Micro 4/3rds Pen leak

[drewbarb]

ummm....auxiliary finders anyone?

No joke! Grab a prime lens and stick a finder in the accessory shoe.

 

[Doug]

then go buy a M8 or RD1, this is not the optical viewfinder camera you think it is and no amount of wanting will make it that way.

Right, and that's where it fails. I don't want an EVF, and I don't want to compose on an LCD at arm's length with my head tipped back peering through my bifocals, I too want an optical viewfinder.

Also, what's this talk about it having a "large" sensor? With a 2x crop factor, the sensor is just too small. Or is this viewed as an alternative to a Canon G10 or similar? Its sensor is WAY too small.

 

[250swb]

I wonder if in their day the average Olympus Pen shooter wouldn't have raved over the opportunity to have a massive viewfinder screen on the back of their cameras instead of an optical viewfinder?

I'm a bit disappointed that it doesn't have a viewfinder, but I can only suppose the next scheduled body announcement for this year will be for a more conventional camera. What I don't think will happen is that this Pen like camera will be released with the 17mm lens as the main kit lens ( perhaps as a separate 'De Luxe' kit?), but rather with a new 14-42mm zoom. I also wouldn't put it past Olympus to have considered the viewfinder option and I'm sure that like the original Pen, this will be a 'platform' camera that can be built upon and configured. We'll know on the 15th........

Steve

 

[Ronald_H]

I am getting so tired of people obsessed with optical viewfinders. You can buy them you know! Cosina is offering a broad range of them. Maybe Mr. K will be so nice to make a few with a 4/3rds aspect ratio too. I'll just put the cam on 3:2 and use my Leitz 35mm brightline. Non issue!

As for people insisting the sensor is 'way to small', well it maybe is if you expect full frame 🙄 It is still WAY bigger and better than a LX-3 or G10. That's the whole point of this thing. A P&S with dSLR image quality and interchangeable lenses!

Why all this wailing and gnashing of teeth while we should be weeping with joy? And like the G1, it will take adapters, so you can mount everything you like on it.

 

[amateriat]

then go buy a M8 or RD1, this is not the optical viewfinder camera you think it is and no amount of wanting will make it that way.

Okay, but with all due respect, "serious" photography through an LCD, IMO, is like target-shooting with a musket. And for $1k, that's not quite good enough.

Unless Olympus has something special in its trick bag with this camera, I'm afraid it'll end up being the Pontiac Aztek of wishful-thinking products, with potentially similar results. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, however.


- Barrett

 

[Rayt]

I have always been a fan of P&S and I still have about 4 Minilux's. This to me is a GRD with a much larger sensor, stabilization and interchangeable lenses. I like it already and will likely buy one. I don't see how they can possible put an optical finder on a camera that does not have a mirror.

 

[sevo]

Right, and that's where it fails. I don't want an EVF, and I don't want to compose on an LCD at arm's length with my head tipped back peering through my bifocals, I too want an optical viewfinder.

So do I - but we are relics of the film age, with waning eyesight and early habits formed on box type cameras rather than a Nokia cellphone.

Back LCDs follow the cellphone usage paradigm and have become the most widely accepted finders. If you watch consumers with live view DSLRs, you will notice that only a marginal percentage of them will use the SLR finder - the screen peek at arm's length is indeed dominant, even where the camera could do more. The new Nikon D5000 is already promoted hereabouts for its live view capability and large screen only - one or two consumer DSLR generations downstream they'll probably invent some new acronym for SLR and drop the reflex finder entirely.

Sevo

 

[taxi38]

Anyone saying that a camera is the same with or without a proper viewfinder is just showing their lack of experience,an lcd screen is useless for proper composition.If this camera has no viewfinder then the only way it could function in any sane way(unless youre a still life photographer)is if it has almost instant autofocus and instant confirmation in an accurate accessory viewfinder.
I think there is the possibility of a quality evf similar,but higher definition,to the gx200.This would make sense of their advertising campaign that is leading to a comparison to the slr pen-f.

 

[rover]

Seriously. Please get over the viewfinder. It's been said like 100 times already. Using the LCD is just as good as using a viewfinder - just a different way of doing it. They physically can't put a viewfinder on this camera because of its physical constraints like NOT HAVING A MIRROR which is why they are able to put the massive sensor in it whilst keeping it so tiny.

My goodness, seriously, please get over the viewfinder thing. Take a look, it has been said 100 times, but only by 3 people, that the LCD is just as good. That big crowd over there, that is the rest of us.

HI, lonely?

If demand is part of the economic model to go along with supply, the masses are speaking very loudly. Not as loud as you are repeatedly telling us we are all wrong, but you are going to buy ONE digi Pen, we may buy MANY.

The affluent casual shooter, unhappy with P&S quality and lag time, is already comfortable with using the LCD to compose. That's a huge market.

One huge whole in this argument, the P&S crowd isn't going to pay 3x more for this Oly. Oly is building this camera and pricing it where ony an enthusiast is going to be willing to buy it. The CASUAL SHOOTER is not going to pony up $900 for it compared to a $300 P&S. And if they do want better quality, before they get to the $900 Pen, they are going to run into the $600 DSLRs, and most won't be willing to get past the wonders of all the bells and whistles of a DSLR to get to a little Pen for the extra $300. I spend every day surrounded by these casual shooters, I am the only camera geek I know. Believe me, I know the beast, they won't be buying this camera.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but if that $900 price is right, the Oly is going to have to face the fact of the marketplace. They will have to sell this camera to the enthusiast, and other than a few of you, the rest of us want a viewfinder. This camera may be successful without it, but it would be more attractive to a larger % of their target market if it had one.

Now, let's just agree to disagree. You can think a viewfinder is not important, we will think it is.

 

[rover]

Sorry you are the one that is way off, I have not mentioned digi CL once before and have been trying to get people to understand this m 4/3 concept is not the cheap digital rangefinder they hope for because every other post is about "does it have a viewfinder?"

Go read some other forums too. The question is being asked everywhere, Does it have a viewfinder? And only here are a few screaming that it is wrong to ask that question.

 

[rover]

I think we got to give it up Gavin, let them boil about their missing viewfinder,

I am only quoting all of this to point out that you two are the only posters boiling over anything. This is a conversation, you guys are stuck one point. People don't agree with you, that is the way it is. Move on.

 

[rover]

Yeah I think I'm going to leave it now - I've been trying for the last 4-5 pages of the other thread, but no matter how much logic and sense my post makes people just keep spouting the same narrow minded stuff about the viewfinder. It ain't about the viewfinder!

Listen to the sense made by others too. Sticking to one point is just as narrow minded on your part. For you it isn't, but for many others it is.

 

[Sparrow]

What Rover said, it sort of defeats the point. I would prefer a camera that worked like a Pan F, whatever it looked like, rather than one that was another digital P&S simply styled like an old camera

I think it’s safe to say I will never buy a camera without some type of finder, it should be so easy, why cant I just have what I want?

 

[johannielscom]

What Rover said, it sort of defeats the point. I would prefer a camera that worked like a Pen F, whatever it looked like, rather than one that was another digital P&S styled like an old camera...

I've mentioned that at the 'other Pen thread' as well already. It seems no use with these guys, now they're crusading over here.

And, a fact everybody, including the crusaders, seems to miss: when shooting slow speeds, isn't it FAR easier to hold the camera steady while resting it at THREE points (hands and eyebrow) than at TWO (just hands, arms stretched)?

And just how are modern camera companies compensating for the lack of a viewfinder? By adding Image Stabilisation Control. And why this approach? Because Image Stabilisation is a marketing trick, it makes people think the camera is newest technology and you need it, you can't go without it. It improves the companies' sales, not the photographers' shooting. An optical viewfinder isn't new, its dated. You cannot compete with an OVF.

Thats why a real camera has an optical viewfinder. And I would settle for an EVF, but not for stretched arms while using a camera that is designed to look the sixties real thing. But, to each his own. Just don't tell me I'm narrow minded.

Happy to find respected members like Bill, Stewart and Rover on my side, I was starting to feel kinda lonely on this. Thanks guys! 🙂

 

[rover]

Well, it isn't about sides. I have had my coffee now and am less compulsive so let me just say, this is an interesting camera. I sold a bunch of stuff yesterday so that I can afford one if I like what I see when it is introduced and reviewed. Let's keep this, or get it back on track, talking about the little Penny, not each other.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

It's a simple choice for Olympus, and other digicam makers for that matter. It's cheaper to make a camera with no finder. So they make more profit. Mix that with the lust of the camera buying public for tiny, jewel-like P&S cameras, and you have cameras too small to be of much use.

Somebody posted that the camera was designed for a range of lenses from 10mm to 600mm. which would limit the use of a finder in such a small camera. Humbug. Mounting anything much larger than a small zoom on this tiny camera would be ridiculous. I'm not sure who the market is for this camera.

Can't wait to see a Noctilux adapted to this thing. 😉

 

[Sparrow]

It’s just I never mastered that dorky expression with ones mouth hanging open …




:angel: sorry

 

[Jacob]

I could manage with an aux. finder but what bothers me is that the controls seen in the picture doesn't have any custom/personal/my settings like the GR-D2 and LX3 or dials like G10 or Digilux. I simply dont like buttons, joysticks, rockers and menus. The interface seen so far seems a bit too P&S-ish in my eyes.
Jacob

 

[rbiemer]

Most of the time I find the LCD on my digi akward to use and hard to see. For some things it is better than an optical finder but not for most of what I shoot. If this new Pen has a seriously good EVF to put in that hot shoe, then the camera becomes much more interesting to me. I can see where an optical VF would be tough for the range of lenses that could be used on this camera but there is no reason to think there should be only one finder: if there were a series of them set up to cover a range of lenses--wide to normal, normal to mid tele, and mid to long--and they had AF point indicated in the finder that might be easier. Cant see where there is any need for a mirror, though.
Rob

 

[historicist]

I'm fine personally with an external optical finder, but my only concern is that the clean lines of the camera might be ruined by it. Guess I'll have to wait for more pictures to find out.