Micro 4/3rds Pen leak

[Trius]

Ralph: my choice of the phrase "casual shooter" wasn't the best. I'll respond more this evening -- for now I'm off to coffee and breakfast before I type further. 😀

 

[bmattock]

I don't see how they can possible put an optical finder on a camera that does not have a mirror.

Just about every point and shoot film camera ever made has an optical viewfinder and no mirror. We're not talking about single-lens reflex type viewfinders.

 

[Harry Lime]

I'm more worried about the price. $900 is a lot of cash in light of something like a Nikon D40x or D60... We're talking abotu $1150 with a viewfinder. Ouch.

 

[gavinlg]

Just about every point and shoot film camera ever made has an optical viewfinder and no mirror. We're not talking about single-lens reflex type viewfinders.

but those cameras don't have interchangeable lenses. You'd nearly have to bend physics to make a finder that can cover 14-600mm accurately that wasn't based on the mirror. This is by the way at least the 6th time I've made this point and I'm tired of making it.

 

[bmattock]

but those cameras don't have interchangeable lenses. You'd nearly have to bend physics to make a finder that can cover 14-600mm accurately that wasn't based on the mirror. This is by the way at least the 6th time I've made this point and I'm tired of making it.

You can be as tired as you like. I still want what I want. And I have several non-rangefinder cameras from the 1940's that had interchangeable lenses and a non-zooming viewfinder, such as the Contina IIa with the Pantar replaceable lenses. Not hard at all. And no one says that the optical viewfinder would have to zoom to cover any possible lens you might put on the camera. I have not seen a Leica M with internal framelines for a 200mm lens, but you can put such a lens (coupled, yet) on the camera.

I don't understand why you're 'tired' of telling people not to have the opinions that they have. Opinions are what they are - people have them.

 

[climbing_vine]

Calling a camera with interchangeable lenses and manual exposure controls a "point and shoot" is sort of... bizarre. Whether it has a viewfinder or not.

 

[MichaelW]

Thats why a real camera has an optical viewfinder.

Real cameras have a ground glass. 😉

 

[gavinlg]

They COULD raise the body height a half an inch and include a viewfinder if they chose to (ala the Canon G10, Panasonic G1). Anyway, thee is absolutely NO way I'd pay $1000 for a camera without one. I'm not exactly clear about what it is about having a viewfinder, but I've had them for 40-some years and I'm not much interested in giving them up. Even a EVF would be better than nothing!

But then it wouldn't be a compact camera, it would be the same size as a small DSLR, which would render the whole point of the camera mute. The Canon G10 finder is NOT comparable because a) it's like looking through a straw b) has something ridiculous like 60% accuracy (useless) and c) the Canon g10 has a fixed lens, and d)THIS ONE HAS INTERCHANGEABLE LENSES
. The G1 has an EVF and because of it is a much bigger camera. Again, the digital Pen is meant to be a COMPACT camera.

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.

I sympathize with your problem that stops you from seeing the lcd well, but an optical finder is near impossible on the camera. This is now the 8th time I've said this. if you want an optical finder, buy a bigger camera with a mirror - easy as that.

The sensor is something like 10 times bigger than the canon g10 sensor and something like 7 times bigger than the lx3 one. it is however only matter of millimeters smaller than a canon/nikon/pentax aps-c sensor. note in this diagram the canon g10 and LX3 sensors are smaller than the 1/1.7" sensor. MASSIVE difference. The 4/3rds sensor mainly looses length over an aps-c sensor due to it's 4:3s format, rather than the normal 3:2 format. The 4/3rds sensor is equal in image quality to aps-c sensors and allows for better lenses. This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've said this.

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

Please never compare an olympus product to that hideous abomination that is the pontiac aztek. I understand you don't like LCDs - better learn to like them because it has one, and it doesn't have an optical finder. If it did have an optical finder, it wouldn't be small/would be much more expensive. pick one or both.

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.

Yes, because the guys from Magnum are inexperienced enough to "attempt" to use ricoh GRDs on the field and get gorgeous pictures out of them - amateurs. The LCD screen in live view mode gets 100% accuracy - the optical VF in the canon g10 (it can have it because it has a fixed zoom lens - for the slow learners) has somewhere around 60-70% accuracy. I'd be inclined to say the LCD is more accurate for composition. The E-P1 has the same 11 point AF system as the Panasonic G1, which is quick and accurate and used without complaint by nearly everyone that has one.

 

[johannielscom]

Gavin, you seem to have some inside info. Is there a 600mm lens for this Olympus 4/3 camera? Can we please have some shots? What is it size-like? Well belanced with the camera, I suppose?

Why don't you just admit it would be waày cool if it had an OVF, there's no shame in that. And yes, it would limit the lenses that go on it, but be serious, you're not gonna shoot that 600mm lens while keeping the camera steady at arms length anyway, are you now?:angel:

Oh, and actually, if the Olympus only had had an EVF viewfinder, zooming would be childs' play considering the Panny G1 has it, even when a Leica lens and adapter are used.

The fact that it most likely has no viewfinder at all is a huge mistake with most people who are reading about the camera here on RFF. In My Humble Opinion, that is.

But, all is well that ends well, and we might all be wrong, maybe it has some kind of viewfinder after all and then (only then!) I would consider buying it!

 

[gavinlg]

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.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that there is no other compact point and shoot with interchangeable lenses and a big sensor with a viewfinder. There will probably never be another one with an optical VF. EVF maybe, but this one doesn't have it. Yes we know it doesn't have one, but people are just saying it over and over and over and over again. Mostly the same people.

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.

We're the ones that are trying to get conversation about the main parts of the camera. It's a freakin revolutionary move by olympus that gives a similar image quality to say a leica m8 but at $900 and at the size of grandmas casio digital.

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.

People are over and over saying I want an optical viewfinder. it's near physically impossible considering the constraints. I've stated why a number of times, and yet people keep saying it, it's not an opinion, it's pigheaded ignorance.

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. 😉

If you had actually researched a bit you'd see I was right by saying it will have a range of 14-600mm and it will most probably be used for it as well. To be concise: The m4/3rds concept gets rid of the optical mirror which allows the lens mount to be placed closer to the sensor which in turn allows lenses to be built with a much less aggressive retrofocal design, which in turn allows them to be comparatively tiny. That in comparison with the sensor size doubling the equivalent focal length of a lens could probably mean a 600mm equiv f4 that is only 20cms long. Add to that the original 4/3rds lenses can be adapted for use with the m4/3rds body, which means pended firmware upgrades to some of the older ones, any single lens would theoretically be able to be used from the 4/3rds lineup which goes from 14-600mm.

When you use a big lens like the 90-250mm f2.8 or the zuiko 300mm f2.8 you don't hold the body and stabilize the lens with your hand, you hold the lens and stabilize the body with your hand. This means although a small camera may be not as comfortable, there's no problems using a massive lens with one.

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.

I'd love to talk some more about the actual features of the camera!

 

[johannielscom]

Mr. Mod, can you please put a lock on this? Gavin is blowing a gasket on the subject. No need to get offensive, or shout in orange.

 

[infrequent]

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.

actually the masses don't visit RFF...you are still a minority albeit vocal. the general public made the call on VFs when they decided that digicams were better for them than film cameras.

@fdigital - let it go mate...these guys haven't realised yet that no one is being forced to buy the EP-1. if it doesn't suit your needs, i am sure there are plenty of other pocketable, interchangeable lens systems with a substantial sensor to choose from. if i had nickel for every such options, i would only have a nickel.

 

[morgan]

Just to keep the viewfinder fires burning, here's a thread on dpreview where someone pointed out some interesting bits around the hot shoe area from the leaked shots. People seem to think it's a popup EVF.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=32075734

 

[splitimageview]

There are several comments about price in this thread, that's as uncertain as the viewfinder discussion.

Patience, all will be revealed in a few days. 🙂

 

[rover]

Ralph: my choice of the phrase "casual shooter" wasn't the best. I'll respond more this evening -- for now I'm off to coffee and breakfast before I type further. 😀

I probably should have done the same before posting. 😉

 

[gavinlg]

Mr. Mod, can you please put a lock on this? Gavin is blowing a gasket on the subject. No need to get offensive, or shout in orange.

Look, no need for that. I'm not here to insult anyone or make enemies. If you want actual realistic and factual information I am always happy to contribute. If you feel like I'm wrecking the thread, I won't post again in this one. Everything I've said has been based off facts - I happen to know a lot about this camera and what olympus have been trying to do with it - I know that from digging through interviews and information. It frustrates me that I have now accumulated a great number of posts explaining things over and over again that cannot be done under the constraints of the camera and yet people keep bringing them up, post after post.

I don't go on a car forum and say in the "New Toyota yaris/vitz Thread" and post 100 times "if the car doesn't have rocket boosters so it can reach the furthest reaches of space I'm not interested. It's not a real car unless it has rocket boosters"

 

[gavinlg]

Gavin, you seem to have some inside info. Is there a 600mm lens for this Olympus 4/3 camera? Can we please have some shots? What is it size-like? Well belanced with the camera, I suppose?

Why don't you just admit it would be waày cool if it had an OVF, there's no shame in that. And yes, it would limit the lenses that go on it, but be serious, you're not gonna shoot that 600mm lens while keeping the camera steady at arms length anyway, are you now?:angel:

Whoops you caught me out I actually do have inside information on the 600mm lens for this olympus m4/3rds camera. Here's a sneak pic:

You connect it with this little jiggy here:

And the IS takes care of keeping the camera steady with that lens on it. I have actually shot with the 300mm f2.8 zuiko before, and yes it's pretty easily handhold-able.

And finally, HELL YEAH i'd like an optical viewfinder, I just know it's not going to happen, and it doesn't really distract me from the fact that this cameras good points outweigh it's compromises. Chances are you'll never find a perfect camera - all of them will be compromised in some way.

 

[rover]

Look, no need for that. I'm not here to insult anyone or make enemies. If you want actual realistic and factual information I am always happy to contribute. If you feel like I'm wrecking the thread, I won't post again in this one. Everything I've said has been based off facts - I happen to know a lot about this camera and what olympus have been trying to do with it - I know that from digging through interviews and information. It frustrates me that I have now accumulated a great number of posts explaining things over and over again that cannot be done under the constraints of the camera and yet people keep bringing them up, post after post.

I don't go on a car forum and say in the "New Toyota yaris/vitz Thread" and post 100 times "if the car doesn't have rocket boosters so it can reach the furthest reaches of space I'm not interested. It's not a real car unless it has rocket boosters"

You obviously know a great deal about this camera. Why be frustrated? Time will tell what the features and demand are for this new beast. It may be revolutionary, or it may be a white elephant. Oly has made their bed with it. If they are right great, if not, someone will come up with the next new best thing since sliced bread in about 2 months.

 

[johannielscom]

As a closing argument, let me just repeat once more what got me into this discussion in the first place: not having any viewfinder would defeat the point of the Pen retro-styling.

Now, when mounting a lens like that, would it defeat the point of the Pen retro styiling, or would it not?

I rest my case.

Enjoy the 'Pen', Gavin.

 

[Sparrow]

Calling a camera with interchangeable lenses and manual exposure controls a "point and shoot" is sort of... bizarre. Whether it has a viewfinder or not.

Why thank you; I have always worried about becoming uninteresting in my old age