Trius
Waiting on Maitani
If I were going to take along a mechanical camera as a backup, it might be an Olympus RD or 35SP. Both have great lenses (if a bit long for John), and work without batteries. Or a Trip 35 or an M4-P. 😀
e-p1 impressions (and what we ended up with)
- Thread starter morgan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 5K
emraphoto
Veteran
"Having a bigger sensor than something like the G-10 could be a benefit for reportage/documentary field work where speed and discreetness are important."
this is a very good point as often when working in areas somewhat "unfriendly" to photographers dynamic range suffers due to the speed and discreetness part. the g10 is tragically hampered by the highlight clipping and slow to respond shutter.
"The only other thing I'd be sure to take, because I worry about things, would be something purely mechanical for just in case"
indeed! a very good point. i was eyeing up earls om1 and made the mistake of peering through the finder. my god, i have seen the light!
this is a very good point as often when working in areas somewhat "unfriendly" to photographers dynamic range suffers due to the speed and discreetness part. the g10 is tragically hampered by the highlight clipping and slow to respond shutter.
"The only other thing I'd be sure to take, because I worry about things, would be something purely mechanical for just in case"
indeed! a very good point. i was eyeing up earls om1 and made the mistake of peering through the finder. my god, i have seen the light!
.ken
I like pictures
Thanks Trius...
@peterm1: I say shoot with what you feel comfortable with... it doesn't make sense if you force it. I enjoy it both ways, the LCD doesn't bother me and I can shoot with or without an OVF. personally for street shooting sometimes the LCD frees me up... (1) sneakier and (2) easier to maneuver to get a shot... I only have to move my arm and snap. I don't have to raise a camera to my face and it doesn't get peoples attention. I used G9 and it was good at low ISO, the water color noise was insane and definitely weak on highlights... it was slow too, I felt more comfortable with the Ricoh's... the OVF on the canon is next to useless. Can't wait til the panasonic m/43 comes out... what will we talk about next? lol. Cheers! 🙂
@peterm1: I say shoot with what you feel comfortable with... it doesn't make sense if you force it. I enjoy it both ways, the LCD doesn't bother me and I can shoot with or without an OVF. personally for street shooting sometimes the LCD frees me up... (1) sneakier and (2) easier to maneuver to get a shot... I only have to move my arm and snap. I don't have to raise a camera to my face and it doesn't get peoples attention. I used G9 and it was good at low ISO, the water color noise was insane and definitely weak on highlights... it was slow too, I felt more comfortable with the Ricoh's... the OVF on the canon is next to useless. Can't wait til the panasonic m/43 comes out... what will we talk about next? lol. Cheers! 🙂
dshfoto
Well-known
Digital = toy of the month club.
At least you can stuff and mount them on a wall.
A used film Leica R6 or Contax S2 only costs about $400 to $800, rest of your life cycle.
A new Nikon digital 22 meg about $7,000, with a 2 to 3 year life cycle.
The mfgrs are not showing all their cards about future planned models, so the consumers will not delay purchases.
Dropping $2K to 8K every 2 to 3 years, just to stay current is something that was not the case in the age of film.
Leica M8's used are now running below $3k and falling. It might be better to just wait for one of those. About the same as buying the next two Oly's
At least you can stuff and mount them on a wall.
A used film Leica R6 or Contax S2 only costs about $400 to $800, rest of your life cycle.
A new Nikon digital 22 meg about $7,000, with a 2 to 3 year life cycle.
The mfgrs are not showing all their cards about future planned models, so the consumers will not delay purchases.
Dropping $2K to 8K every 2 to 3 years, just to stay current is something that was not the case in the age of film.
Leica M8's used are now running below $3k and falling. It might be better to just wait for one of those. About the same as buying the next two Oly's
peterm1
Veteran
"peterm1: I say shoot with what you feel comfortable with... it doesn't make sense if you force it. I enjoy it both ways, the LCD doesn't bother me and I can shoot with or without an OVF. "
My thoughts exactly - too each his own as they say.
But I dont know why some other people are getting "stroppy" at my comments when my attitude is clear - if you like it, go for it. It so happens that I do not. Big deal. There is no cause for getting upset as clearly a couple of people are.
My personal lack of interest in this particular camera is based on the fact that does not suit my shooting style, interests and conception of how I like to take photos. I am just a little sad that yet another company has not quite got it right in my view.
I make no judgment about you as a person or as a photographer.
My thoughts exactly - too each his own as they say.
But I dont know why some other people are getting "stroppy" at my comments when my attitude is clear - if you like it, go for it. It so happens that I do not. Big deal. There is no cause for getting upset as clearly a couple of people are.
My personal lack of interest in this particular camera is based on the fact that does not suit my shooting style, interests and conception of how I like to take photos. I am just a little sad that yet another company has not quite got it right in my view.
I make no judgment about you as a person or as a photographer.
lngu81
Established
To be honest, I find the E-P1 less sneaky than any other "pro" cameras. When I use the LCD screen to shoot, I'm just an ordinary tourist 🙂 and not causing people to raise an eye brow with any exotic cameras. Ironically the routine causes the EP1ers to become sneaky
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
i'll pass on the m8.
i am sure if i took the time to add up the amount of frames i blow in a year and the cost of shooting it in film your math would head south pretty quick.
(disclaimer - i love film. yummy stuff)
emraphoto
Veteran
i have embraced the screen as well. i was literally forced into it recently and found it felt quite comfortable. i can't say i did much holding it at arms length but i began to enjoy the process. as a matter of fact i found it quite liberating actually.
it is shame about the highlight issues with the g's. deal breaker for me. i suppose i will have to peel all the tape off the g10 before i sell it (what is with all the bloody lights?)
morgan
Well-known
FWIW, I don't think any feature on any camera makes someone a "real" photographer. If you get the results you want, then that's great. For me, I just felt odd framing with the e-p1 LCD. I wanted to hold it to my eye. I don't feel that way with p&s'. I'm not sure why, but it was strange. I just didn't vibe with it. Secondly, one of the big reasons I was interested in the e-p1 was the ability to use my m-mount stuff on it. But the manual focus procedure was too annoying for me, very jumpy. I don't think it would work for quick street style shooting, which is a lot of what I like to do. But if you have the time (and patience) it could totally work for someone. I've seen some great shots online of manual focus lenses on the e-p1, and the image quality is very very nice.
Re: the G10, if we were going p&s I was heading to the LX3, but she's really happy with the Rebel T1i so far. I know I'll have fun using the video feature.
Re: the G10, if we were going p&s I was heading to the LX3, but she's really happy with the Rebel T1i so far. I know I'll have fun using the video feature.
emraphoto
Veteran
by the manual focus thing being "jumpy" do you mean actually focusing for ever shot? i am asking as i am very curious as to the manual focus interface.
i scale/zone focus 99% of the time these days and really need the camera to be responsive when doing so. i am a very, very up close and personal shooter though so i can rely on that dof with the wides. i guess trying to focus a long 1.4 would be a painful experience at arms length.
i would not ever expect what works for me to instantly work for others and i apologize if thats the impression i gave. i was a viewfinder diehard, 100 percent and for a long time. that being said i grew to really enjoy the viewfinder "from the hip" approach a while back (the situation forced my hand really). never would have thought i would.
i am looking forward to the video capability of the e-p1 as well. i haven't mucked with video to much but "new frontiers" often result in interesting results.
i scale/zone focus 99% of the time these days and really need the camera to be responsive when doing so. i am a very, very up close and personal shooter though so i can rely on that dof with the wides. i guess trying to focus a long 1.4 would be a painful experience at arms length.
i would not ever expect what works for me to instantly work for others and i apologize if thats the impression i gave. i was a viewfinder diehard, 100 percent and for a long time. that being said i grew to really enjoy the viewfinder "from the hip" approach a while back (the situation forced my hand really). never would have thought i would.
i am looking forward to the video capability of the e-p1 as well. i haven't mucked with video to much but "new frontiers" often result in interesting results.
emraphoto
Veteran
PS don't sweat the "real" bit. i was just poking fun.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Man, I am laughing my arse off ... folks this is the understatement of the year!!!!
John Camp
Well-known
I bought an E-P1 as a backup to my Panasonic G1...two bodies, one set of lenses. Both work also quite well with Leica lenses (I bought an adapter from Camera Quest), at least from 50mm up. I find that on either camera, I can focus my Nocti, 70, 90 and 135 more sharply and more quickly than I can with the M8, and the photos are just fine, though I will not argue that they are as good as M8 IQ when the M8 is properly focused.
The G1's AF is very quick; the E-P1's is extremely slow. I didn't have to read this in a forum, I saw it ten seconds after picking up one in a store; you can actually watch it hunt. According to one reputable reviewer, the average time for AF lock exceeds one second.
Manual focus is easy -- you can watch the focus happen on the LCD, until it's absolutely crisp. Composing with the LCD-only E-P1 is annoying and slower than with the G1 viewfinder (or any optical viewfinder, IMHO.) The problem is, you have to take your eye off the subject and then refocus at 18 inches or so (however far you hold it from your face) and if your subject is moving, getting the composition exactly as you want it can take some time. The thing is, you are not unconsciously framing with your eye, but with your hands. When I'm shooting with a viewfinder, my hands always go to exactly the same place, with the edge of my thumb alongside my mouth, braced against my jaw. My eye, of course, is fixed. With the LCD, none of that is true -- you can be looking in one direction, while your hands are looking somewhere else. In fact, the G1 even mechanizes this -- it has a twistable finder, so it's possible to be looking down at the LCD while the camera points sideways. It can also be used as a waist-level finder.
Two thoughts:
1. These cameras could take a bite from the M8/M9 market because they are cheap, have nice sensors, and the images are *good enough.* If you like longer Leica lenses, they are a dream come true -- my f3.4 135 becomes a 270mm (equivalent) with internal IS on the small E-P1...and it's Leica glass. I *really* like the photos. The Nocti is an equiv. 100mm f1 portrait lens...and they are easier to focus sharply than on any Leica.
2. These cameras almost have the category to themselves...but not quite. The Pentax K-7 is only slightly larger, and with the great Pentax pancake lenses, hardly larger at all, at least functionally (in terms of carrying, packing, etc.) I think Nikon and Canon could go much, much smaller with their 1.5x crop sensors, which are larger and, frankly, better than the 4/3 sensors in terms of ISO and resolution. That could cause problems for the m4/3, but probably not kill them -- they're already clearing out a niche for themselves in the overall market, and I think they'll now be hard to dislodge. IN addition to coming up with smaller bodies, Nikon and Canon would also have to come up with lighter lenses...the M4/3 native lenses are quite compact. And not bad, though somewhat slow.
The G1's AF is very quick; the E-P1's is extremely slow. I didn't have to read this in a forum, I saw it ten seconds after picking up one in a store; you can actually watch it hunt. According to one reputable reviewer, the average time for AF lock exceeds one second.
Manual focus is easy -- you can watch the focus happen on the LCD, until it's absolutely crisp. Composing with the LCD-only E-P1 is annoying and slower than with the G1 viewfinder (or any optical viewfinder, IMHO.) The problem is, you have to take your eye off the subject and then refocus at 18 inches or so (however far you hold it from your face) and if your subject is moving, getting the composition exactly as you want it can take some time. The thing is, you are not unconsciously framing with your eye, but with your hands. When I'm shooting with a viewfinder, my hands always go to exactly the same place, with the edge of my thumb alongside my mouth, braced against my jaw. My eye, of course, is fixed. With the LCD, none of that is true -- you can be looking in one direction, while your hands are looking somewhere else. In fact, the G1 even mechanizes this -- it has a twistable finder, so it's possible to be looking down at the LCD while the camera points sideways. It can also be used as a waist-level finder.
Two thoughts:
1. These cameras could take a bite from the M8/M9 market because they are cheap, have nice sensors, and the images are *good enough.* If you like longer Leica lenses, they are a dream come true -- my f3.4 135 becomes a 270mm (equivalent) with internal IS on the small E-P1...and it's Leica glass. I *really* like the photos. The Nocti is an equiv. 100mm f1 portrait lens...and they are easier to focus sharply than on any Leica.
2. These cameras almost have the category to themselves...but not quite. The Pentax K-7 is only slightly larger, and with the great Pentax pancake lenses, hardly larger at all, at least functionally (in terms of carrying, packing, etc.) I think Nikon and Canon could go much, much smaller with their 1.5x crop sensors, which are larger and, frankly, better than the 4/3 sensors in terms of ISO and resolution. That could cause problems for the m4/3, but probably not kill them -- they're already clearing out a niche for themselves in the overall market, and I think they'll now be hard to dislodge. IN addition to coming up with smaller bodies, Nikon and Canon would also have to come up with lighter lenses...the M4/3 native lenses are quite compact. And not bad, though somewhat slow.
morgan
Well-known
John described the manual focusing pretty well. Here's the thing - as soon as you start to manual focus, the image zooms in so you can be precise. The problem is that the image on the lcd is really sensitive to movement, so it can be a little seasicky trying to focus, and I'd say almost impossible on a moving subject. It's also strange if you hold the camera out and go to focus, then you have to move it to see the lcd to be able to focus it. If it's a still subject, it can definitely be done though, and you could probably get really precise with it with practice. Scale focus shouldn't be a problem. But my initial reaction was that it was totally impractical for me.
Just a caveat, this from my 30-45 minutes of playing with the camera. I'm sure some people could (and will) get to be really proficient at using the e-p1.
Just a caveat, this from my 30-45 minutes of playing with the camera. I'm sure some people could (and will) get to be really proficient at using the e-p1.
John Camp
Well-known
With my camera, the 17 (which the store had in stock) is no faster than the zoom, using single AF point and single shot. However, I've only used it in lower-light indoor situations, so I don't know how well it will work in bright light.
The best thing about the Olympus is its form factor. It looks like a P&S, handles like one, and yet delivers the goods.
The worst thing, IMO, is the mechanical interface with the menus. It has a *very small* selection wheel. I just checked, and the entire wheel is smaller than an American or Canadian dime, or a British 5-pence piece, or an Israeli shekel. In that dial there are four directional selectors, plus the continuous revolving selector, plus a centered OK button. In comparison, the selector dial on the back of the M8 is twice the diameter, or very close to that. To use the E-P1 dial, I can only use my fingernail to rotate it, and even then, half the time I wind up changing some parameter that I didn't want to change -- if you press just a bit too hard on the rotary dial, you engage on the of selection points as you go by. Yesterday, I managed to turn on the 12-second timer, and couldn't figure out for a while why the thing wouldn't fire. The tiny dial makes it impossible to use quickly or accurately, so if you're an advanced photographer, who wants to make frequent and quick menu changes, the selector is an abomination. The worst I have seen, in fact.
Overall, the E-P1 is workable, and great for some stuff. Where it really shines is longer street photography, where you can set it on manual, focus on a known distance, and shoot at that. I like the G1 quite a bit better, though, as it is more usable, and it has become my carry-around car camera.
JC
The best thing about the Olympus is its form factor. It looks like a P&S, handles like one, and yet delivers the goods.
The worst thing, IMO, is the mechanical interface with the menus. It has a *very small* selection wheel. I just checked, and the entire wheel is smaller than an American or Canadian dime, or a British 5-pence piece, or an Israeli shekel. In that dial there are four directional selectors, plus the continuous revolving selector, plus a centered OK button. In comparison, the selector dial on the back of the M8 is twice the diameter, or very close to that. To use the E-P1 dial, I can only use my fingernail to rotate it, and even then, half the time I wind up changing some parameter that I didn't want to change -- if you press just a bit too hard on the rotary dial, you engage on the of selection points as you go by. Yesterday, I managed to turn on the 12-second timer, and couldn't figure out for a while why the thing wouldn't fire. The tiny dial makes it impossible to use quickly or accurately, so if you're an advanced photographer, who wants to make frequent and quick menu changes, the selector is an abomination. The worst I have seen, in fact.
Overall, the E-P1 is workable, and great for some stuff. Where it really shines is longer street photography, where you can set it on manual, focus on a known distance, and shoot at that. I like the G1 quite a bit better, though, as it is more usable, and it has become my carry-around car camera.
JC
250swb
Well-known
Buying colour film and having it processed used to cost me on average £21 per week for 'leisure' use of the camera. That is over £1000 per year. If all I did was throw an E-P1 away after one year I would still be, comparatively speaking, 'in pocket'. But this comparison only works if enough films are/were used. If you scan films that time should also be given a value and factored in. And then the idea of spending $3000 on an M8? It is already falling behind the sensor IQ of cheap digital cameras, like the E-P1, and the only thing going for it are the superb interface and lenses (albeit cropped). There are going to be a lot of M8's sitting on shelves in the very near future that have not come close to paying for themselves.
Steve
morgan
Well-known
Not to get too off-topic, but I agree about the costs of film processing aggregating over time. I'm not in a place where I can develop my own stuff right now, and the costs add up very quickly. I'm opting for shooting mostly digital these days mostly because of the costs of film processing. Unless I know I need my film cameras capabilities (like using my 15mm as a 15mm and not a 23) or the uber shallow DOF of my 35/1.2, I'm mostly sticking to digital, even though I generally prefer the analog process and look.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi morgan,
I do share your same concern about the concept of designing a camera which you can't focus under the sun, i.e. without any kind of eyefinder, unless Olympus designers took for granted the vast availability of the Soviet turret finders, which are very fast to manipulate, and which I would be glad to mount on any eyefinderless camera, provided it has a shoe.
But as a person who has recently purchased a G-1 contender, and not really is very found of the technicalities of both cameras, just from the hip I would like to point towards to what seems to be a strong point of the E-P1, against the G-1: the within the body IS. I am not hundred percent sure, but if legacy lens can enjoy from IS when mounted on the E-P1 - this is a huge good think.
I am not saying that this can compensate for the lack of eyefinder, since I even am not sure if legacy lens do enjoy of IS when mounted on the Ep1, but if so, this would be great too.
Had I preferred the Ep1+turret finder+body IS over the G1 ? Well I would tell you, had anyone else but Olympus manufactured the camera, I would. But sine Maitani left Olympus I don't want anything to do with them. However, for anyone else, not sharing my vendetta prejudice, the built in IS may be a very strong positive consideration.
Cheers,
Ruben
I do share your same concern about the concept of designing a camera which you can't focus under the sun, i.e. without any kind of eyefinder, unless Olympus designers took for granted the vast availability of the Soviet turret finders, which are very fast to manipulate, and which I would be glad to mount on any eyefinderless camera, provided it has a shoe.
But as a person who has recently purchased a G-1 contender, and not really is very found of the technicalities of both cameras, just from the hip I would like to point towards to what seems to be a strong point of the E-P1, against the G-1: the within the body IS. I am not hundred percent sure, but if legacy lens can enjoy from IS when mounted on the E-P1 - this is a huge good think.
I am not saying that this can compensate for the lack of eyefinder, since I even am not sure if legacy lens do enjoy of IS when mounted on the Ep1, but if so, this would be great too.
Had I preferred the Ep1+turret finder+body IS over the G1 ? Well I would tell you, had anyone else but Olympus manufactured the camera, I would. But sine Maitani left Olympus I don't want anything to do with them. However, for anyone else, not sharing my vendetta prejudice, the built in IS may be a very strong positive consideration.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Ruben: I am waiting on Maitani, but know he won't be back. I will be content with what is ... I do own two non-Maitani Olympus cameras, the C-2000 and the C-5050. Both are good for what they are, and I acquired them because each had a certain attribute that was important to me. Neither are a digital OM or 35SP, of course. 🙂 But Majoli did award-winning work with the 5050, so the difference must be me.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
John:
I appreciate you sharing your experience with the E-P1. In the case of John (emraphoto), his practice of zone focus shouldn't present any problems with wides.
Man, I learn a new technical term on this forum almost every day. 😀
I appreciate you sharing your experience with the E-P1. In the case of John (emraphoto), his practice of zone focus shouldn't present any problems with wides.
Man, I learn a new technical term on this forum almost every day. 😀
Similar threads
