Olympus premium glass available for the E-3. All in all, it felt better than expected. The other thing that I noticed, it that it a manual zoom. The lens mount is stainless steel, and looks to be either polished or plated. The mounting/dismounting of the lens is very smooth, and the lens locked with a very perceptible 'click'.
The EP-1 is smaller and lighter than my M8.2, but a bit wider than say, a Canon G10. It is somewhat squared off around the edges, sort of like the Zeiss Ikon film body, but smaller. I wanted to bring it up towards my eye to look through a viewfilnder, but it was omitted by Olympus, probably to cut down on size. I've never found the optical viewfinders on digital cameras to be pretty good anyway. They aren't accurate, are somewhat out of focus, and generally not very useful. I don't see this as a 'negative'.
Some have observed or perceived that the menu system is a bit confusing or too 'deep', but I didn't find this the case. Remember, this camera has many of the features borrowed from Olympus SLRs, so to provide this sort of feature set, additional menus had to be put into place. I found them to be fairly intuitive, but a deeper menu system than say a Canon G10, which has quite a few external buttons and dials to select some of the functions.
It features the usual Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Program, Full Auto and Manual, as well as other nifty items.
I took several photos around the store at iso 200 and 400 and zoomed in on the LCD. The images looked very clean. This site dpreview did a nice preliminary review, and this camera measures up and even exceeds many DSLRs in terms of lack of noise/grain. I didn't look on my 22' monitor or print any images, so I can't say whether the images have too much noise reduction which can reduce sharpness. What I can say is that all of the sample images taken my the numerous reviewers tend to look very good. The only negative is that the LCD is only (I believe 230,000 pixels), so it is just "ok". The Canon G10 features an LCD that is around 430,000 pixels, so the difference is like watching a ball game on a regular channel vs. Digital HD. I would rather put their $$ into the sensor, lens and build quality, which the apparently did.
I am certainly interested in the various adapters that are currently available as well as the ones that will be made available in the future. Since this is based on the 4/3 standard, Panasonic adapters which are currently available for the Lumix G1 will work fine. Olympus has also come out with a MMF-1, Micro 4/3 adapter, which will allow pretty much all 4/3 lenses to be mounted on the EP-1 and function properly. Additionally, there is also a MF-2 adapter, which will allow the legacy "OM" lenses to work on manual focus (of course), but also under manual exposure. I'm also particularly interested in a Leica M-Series adapter, which will be made by either Panasonic or Olympus. I've been told that Cosina/Voigtlander has also made an M-Series adapter for the Micro 4/3 format, and is available at Cameraquest.
Olympus seems to be sort of 'testing the waters' with this camera to determine its popularity. The BJP or British Journal of Photography mentioned that Olympus is already planning more professional updates and versions of this sort of camera utilizing the Micro 4/3 standard. Read more here:
http://newsletters.incisivemedia.com/q/14q7qmTBq57H8i/wv (http://newsletters.incisivemedia.com/q/14q7qmTBq57H8i/wv)
I was pretty impressed with the EP-1. So much so that I pre-ordered one with the 14-42 zoom. I will also order the 17mm F/2.8 'pancake' lens and the flash when it comes in.
For me, this appears to be a very solid, viable camera with a growing system of lenses and accessories coming. I hope that Olympus does well with this model and sparks the 4/3 standard to introduce even more cameras and accessories.
Brad
Great writeup Brad. I'm posting a link to it on my blog.
One question about zooming in on the images in playback mode:
Did it feel like you were able to zoom into the photo to "actual pixels" level? Many DSLRs embed a smaller (~2-4mp) JPEG preview into their RAW files, or do not let you zoom fully into the full-size JPEGs. This ability would nice for checking critical focus.
Sam;
I took a photo of the clerk, and then played it back. There is a vertical knurled thumbwheel on the top right rear of the camera. I rotated the wheel to zoom during playback. I zoomed and also toggled with the Rotating Dial and Arrow Keys to zoom in on the clerk's beard. It looked very sharp.
Brad
Darkhorse
06-24-2009, 09:34
But will it blend? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FWv21EgRZU)
Not sure. But dpreview did a fairly comprehensive review of this aspect. If I understand what you're asking, it should be found here:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep1/page10.asp
Thanks
Brad
What's your opinion on focusing speed? A lot of people are concerned about this. Was it fast enough that it could hurt someone when you focus on them? Thanks for the review!
I thought that it was comparable to my Canon G10, but certainly not like an SLR. Also, the focusing speed may vary depending on the lens that is mounted.
Brad
Here is a review of the camera in action...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJbLdGA-ZTE
Pickett Wilson
06-24-2009, 10:39
Reviews on AF speed are all over the scale. Some say fast as an SLR, some say slow, and some say it doesn't matter, they are going to zone focus the thing anyway. Have to wait until there are some in the wild for awhile, I guess.
Make of it what you will... e-p1 VS d3
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=32227706
Make of it what you will... e-p1 VS d3
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=32227706
Tests done by individuals can be manipulated. And in this particular case, manipulation is the name of this person's game.
There is no reason whatsoever that certain parts of the white napkin shot by the (supposed) D3 have selective blowout. Upon close examination I can only come to the conclusion that the manipulator selectively applied the dodge tool in photoshop in order to make it appear that the D3's sensor has less DR than the E-P1 sensor.
The lower visible part of the white napkin easily shows it. Comparing that area to the same section shot by the (supposed) E-P1, it is easy to spot where and how the manipulation took place.
Poor guy. He must have bought Olympus stock.
Darkhorse
06-24-2009, 12:57
I wanna see actual image samples. Yes the camera is pretty but all I want to know is what the photos look like.
I've heard many speak of using the EP1 as back-up to their M8s; I am personally considering the same thing. But I am thinking of using my Leica lenses on it. Has anyone posted any images taken with Leica glass on the EP1? I'm curious as to the quality compared with images taken on the M8?
CNET reviews it:
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/olympus-e-p1-silver/4505-6501_7-33704135.html
capitalK
06-25-2009, 16:25
I played with it a bit at Henry's Queen & Church location in Toronto today. I agree, it seems very solid. Focusing was hunting a lot until the clerk turned on face detection. I saw some full-size outdoor shots and they looked very nice. That was with the kit zoom lens.
If I was buying a digital I would look strongly at it.
Thanks for posting that CNET review. I find that shutter lag a concern. That's a deal-breaker issue for me. I don't really understand the difference between 0.3 and 1.4 in terms of working with the camera. Anyway, I am looking forward to fondling one of these and I hope they show-up in the regular camera stores soon.
capitalK, what a cool looking stereo camera you have...
Brad, thanks for the info about the magnify. It looks like you can get down to pixel level or at least very close.
Here is a review of the camera in action...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJbLdGA-ZTE
That's a promotional video put out by Olympus, not a review. It's still interesting though.
I wanna see actual image samples. Yes the camera is pretty but all I want to know is what the photos look like.
There are plenty of samples at all the major review sites (dpreview, etc.).
---
As for the CNET review, remember that actual shutter lag and "shot lag" / "shutter lag" (as CNET calls it) are not the same thing. CNET is measuring times including AF operation. Typically, shutter lag is only the time from pressing the shutter to taking the photo when prefocused (S1->S2 in dpreview parlance).
The long power-up times are inexcusable. There are no moving parts to extend and many DSLR shooters are used to any modern Canon/Nikon powering up faster than you can compose a shot.
cidereye
06-25-2009, 17:40
Tests done by individuals can be manipulated. And in this particular case, manipulation is the name of this person's game.
There is no reason whatsoever that certain parts of the white napkin shot by the (supposed) D3 have selective blowout. Upon close examination I can only come to the conclusion that the manipulator selectively applied the dodge tool in photoshop in order to make it appear that the D3's sensor has less DR than the E-P1 sensor.
The lower visible part of the white napkin easily shows it. Comparing that area to the same section shot by the (supposed) E-P1, it is easy to spot where and how the manipulation took place.
Poor guy. He must have bought Olympus stock.
Kevin, how dare you speak out against the EP-1 ! j/k :D
After examining that thread it should be obvious to anyone as you say, napkin lower gives that away - was either posted by the Olympus MD or Mr I M A Liar. Comparing the results of a "micro" 4/3 sensor to a FF sensor?!? Hmmm, we all know who the winner will be and maybe like comparing a Bugatti Veyron to a VW Golf. Both good cars for sure but hey come on, we all know which is far superior so no kiddy games in trying to make out the family hatchback is a supercar eh? :rolleyes:
@ bherman - Many thanks for the hands on experience you posted. Nice to see from someone who has acdtually now handled the camera and had a play around with it. The focus hunt and the shutter lag are the two things that seem to keep croping up so there must be a fair bit of truth regarding those two weak aspects. And yes it does have that squared off shape like the Zeiss Ikon doesn't it?
The longer power up times are because the SuperSonicWaveFilter is doing it's thing. It's the most effective dust eliminator on the market - to put it quite simply, olympus DSLRS very very very rarely get dust on their sensors - my 5d has to be cleaned every few weeks, my dads olympus e-410 has never been cleaned in 2 years and has no dust on the sensor.
It's worth the extra second in startup time.
historicist
06-26-2009, 21:20
I went to a shop which had one and they let me put my sd card in it. So here are some completely unartistic full size samples with the 17mm lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36822297@N08/sets/72157620625425672/
*EDIT* well, apparently my free flickr account won't allow full size viewing, and I don't want to clutter up my normal flickr account with these.
I'll leave them up there (only viewable downsized) but if anyone wants to see them full size send me a pm and I'll email one over.
*BTW* the focus does hunt, but that makes it sound worse than it is. It doesn't seem to hunt like a SLR, where it cannot find the focus, but rather rapidly focus near and far, before settling on a point in the middle. I get the impression this is just how it works, rather than slrs where it will go direct to the correct focus point, unless it can't find it and then will hunt.
Focus speed seemed fairly comparable to entry level slrs, bit slower maybe but in the ballpark. It definitely focusses quicker than my e420 does in liveview.
Tests done by individuals can be manipulated. And in this particular case, manipulation is the name of this person's game.
There is no reason whatsoever that certain parts of the white napkin shot by the (supposed) D3 have selective blowout. Upon close examination I can only come to the conclusion that the manipulator selectively applied the dodge tool in photoshop in order to make it appear that the D3's sensor has less DR than the E-P1 sensor.
The lower visible part of the white napkin easily shows it. Comparing that area to the same section shot by the (supposed) E-P1, it is easy to spot where and how the manipulation took place.
Poor guy. He must have bought Olympus stock.
Tests by individuals can be manipulated, but in this case I think all he is doing is recreating the tests done by Amateur Photographer magazine April 11th 2009 issue. In this controlled magazine test they found the Panasonic G1 (same sensor) had a higher resolution when compared to the D3 and D700, and did so with either a common non telecentric test lens, or the Pana kit lens.
The audacity that Olympus or Panasonic with their m4/3 sensor can achieve a small victory over the Nikon D3 does annoy people. Some say it is tantamount to creating a 'myth', but considering how many genuinely unfounded myths people like to put about regarding 4/3 sensors it is hardly scratching the surface in balancing the discussion.
Steve
Dante_Stella
06-26-2009, 23:09
Micro 4/3 dust... don't breathe it!
But will it blend? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FWv21EgRZU)
Saw a lady in Nara walking around with this camera today. Surprised. Did look good, though.
Sorry to be a "dumbo" about this but I'm quite new to RF type cameras and their various lens adaptations.
I have a Contax G2 with various Contax lenses.
With the appropriate adaptor, would I be able to fit my lenses to the EP-1 and would the camera automatically recognise the focal length?
Also, what about focusing - no "in house" focusing on a G2 lens!
If the above is dumb please excuse my ignorance.
Thanks
Pickett Wilson
06-27-2009, 00:31
250swb, if the results AP got were, in fact, practically valid, don't you think Canon and Nikon would be falling all over themselves putting 4/3's sensors in their professional cameras to make them smaller and lighter (and more profitable to make). And pros would be snapping up G1's to replace their $8,000 cameras.
Some times we need to apply common sense, I think.
historicist
06-27-2009, 00:38
Contax G lenses don't have focus ring, do they? So it probably won't possible to make an adaptor.
ZeissFan
06-27-2009, 01:11
Well, first you would have to spend several hundred dollars to convert it to M mount. Then you can use an M-4/3 adapter.
I really like the look of the EP-1. Without a usable optical viewfinder, I don't think using a manual focus lens will be much fun.
But that's me, and others obviously are looking forward to using their Leica lenses.
NickTrop
06-27-2009, 01:11
CNET - pretty bash-y review. Just when I'm thinkin', ya know Nick? Quit being such a luddite about cameras, this is 40 year old technoloy. Step up into this century, this new digital Oly Pen looks like your kinda camera. Same old sh-t w/ digital according to the review... Uggg - shutter lag, slow auto-focus, and battery life bad, all the things I hate most about digital wrapped up into a small cool-looking package. No optical viewfinder - a concession I could live with but a big concession. Me thinks - for now, I'll stuck with array of film cameras and my $80 used Fuji Finepix F20 and infra-red ready 2 megapixel Panny FZ1v2 suuuuper zoom digitals.
I've tried the camera in a shop today.
The zoom is enormous and kept on extending itself even at the widest setting. The optional VF is not very bright and has no cross to at least indicate a focus point, no parralax correction either.
The size of the body is odd and still had to be held between thumb and index, although my hands aren't that big. It's also quite loud.
But worse of all was the delay when changing the aperture with the rear wheels, it just wasn't responsive at all.
This is something that would be usable with a manual focus superwide voigtlander for instance, but you need the appropriate VF because of the aspect ratio. Might be usable as a hip shooting camera, but at this price I'll get a ton of film instead.
What a let down, I was really looking forward this thing, it's a wonder if they have photographers to try their flops before they release them.
Pah!
Y.B.hudson III
06-27-2009, 06:53
yehh... a 17mm @ 2.8... not much character to work with there...
Having to focus "Legacy MF lenses" at arms length, I don't think so...
I'LL pass on this one...
Make of it what you will... e-p1 VS d3
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=32227706
i think there was no correction on napkin like someone stated - because that burned out parts are lighter on oly too. and it is obvious that oly has nicer sharpness - so congrats to olympus on making such a good job - i really want them to catch the race with nikon and canon and to suceed with their for thirds concept...
250swb, if the results AP got were, in fact, practically valid, don't you think Canon and Nikon would be falling all over themselves putting 4/3's sensors in their professional cameras to make them smaller and lighter (and more profitable to make). And pros would be snapping up G1's to replace their $8,000 cameras.
Some times we need to apply common sense, I think.
Yes indeed, we need to apply common sense.
An what that tells me is that 'if' Canon and Nikon did champion a smaller 4/3 size sensor progress in its development would go much faster.
But they don't and won't. And the answer is not because it wouldn't work in the long run (which is the skeptical view regarding smaller sensor packages, not the 'common sense' view) but because they would both have a vast number of lenses to re-design (which is the common sense view).
Neither Nikon nor Canon have the financial clout to disenfranchise photographers from their lens collections by introducing a radically different pro/amateur DSLR body. The consequence would be seeing core regular customers stampeding off like a herd of wildebeast to distribute themselves around other manufacturers.
Steve
wongyboi
06-27-2009, 20:28
Hi bherman,
I was at the Australian PMA 2009 today and they had plenty of Pen EP-1 on show. I definitely agree that the body feels dense and that the lens is really light. In regards to the focusing, it is not as fast as a SLR but still very fast and the difference isn't major. It is nice to hold in your hand but I found it strange/awkward to zoom in and out with the camera when it is distanced away from my face (try it with your rangefinder + pancake lens and you'll understand what I mean). Pictures looked quite sharp and handled the lighting well.
Overall I liked the camera, was never a big fan of the design besides the size and had to fiddle with all the functions for quite some time. The mode ring is smooth to turn and has a very light 'click' to lock it into place. The shutter is soft and makes less noise than most compact cameras. The Olympus booklet I have says - Not a compact, not an SLR...It's a Pen. To me it does feel like a compact camera but one of high quality.
Yes indeed, we need to apply common sense.
An what that tells me is that 'if' Canon and Nikon did champion a smaller 4/3 size sensor progress in its development would go much faster.
But they don't and won't. And the answer is not because it wouldn't work in the long run (which is the skeptical view regarding smaller sensor packages, not the 'common sense' view) but because they would both have a vast number of lenses to re-design (which is the common sense view).
Neither Nikon nor Canon have the financial clout to disenfranchise photographers from their lens collections by introducing a radically different pro/amateur DSLR body. The consequence would be seeing core regular customers stampeding off like a herd of wildebeast to distribute themselves around other manufacturers.
Steve
Why would Canon or Nikon leave the 2:3 standard they already adopted when the new kid on the block, Olympus was at a minimum re-entering the serious camera market after abandoning their OM line, decided to use a different standard?
Oly made a bold move to go to 4:3, but why was any other company obliged to follow?
Why would Canon or Nikon leave the 2:3 standard they already adopted when the new kid on the block, Olympus was at a minimum re-entering the serious camera market after abandoning their OM line, decided to use a different standard?
Oly made a bold move to go to 4:3, but why was any other company obliged to follow?
Obviously there is no obligation to follow, but I can think of a good reason to adopt it at least as an offering. That is, to take a good part of the 4/3s market share. With their much larger R&D and marketing budgets (especially Canon), they conceivably could eat Olympus' lunch.
Not that I want them to ... see my sig line. :D
historicist
06-28-2009, 01:32
Canon and Nikon have no stimulus to go to micro 4/3rds or a similar mirrorless format; they can make plenty of money selling their existing line ups, which are both more complete and popular than Olympus' or Panasonic's. Then they can let Olympus and Panasonic take all the risks of developing a new type of camera and making design mistakes or targeting it at the wrong audience, and if and when they become popular (as I'm sure they will sooner or later) swoop in and make their own.
Canon and Nikon have no stimulus to go to micro 4/3rds or a similar mirrorless format; they can make plenty of money selling their existing line ups, which are both more complete and popular than Olympus' or Panasonic's. Then they can let Olympus and Panasonic take all the risks of developing a new type of camera and making design mistakes or targeting it at the wrong audience, and if and when they become popular (as I'm sure they will sooner or later) swoop in and make their own.
There is no reason for a mirror in a 2:3 digital camera either. If they want to they can with the only change being a new mirrorless body. Samsung should show us their mirrorless 2:3 idea in a couple weeks.
Obviously there is no obligation to follow, but I can think of a good reason to adopt it at least as an offering. That is, to take a good part of the 4/3s market share. With their much larger R&D and marketing budgets (especially Canon), they conceivably could eat Olympus' lunch.
Not that I want them to ... see my sig line. :D
I agree, but why dilute their product lines and make their customers choose between different Canon or different Nikon products. How many incompatible lens mounts did Zeiss produce in the 1950s and 1960s? Was that not part of their demise? Why should a modern manufacture make the same mistake? The "standard" DSLR form carried over from the accepted size and form of the film SLR and lenses for that matter. It is a tested and successful model, why change and chase trends?
Olympus in my eye has failed miserably in changing that form and size with their 4/3 standard as they promised to do. Only recently have they introduced smaller bodies, and their lenses are as huge as everyone elses. This has nothing to do with quality, just that they didn't deliver a product that is different enough to make Nikon or Canon even take notice. Nikon and Canon have market share, every other company is just treading water.
Maybe the M3/4 standard can change that, but without reason Canon and Nikon are going no where but to the bank.
Given Canikon's history of lens/camera rivalry, it becomes a major paradigm change to adapt a cross-manufacturer common platform. After all, this is what these two, and others , have been avoiding for virtually the entire history of the SLR. The last common lens mount format prior to 4/3 was Leica M, which the major Japanese players abandoned in, what, the early 1960s?
That is what makes the u4/3 format revolutionary; it's no longer correct to talk of a lens/camera format being synonymous with an individual manufacturer's design. The rest of the photography world has some catching up to do, also; many other internet discussion forums (RFF excepted) don't yet have a u4/3 forum (DPReview of note.) And then there's this annoying tendency by some lens reviewers to measure MTF of just a lens when now (at least with the G1/GH1 and I'm assuming with the E-P1 also) the quality comparison most useful to consumers needs to include the MTF of the entire lens/camera/firmware as a system, because of in-camera optical abberation correction. Things are indeed changing faster than what those firmly entrenched can adjust to, it seems.
~Joe
Pickett Wilson
06-28-2009, 03:29
The sticky wicket, of course, will be, because of these in camera corrections, if one makers bodies can correct another makers lenses.
Ralph, I don't disagree with your assessment. But there is one difference, in that the 4/3 and m4/3 standards are open, not proprietary. In the past manufacturers developed mounts (to the "open" 35mm standard!) not just for technical reasons, but to lock out competition. 4/3 m4/3 is different in that sense.
Both Canon and Nikon have at least three "standards" ... "full" frame (which Nikon said they wouldn't do but was forced to by the market), APS-x, and p&s sized sensors. I don't see the issue here. They would have to develop new compact lenses? How is that not both a boon for the photographer as well as a possibility for profit?
OK, I guess I could disagree with your assessment. :D
In terms of R&D and manufacturing budget, Olympus has always been behind CaNikon, and has always been a bit slower off the mark, at least in going to the market. They take their time and always introduce something that is at least mildly interesting. I don't recall them promising, at the initial introduction of 4/3, when they would bring out a compact camera with DSLR quality. And this is just the first step. It may not suit your time frame (and it really hasn't suited mine), but hey, that's our expectation, nothing else. Did you ever expect them to come out with a system that easily allowed M mount lenses to be used?
Failed miserably? Don't think so. ;)
I just want to hear from people who actually use the E-P1 that all the talk about slow AF is off the mark so I can buy one without question. Of course, I am thinking that a CV 15 will look very good on the front of it, being so wide and with the extra DOF because of the small sensor, focusing will be totally unnecessary, so it will be a super fast shooter.
i think there was no correction on napkin like someone stated - because that burned out parts are lighter on oly too. and it is obvious that oly has nicer sharpness - so congrats to olympus on making such a good job - i really want them to catch the race with nikon and canon and to suceed with their for thirds concept...
Good grief ... even a 6-year-old can see this. The D3 image has been brightened and dodged and the EP1 image has been sharpened.
There's no doubt about it.
I have no connection to this photographer, but they seem to have gotten their hands on an E-P1 during some sort of group promotion in NYC. Here are some ISO samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thedigitalstory/sets/72157619851048782/
And then 13 shots extra:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thedigitalstory/sets/72157619847739758/
Doesn't look bad. Based on this very limited sample size, it isn't a Canon 5D, a Canon 50D, or perhaps even the most current digital Rebel, but then those are larger sensor cameras. But it does look like a nice step up from P&S cameras in a similarly sized package. The camera might be better compared to the G10 or the Sigma DP2. Or more directly to the Panasonic G1, to which it should be nearly identical I would think. Size still looks like the key selling feature with the adaptability to other lens lines (and thus the interchangeable lens mount) & larger than P&S sensor being a close second or third.
Good grief ... even a 6-year-old can see this. The D3 image has been brightened and dodged and the EP1 image has been sharpened.
There's no doubt about it.
those are originals from imaging resource site. they didnt do it to show oly is better because they reviewed d3 long before ep1 came out so those are not shots made for comparing those two cameras. also they never modified photos on their site before. check out whole galleries for those two cameras and you will see...
There's just no way I'm going shell out that much money for a piece of aluminum-wrapped plastic which has been mass-produced by robots. You can jump on the hype bandwagon, be an early adopter and perform viral marketing until your fingers ache ... it just ain't gonna happen.
What peeves me most are the false marketing claims made by Olympus. Next come those cheap image comparisons posted on dpreview which clearly try to deceive.
Eagerly awaiting the Samsung announcement,
Kevin
There's just no way I'm going shell out that much money for a piece of aluminum-wrapped plastic which has been mass-produced by robots....Eagerly awaiting the Samsung announcement,
Kevin
Kevin, when I think of Samsung, I think of cheap plastic products mass-produced by robots. Used to be a consumer electronics technician.
Actually, I have no dog in this fight; I'm happy with my G1 (also plastic, mass-produced by robots,) but find the banter over the E-P1 interesting, given the hype over the G1 just a few months previous.
I dunno, I have an Olympus Pen D, from the 1960s, in the closet right now. Yea, it has some metal on the outside, but plastic, too. It can't be all metal and weigh that little. There's the old saying: "yesterday ain't what it's all cracked up to be."
Now my Retina IIIC, that's metal. So heavy that you can't comfortably pocket it in your jacket, without a suitable counterweight in the other side, or you'll be listing to starboard. Can't have lightweight, inexpensive and not plastic. Pick any two.
~Joe
Judging by this overly ambitious price you would think this cam must be a rare hand-made metal object d'art. The robots are here to make things cheaper, not more expensive. Used to be an olive picker.
We've seen this corporate insanity before, however. In early 2008 Sigma introduced a high quality compact at more than four times its actual value. Silly people bought them in the beginning, of course, but now the smart buying majority are snapping them up at the correct price/value of roughly 200 euro. You can be sure that even at this price point Sigma is still making a decent profit!
By all means, buy an EP1 now - at hyper-inflated prices - and show us all your pretty pictures taken with it. Be sure to get a lens adapter as well and tell us how beautiful your classic lenses render on the EP1's brilliant sensor.
But please don't insist that this camera is a good value for the money ... because at this price it definitely is not!
Why would Canon or Nikon leave the 2:3 standard they already adopted when the new kid on the block, Olympus was at a minimum re-entering the serious camera market after abandoning their OM line, decided to use a different standard?
Oly made a bold move to go to 4:3, but why was any other company obliged to follow?
Well they aren't obliged to follow, thats why I said they wouldn't for practical and financial reasons.
But lets not forget manufacturers are constantly taking each other on in direct terms with bridge and P&S cameras. Every month there is some tweak in the market, be it functions, format, pixel count, size etc. This is rapid development compared with even the regular redundancy rate of Canon DSLR's. Prototyping and getting goods to market is so much quicker nowadays, with many market decisions made around tactics rather than restrictive lead times. I would bet that R&D departments in all the major camera companies are now looking at the possibilites of a separate line that follows the m4/3 formula, if not the actual format. It may simply replace the bridge camera in the market altogether.
Steve
So I see discussion has turned on route "why so high price for plastic camera" :) While most of us like and use heavy metal bricks, technologies have improved since then. Cogwheel made from high quality plastic can be wear resistant as metal piece - another question is why make cheap digicams which will not break; that would be total failure of whole industry. Everyone knows this, like they know about their new cars and houses - they aren't built to last forever.
Back to price - I guess that materials build smallest fraction of price, while most of it is made by finances for engineers, marketing people, office crowd, covering daily expenses of industry and sure, income.
And it's quite clear - when first and last strawberries of season are sold, they cost A LOT more than between. Buyers know this :)
The discussion hasn't made any turns at all. Only a road stop or two has been made to rest and point out that corporate and internet marketing is trying to fool us into believing that this camera is a great value for the money.
You're making another false assumption that all buyers know the things you speak of. As a general rule, however, older and experienced buyers know this but not all younger buyers do.
"why so high price for plastic camera" should have been written "why so high price for a mass produced camera".
I'm convinced. Kevin knows best.
Pickett Wilson
06-29-2009, 22:38
I think it's all very simple. If you have the money to play with the latest toys, do it! Of course it's about the marketing. We are a group of folks who use outrageously expensive old film cameras and lenses. What's another $800 for a big P&S? :)
Well, the price wasn't my point.
Size comparison with the Leica M8.2:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/3686428947_02c5d3879e_o.jpg
ZeissFan
07-04-2009, 06:13
The price of this camera is too high. But I think it will come down. I would find it ore appealing at $450-$500. It's still just an advanced P&S, as I see it.
(I'm still intrigued by the camera, by the way.)
Ronald_H
07-04-2009, 07:04
Price will come down. It is the first of its kind after all. But I still want one. I'll wait for the first store nearby to get my greasy hands on one.
I walked down to my local Jessops and had a look at one today. It's bigger than I imagined, and I'm not trying to start a war here, but my first reaction was to look in the VF that wasn't there. It's definitely soaked up the RF pedigree.
It's quite a solid feeling body. A nice kind of heft. The kitted zoom lens looked solid enough but nothing to write home about.
What really didn't work for me though was that the rear is just chock full of those usual cheap twiddly digtal buttons. The hands on feeling is very busy, and it's quite the kaleidoscope of switch types from buttons, to twirly wheels, to multidrectional pads and knurled knobs. They must have half a dozen different suppliers lined up. AF speed seemed fine just trying it out in the shop (which isn't much of a test). Manual focusing was fine aswell but not something I could really see myself doing.
In the end though it's going to be the Sigma DP2 that I'll order next week. That should tide me over digitally til that mythical full frame Leica M comes along.
NickTrop
07-07-2009, 08:28
LCD-only focusing an framing that you have to hold a foot away from your noggin' to frame/focus... "soccer mom framing"? The more I think about it, the more I think this a deal breaker. C'mon - are you kiddn' me? That's fine for a little digital point-n-shooter - perfectly acceptable, not for a camera in this class, in this price range, that purports to be a serious "pro-sumer" model. Never liked optional optical finder in a hotshoe - kluge, imo. That said, Oly is on the right track... it's just not for me.
I've heard many speak of using the EP1 as back-up to their M8s; I am personally considering the same thing. But I am thinking of using my Leica lenses on it. Has anyone posted any images taken with Leica glass on the EP1? I'm curious as to the quality compared with images taken on the M8?
Hi,
Just thought you might be interested.
I have just finished my initial review of the E-P1 for the BJP (British Journal of Photography) due for publication in a fortnight. The report contains references to the use of Leitz/Leica glass on this model as does my earlier report on the Lumix G1 (BJP 10/06/09). Both cameras came with kit lenses which from both an overall product construction perspective and optically are lightweight polysomething with moulded glass/acrylic elements. Results up to 20inches wide at 300ppi are o.k. but way behind what it's possible to get with old mechanical glass of almost any brand...Pentax Takumars, 1960s Nikons, 1950s or earlier Leitz fitted to either of these new cameras - you just need to know how to tweak the files once on screen.
Anyway, enough of the blabber. Here's a link for those who might be interested in using older mechanical lenses on the E-P1. The set up method is quick and works great with everything I tried on it from M and R lenses to modern Zeiss and Voigtlander using a variety of differently sourced mechanical adapters - mostly cheap ones from China.
Link:
http://www.ajaxdigest.blogspot.com/
best and regards
Jonathan Eastland
:)
willie_901
07-14-2009, 12:31
Thanks for the report. It's good to know classic lenses give good results.
JapanExposures
07-14-2009, 17:35
I don't understand the reasoning behind designing a solid and thus relatively big and heavy camera that needs to be held away from you while being operated and that, if I understand Jon Eastland's instructions correctly, requires four steps to focus with manual focus lenses (not unlike my 8x10), which may well deliver superior image quality - and they'd better at 25% image area compared to 35mm, each time you want to take a photo.
Ajax, can you zone focus? Is there shutter lag?
It's definitely soaked up the RF pedigree.
The original Pen F was a SLR, not a RF. It used porro prisms (think old-fashioned binoculars) instead of a pentaprism to keep the size down
In the end though it's going to be the Sigma DP2 that I'll order next week. That should tide me over digitally til that mythical full frame Leica M comes along.
I already have the DP2 and was looking for something snappier, but the reports on the 17mm are not encouraging, and it isn't that much smaller than the M8. I guess I'll just spring for a 28mm Elmarit pancake instead.
Ray Kilby
07-15-2009, 02:42
I wanna see actual image samples. Yes the camera is pretty but all I want to know is what the photos look like.
can I direct you to my own test shots. it is a mixture of the Kit Lens and my Leica glass. The Merry go round was taken with a Leica 2.8 m mount prime and Lucy I used a Leica 50mm m mount prime. All the rest is with the zoom (14- 42)lens Olympus supplied. Hope you find them useful.
I am beginning to love this camera.
Ray
http://gallery.mac.com/raykilby#100359&bgcolor=black&view=grid
willie_901
07-15-2009, 20:13
Ray,
Do you find any frustration withe DOF doubling compared to a 24X26 mm 135 format lens with same aperture?
Fotohuis
07-23-2009, 09:43
It's a nice and compact camera and with the Novoflex MFT - Leica M adapter you can also use the Leica M lenses on this PEN E-P1 camera. The limitation is the display when using the life view mode plus loupe function.
Here a shot with the 14-42 zoom lens, my 17mm pancake is still in backorder.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2455/3743084591_6827c168b2.jpg
count_zero
07-23-2009, 12:14
I don't see any problem with the LCD screen other than an occasional glare. The digital view finder on the GH1 is completely useless. Why look at a tiny screen with less resolution vs a nice easy to see big screen, other than it makes you feel like an old school photographer aiming for the perfect shot. I recently took my EP-1 to a concert. You might ask, how did you get it into the concert? I put it in my pocket and security didnt think it was a professional quality camera so they let it pass. Then I held it up in the air to get a shot of the stage without a bunch of heads blocking my view. And yes, I was able to use the LCD screen, and manually focus at the same time. Took some great shots, and some cheesy art mode shots. Oh, and then I did this really neat trick. I switched over to record video mode and recorded 1 hour (about 11GB) of HD 720p video. The sound also turned out great. Did I say video? Blasphemy, I know.
For $800 it shoots better quality pictures than the M8 (see dpreview to compare M8 vs EP-1 at ISO 2500), its smaller and better made than the GH1 (and cheaper). Yes, it is a point and shoot HD video camera with the option of mulitple lenses for $800 in a stainless steel body smaller than any other rangefinder.
emraphoto
07-23-2009, 12:16
"...Silly people bought them in the beginning, of course, but now the smart buying majority are snapping them up at the correct price/value of roughly 200 euro. You can be sure that even at this price point Sigma is still making a decent profit!
By all means, buy an EP1 now - at hyper-inflated prices - and show us all your pretty pictures taken with it. Be sure to get a lens adapter as well and tell us how beautiful your classic lenses render on the EP1's brilliant sensor.
But please don't insist that this camera is a good value for the money ... because at this price it definitely is not!"
let's just skip past the separating opinion from fact part of this post.
Kevin, some of us "silly" people have different priorities when purchasing a camera. i for one work on my cameras. day in, day out. i need a point of sale. i need service. i need a receipt. these are not negotiable (especially with my insurance agent and accountant).
i also need to produce work. day in day out. i purchase the best tools for doing so without waiting to squeeze the best deal out of the used market (well most of the time). when i produce work, i get paid. following that logic my purchases have proven to be very sound. i will presume that before you tell me otherwise you venture to understand EXACTLY what defines good value in my world.
i don't understand when folks think a company can arbitrarily charge xxx amount of dollars for a product that cost yyy amount of dollars to research, develop, build, market and support? it's naive at best. because sigma is dumping the dp-1 does not prove anything about what the product cost to develop, manufacture and market. it has EVERYTHING to do with paying down debt (and thus incurred interest), cash flow and financing further research and development. do yourself a favor before you go online and call folks "silly". go down to your local camera shop OWNER and ask him about the profit margins and mark up on cameras. i think you will be surprised.
__________________
... For a total of 1159 USD ...
I estimate the real value to be around 450 USD, which is what this kit will cost in about 15 months time.
You are simply paying a premium for being able to own the camera now instead of later.
[pejorative term removed]
i for one work on my cameras. day in, day out. i need a point of sale. i need service. i need a receipt.
What are you, a repairman?
You sure are a needy person!
I estimate the real value to be around 450 USD, which is what this kit will cost in about 15 months time.
You are simply paying a premium for being able to own the camera now instead of later.
That was your choice, not mine, bubba.
I don't own Olympus stock, so I don't care one way or the other.
Its a great idea to buy it in 15 months time at at $450. Thats FIFTEEN months of not using it, and buying it when the next version is on the market, so buying a redundant camera for $450. Great idea.
Steve
Its a great idea to buy it in 15 months time at at $450. Thats FIFTEEN months of not using it, and buying it when the next version is on the market, so buying a redundant camera for $450. Great idea.
Aaaa, another motivated stock holder :eek:
I have plenty of other film and digital cameras to use.
Each one of them is already redundant.
emraphoto
07-23-2009, 14:32
oh kevin, heavy on the trollng and thin on the actual insight hey?
"where's that ignore function?"
oh kevin, heavy on the trollng and thin on the actual insight hey?
It appears that you're projecting again.
count_zero
07-26-2009, 13:22
1 week with the E-P1, and the USB port has FAILED. Now when I plug the thing into my computer, the computer does not detect it. I've tried different computers, and no luck. Unfortunately, the USB port is not one of those standard size cellphone USB ports, it's slightly bigger, so I don't have another cable to test it with. Pretty lame, but technology in general is usually disappointing. I guess I have to go back to my Bessa for now. :bang:
It appears that you're projecting again.
Have you actually looked at John's work? Do you know him personally? Do you know how he works? Do you know his passion? Have you met his family and how his wife works hard to help support his vision and what he is trying to accomplish?
I have. And I think you are way off base on this one.
Peace.
1 week with the E-P1, and the USB port has FAILED. Now when I plug the thing into my computer, the computer does not detect it. I've tried different computers, and no luck. Unfortunately, the USB port is not one of those standard size cellphone USB ports, it's slightly bigger, so I don't have another cable to test it with. Pretty lame, but technology in general is usually disappointing. I guess I have to go back to my Bessa for now. :bang:
Will it have to be repaired or will the retail store exchange it? if neither, try a card reader.
count_zero
07-26-2009, 16:44
It must be something wrong with the port on the camera because I tried using the A/V cable that uses the multi connector and that failed as well. Maybe something melted on the inside because I was recording video for about an hour in 100 degree weather. The SD card sits right behind the port, and that thing gets hot if you record 7minutes continuously.
Dante_Stella
07-26-2009, 17:09
Tried one out in real life. Promising sensor; everything else is unremarkable.
Dante
It must be something wrong with the port on the camera because I tried using the A/V cable that uses the multi connector and that failed as well. Maybe something melted on the inside because I was recording video for about an hour in 100 degree weather. The SD card sits right behind the port, and that thing gets hot if you record 7minutes continuously.
Supposing it isn't the camera at fault have you tried re-installing the Olympus software and drivers, and the updating it to the latest version, Master 2.2? Other than that just use a card reader (plugged in to your USB socket). Supposing it is the camera, and perhaps you have adjusted some parameters or re-set to default, on the USB menu, when you highlight 'Storage' to make the PC recognise the camera as a 'removable disk' you must press 'OK' to confirm, and not just leave it highlighted. Just a shot in the dark.
Steve
Also, if you are using a desktop PC, make sure you use rear USB port, not those on the front, and that the camera has sufficient battery charge.
count_zero
07-27-2009, 14:49
So far Olympus has been very helpful. They escalated the problem to level 2 support. I can still take pictures and record videos. I'll Just use an SD card reader in the meantime.
FYI: If you ever buy a new car, don't listen to the dealer who says break in the engine slowely. Take it out and drive at 110 mph, that way if something is gonna break it will break before warranty expires.
No, I didn't miss that. I just thought it was worth trying as an extra troubleshooting step.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.