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

[ulrikft]

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.

I have to disagree with your point in bold. What i can do with my d700 at 1/50 f/1.2 and iso 6400, when doing concert photography, people with an E3 can't do after me. That is just how it is right now. Is that a valid point for everyone? Of course not, but for me it _is_. And the dynamic range of the D3X, the ad900 and similar cameras is, as far as I have read tests and tried out myself, better than most alternatives if you shoot raw and process similarly over the entire line.

(disclaimer: I have to admit that I have no clue about what the Canon t1r is, is that an american brand name..?)

 

[Bruin]

The gap between full format and 4/3 is still significant. The gap between APS-C and 4/3 is not so much, to the point where they're comparable. Any of them is MUCH better than your typical P&S sensor.

Everyone happy now? 😉

 

[ishpop]

Sensor debates are funny.

A sensor does not a photographer make, it's proven time and time again...

 

[splitimageview]

Geez, if we are going to get into the sensor debate, nothing beats the sensor that was in the first Leica many years ago. That horse is dead...

 

[dazedgonebye]

The gap between full format and 4/3 is still significant. The gap between APS-C and 4/3 is not so much, to the point where they're comparable. Any of them is MUCH better than your typical P&S sensor.

Everyone happy now? 😉

This really should be the point. The sensor is light years ahead of anything else in a small camera, except for the Sigmas, and it offers interchangeable lenses!

 

[morgan]

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.

Not to wade too far into this, but the Canon 500D/T1i is not a fullframe sensor. You'd have to compare the EP-1 to the 5D for that. Urikft seemed to be talking about FF sensors strictly.

 

[kuzano]

Whoops....

Whoops....

CATFIGHT!!!!

Another sensor debate

:bang:

 

[freeranger]

I love a fight! Just wait 'til I get my jacket off .. I'll scratch up the lot o' yer ... oh ...

Mum?...

 

[Wiyum]

I have to disagree with your point in bold. What i can do with my d700 at 1/50 f/1.2 and iso 6400, when doing concert photography, people with an E3 can't do after me. That is just how it is right now. Is that a valid point for everyone? Of course not, but for me it _is_. And the dynamic range of the D3X, the ad900 and similar cameras is, as far as I have read tests and tried out myself, better than most alternatives if you shoot raw and process similarly over the entire line.

(disclaimer: I have to admit that I have no clue about what the Canon t1r is, is that an american brand name..?)

If "ISO performance as good as the d700" is one of your criteria for buying a camera, you must have an awfully lonely camera shelf, likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

I don't recall anyone claiming that the sensor competes with anything other than APS-C. Which it does, and handily. And compared against any camera of its size, it likely wins, hands down.

I love my d700, but it isn't the sort of camera that I could always have with me. That's what the E-P1 would be for, should it meet its promise. You make tradeoffs with a camera this small; many of us seem willing to make those that this one demands in order to get what it offers.

 

[Colman]

You make tradeoffs with a camera this small; many of us seem willing to make those that this one demands in order to get what it offers.

You don't understand: if you're not dedicated enough to tote an 8"x10" (complete with changing tent) everywhere you're not a real photographer. <rolls eyes>

 

[.ken]

wow, ulrikft seems to have signed up to RFF just to make his point about 4/3 vs FF... weird

 

[freeranger]

I do not think that my prowess as a photographer will ever exceed the ability of the APS-C sensor to capture detail. However, I am so excited about the possibilities offered by the digital pen that I am in danger of peeing my pants!

 

[ulrikft]

wow, ulrikft seems to have signed up to RFF just to make his point about 4/3 vs FF... weird

Weird, if it were true that is. Check my registration date please.


(if one can do that?)

I just hate the 4/3-nuthuggers around the web talking about how light (the E3 + similar lenses is not that much lighter, if lighter at all, than a d700 with a similar setup), superb (without qualifying how/when/why) etc the 4/3-cameras are.

I have no problems seeing that a 4/3 or m4/3 camera can be a great compromise for many people. I just dislike somewhat religious rethoric.

When it comes to what I demand? well, I hope/suspect that if Zeiss or Leica comes out with a rangefinder the next 2-3 years, it will be fullframe, and it will be (atleast) as good as the d700 in the iso department. And be pretty much perfect for lightweight, lowlight/avilable light setups.

It is not that I dislike 4/3 per se, but I'm a narrow dof-loving, low-light shooting guy. That means that fullframe with nice primes is _my_ way. Others might have totally different priorities, and that is ok, as long as they don't preach the "4/3 is best for everything"-gospel.

 

[chikne]

The beast

 

[Wiyum]

Okay, this is getting unseemly. If this controlled leak campaign of frustrating views of the camera/low res images is real, then I only hope the folks at Olympus are as good at anticipating my needs as their marketing department is at piquing my interest!

 

[Wiyum]

I just hate the 4/3-nuthuggers around the web talking about how light (the E3 + similar lenses is not that much lighter, if lighter at all, than a d700 with a similar setup), superb (without qualifying how/when/why) etc the 4/3-cameras are.

When it comes to what I demand? well, I hope/suspect that if Zeiss or Leica comes out with a rangefinder the next 2-3 years, it will be fullframe, and it will be (atleast) as good as the d700 in the iso department. And be pretty much perfect for lightweight, lowlight/avilable light setups.

Well, I pretty much agree with you there. I think the 4/3 standard is deeply flawed in a number of ways, because the cameras aren't radically smaller at all. This, however, is. I wouldn't trade my d700 for anything for important work, I just want a camera for the rest of the time.

I wish I shared your optimism regarding future dRF development. I'm skeptical in the first place that we'll get a fullframe dRF that soon; in the second place that Leica or Zeiss will deliver a sensor as strong as the Nikons (Zeiss, with Sony, might); and in the third place that such an item would be remotely affordable for me. The $3000 d700 was pretty much my limit; add the $3000 premium for full frame to the $4000 premium for dRF, and we might not get a full $7000, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were that or higher. Great for those that can afford it, that just isn't me.

 

[splitimageview]

Just think of 4/3s as full frame, and the D700 as medium format and all is swell. 🙂

 

[historicist]

I have to say te chrome on the top in the earlier pics put me off but from the front the camera looks very, very nice. And the control layout on the back looks well thought out as well, roll on Monday!

 

[gavinlg]

Just wanted to add something hopefully somewhat diplomatic to the sensor ordeal - No current 4/3rds sensors aren't as good as say a d700 or a canon 5d mk2 if you specialize in concert photography, but thats half the reason those cameras cost 3-5 times more than this Olympus will, they're specialized and they are at the top of the game.

As far as 4/3rds not delivering on the smaller size as Olympus said it would - the E-3 is a pro camera, and Pros tend to like their cameras pretty big.
If you want small, you're in the right thread:

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The potential problem for Olympus now is that, regardless of how good the camera actually is, it can never live up to the hype being generated from this leak! 😉