It's official, it is goin to be a digital Pen

[shadowfox]

"This camera is destined to be used with almost all of the best lenses in the world."

I guess you are referring to adapting it to other mount lenses. I wonder how much appeal that will have beyond the novelty. I can't think of many lenses I'd want to hang off a camera this small. And, once you do, it's not a small camera anymore.

What's wrong with novelty when it comes to appeal?

You think iPhone's appeal (as indicated by its sale volumes) is not attributed to novelty?

Secondly, have you tried to use old lenses on your digital camera? try it, you may like it.

 

[shadowfox]

Since these cameras do a lot of lens corrections in the body, there's a chance that a lens might not get all of the ideal corrections that a vendor may have put in.

If the lens' best result depends on in-body corrections (software?), then the lens may not be worth using then.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Two things come to mind after reading this thread: 1.) Reinventing the wheel. 1.) If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[rover]

Reinventing the wheel.

http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/papers/GECCO05_Bongard2.pdf

 

[Tom Diaz]

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/special/pen50th/pen_ee/

Or at least the foreshadowing seems to imply this.
🙂

I must have it, I tell you!

 

[chikne]

The back

 

[cmedin]

Firstly, in-lens stabilization gives you an approximately two stop advantage over in-camera stabilization.

I just about spit my coffee out over this one. I've owned a K20D with a pile of lenses and currently own a 1Ds II so can speak from experience here. Pentax's in-body shake reduction usually got me an easy 2.5-3 stops. Canon's in-lens IS usually gets me a solid 3. And I shot anything from 16mm to 300mm on the Pentax -- contrary to popular belief in-body stabilization still works fine on longer glass though obviously the sensor has to move far more than with a shorter lens.

Two stops difference? Not a chance. Barely any on the short end, maybe up to a stop on the long end.

 

[Ronald_H]

If the lens' best result depends on in-body corrections (software?), then the lens may not be worth using then.

Sorry, but that's just plain silly. Almost anything we experience is optimized with software. Leica cloth shutter anyone? It sure is quiet and traditional, but any electronic shutter is several orders of magnitude more accurate.

If the end result improves, they may correct as much as they want. If the lens is good in the first place so much the better, but dismissing SW correction out of hand, that I don't get.

As a matter of fact, I can use a program like Neat Image to great effect to create much better looking scans from B&W material. To me the ends justify the means!

 

[BillBingham2]

Two stops difference? Not a chance. Barely any on the short end, maybe up to a stop on the long end.

I think the in-camera has an avantage that it is not tied to lenses so it works with most. BUT, I think you might find different qualities as you look through part of the lens (the edges) you normally do not.

I lens while potentially more expensive in that you need to buy it for each lens is customized for each lens.

B2 (;->

 

[cmedin]

I think the in-camera has an avantage that it is not tied to lenses so it works with most. BUT, I think you might find different qualities as you look through part of the lens (the edges) you normally do not.

I lens while potentially more expensive in that you need to buy it for each lens is customized for each lens.

B2 (;->

In-lens IS definitely has advantages, like being able to see the viewfinder image stabilize. I was just disagreeing with the "2 stop advantage" over in-body, considering I have extensive experience with both and that is just not true.

 

[gavinlg]

The back

That rectangle up the top right is white... what's the deal? Is it a big rectangular-ish white jog wheel that moves horizontally? And does the jagged edges on the 4 way controller mean that moves as well?

How exciting!

 

[morgan]

It does look like some kind of wheel. And there's a wheel around that round bit as well. It looks like there's the potential for a fair amount of non-menu control of ISO, aperture, etc. I wish it were like the R-D1 (ie simple manual controls), but this looks usable so far. I wonder what it will weigh, compared to an R-D1 and average size lens.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Looks like pretty standard control stuff to me. But the size of these controls must be tiny!

 

[gavinlg]

Flash bracket or remote fire. 43rumors are now saying that the e-p1 is going to have the capability to act as a commander for external olympus flashguns, of which they are also saying a new one specially designed for the pen is coming.


Oh, and they're also saying a e-p1 17mm f2.8 specific aux viewfinder might be released for use with the body and lens. Fun times 🙂

 

[gavinlg]

Looks like pretty standard control stuff to me. But the size of these controls must be tiny!

You're the kind of guy that buys these aren't you?

:angel:

 

[KenRothman]

I'm seriously considering this bad boy for my digital stuff. Shooting a lot of film lately on my R3a (40 1.4 SC) and my FE2.

This could potentially replace both my ancient Canon S400 and my Rebel XT kit. Seriously.

 

[freeranger]

You're the kind of guy that buys these aren't you?

:angel:

"Mom...can you come round again? ... Damn these fiddly things!"

 

[Ronald_H]

So what if you want to use an auxiliary viewfinder AND a flash?

You're SOL.

Oh wait, there have been double accessory shoes for the Bessas!

 

[ulrikft]

Those who think that a 4/3-sensor can compete with a fullframe sensor of the same sensor generation.. seriously, what are you smoking?

A larger sensor with the same tech, will per definiton be able to have more DR, better iso-capability AND support higher resolution.

If this is important or not, is a whole other debate. and most may argue that as long as you can get nice iso1600 with your 0.95 or 1.1 lens, you are good to go, and that is great. But don't try to say that a 4/3-sensor can objectively compete on measurable stuff with a fullframe sensor, beacause it can't. No matter how religiously brainwashed you may have become.

 

[gavinlg]

Those who think that a 4/3-sensor can compete with a fullframe sensor of the same sensor generation.. seriously, what are you smoking?

A larger sensor with the same tech, will per definiton be able to have more DR, better iso-capability AND support higher resolution.

If this is important or not, is a whole other debate. and most may argue that as long as you can get nice iso1600 with your 0.95 or 1.1 lens, you are good to go, and that is great. But don't try to say that a 4/3-sensor can objectively compete on measurable stuff with a fullframe sensor, beacause it can't. No matter how religiously brainwashed you may have become.

It's at the point where it's easily good enough. In fact it's way past that line. Photos that have collectively dropped the jaws of people around the world have been made on inferior cameras and formats.

Four thirds advantages lie in the superb, consistent and small lenses, the overall size and weight, and the overall experience.

By the way, if you look at DPreview's latest Canon t1r review you'll see the olympus e-620 has more highlight detail than the larger sensored canon, even in RAW, as well as more shadow room, and has the largest dynamic range in it's class. Pretty cool really.
If you research some Panasonic GH1 reviews, they are saying it has the same or better high ISO performance than the canon t1r and possibly others.

My first point in bold is what you need to hear though.