Olympus EP-1 First Impressions from a store demo

Kevin said:
Tests done by individuals can be manipulated. And in this particular case, manipulation is the name of this person's game.

There is no reason whatsoever that certain parts of the white napkin shot by the (supposed) D3 have selective blowout. Upon close examination I can only come to the conclusion that the manipulator selectively applied the dodge tool in photoshop in order to make it appear that the D3's sensor has less DR than the E-P1 sensor.

The lower visible part of the white napkin easily shows it. Comparing that area to the same section shot by the (supposed) E-P1, it is easy to spot where and how the manipulation took place.

Poor guy. He must have bought Olympus stock.
Click to expand...

Tests by individuals can be manipulated, but in this case I think all he is doing is recreating the tests done by Amateur Photographer magazine April 11th 2009 issue. In this controlled magazine test they found the Panasonic G1 (same sensor) had a higher resolution when compared to the D3 and D700, and did so with either a common non telecentric test lens, or the Pana kit lens.

The audacity that Olympus or Panasonic with their m4/3 sensor can achieve a small victory over the Nikon D3 does annoy people. Some say it is tantamount to creating a 'myth', but considering how many genuinely unfounded myths people like to put about regarding 4/3 sensors it is hardly scratching the surface in balancing the discussion.


Steve
 
Saw a lady in Nara walking around with this camera today. Surprised. Did look good, though.
 
Sorry to be a "dumbo" about this but I'm quite new to RF type cameras and their various lens adaptations.

I have a Contax G2 with various Contax lenses.

With the appropriate adaptor, would I be able to fit my lenses to the EP-1 and would the camera automatically recognise the focal length?

Also, what about focusing - no "in house" focusing on a G2 lens!

If the above is dumb please excuse my ignorance.

Thanks
 
250swb, if the results AP got were, in fact, practically valid, don't you think Canon and Nikon would be falling all over themselves putting 4/3's sensors in their professional cameras to make them smaller and lighter (and more profitable to make). And pros would be snapping up G1's to replace their $8,000 cameras.

Some times we need to apply common sense, I think.
 
Well, first you would have to spend several hundred dollars to convert it to M mount. Then you can use an M-4/3 adapter.

I really like the look of the EP-1. Without a usable optical viewfinder, I don't think using a manual focus lens will be much fun.

But that's me, and others obviously are looking forward to using their Leica lenses.
 
CNET - pretty bash-y review. Just when I'm thinkin', ya know Nick? Quit being such a luddite about cameras, this is 40 year old technoloy. Step up into this century, this new digital Oly Pen looks like your kinda camera. Same old sh-t w/ digital according to the review... Uggg - shutter lag, slow auto-focus, and battery life bad, all the things I hate most about digital wrapped up into a small cool-looking package. No optical viewfinder - a concession I could live with but a big concession. Me thinks - for now, I'll stuck with array of film cameras and my $80 used Fuji Finepix F20 and infra-red ready 2 megapixel Panny FZ1v2 suuuuper zoom digitals.
 
I've tried the camera in a shop today.

The zoom is enormous and kept on extending itself even at the widest setting. The optional VF is not very bright and has no cross to at least indicate a focus point, no parralax correction either.
The size of the body is odd and still had to be held between thumb and index, although my hands aren't that big. It's also quite loud.

But worse of all was the delay when changing the aperture with the rear wheels, it just wasn't responsive at all.

This is something that would be usable with a manual focus superwide voigtlander for instance, but you need the appropriate VF because of the aspect ratio. Might be usable as a hip shooting camera, but at this price I'll get a ton of film instead.

What a let down, I was really looking forward this thing, it's a wonder if they have photographers to try their flops before they release them.

Pah!
 
yehh... a 17mm @ 2.8... not much character to work with there...

Having to focus "Legacy MF lenses" at arms length, I don't think so...

I'LL pass on this one...
 
Pickett Wilson said:
250swb, if the results AP got were, in fact, practically valid, don't you think Canon and Nikon would be falling all over themselves putting 4/3's sensors in their professional cameras to make them smaller and lighter (and more profitable to make). And pros would be snapping up G1's to replace their $8,000 cameras.

Some times we need to apply common sense, I think.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, we need to apply common sense.

An what that tells me is that 'if' Canon and Nikon did champion a smaller 4/3 size sensor progress in its development would go much faster.

But they don't and won't. And the answer is not because it wouldn't work in the long run (which is the skeptical view regarding smaller sensor packages, not the 'common sense' view) but because they would both have a vast number of lenses to re-design (which is the common sense view).

Neither Nikon nor Canon have the financial clout to disenfranchise photographers from their lens collections by introducing a radically different pro/amateur DSLR body. The consequence would be seeing core regular customers stampeding off like a herd of wildebeast to distribute themselves around other manufacturers.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Hi bherman,

I was at the Australian PMA 2009 today and they had plenty of Pen EP-1 on show. I definitely agree that the body feels dense and that the lens is really light. In regards to the focusing, it is not as fast as a SLR but still very fast and the difference isn't major. It is nice to hold in your hand but I found it strange/awkward to zoom in and out with the camera when it is distanced away from my face (try it with your rangefinder + pancake lens and you'll understand what I mean). Pictures looked quite sharp and handled the lighting well.

Overall I liked the camera, was never a big fan of the design besides the size and had to fiddle with all the functions for quite some time. The mode ring is smooth to turn and has a very light 'click' to lock it into place. The shutter is soft and makes less noise than most compact cameras. The Olympus booklet I have says - Not a compact, not an SLR...It's a Pen. To me it does feel like a compact camera but one of high quality.
 
250swb said:
Yes indeed, we need to apply common sense.

An what that tells me is that 'if' Canon and Nikon did champion a smaller 4/3 size sensor progress in its development would go much faster.

But they don't and won't. And the answer is not because it wouldn't work in the long run (which is the skeptical view regarding smaller sensor packages, not the 'common sense' view) but because they would both have a vast number of lenses to re-design (which is the common sense view).

Neither Nikon nor Canon have the financial clout to disenfranchise photographers from their lens collections by introducing a radically different pro/amateur DSLR body. The consequence would be seeing core regular customers stampeding off like a herd of wildebeast to distribute themselves around other manufacturers.

Steve
Click to expand...

Why would Canon or Nikon leave the 2:3 standard they already adopted when the new kid on the block, Olympus was at a minimum re-entering the serious camera market after abandoning their OM line, decided to use a different standard?

Oly made a bold move to go to 4:3, but why was any other company obliged to follow?
 
rover said:
Why would Canon or Nikon leave the 2:3 standard they already adopted when the new kid on the block, Olympus was at a minimum re-entering the serious camera market after abandoning their OM line, decided to use a different standard?

Oly made a bold move to go to 4:3, but why was any other company obliged to follow?
Click to expand...

Obviously there is no obligation to follow, but I can think of a good reason to adopt it at least as an offering. That is, to take a good part of the 4/3s market share. With their much larger R&D and marketing budgets (especially Canon), they conceivably could eat Olympus' lunch.

Not that I want them to ... see my sig line. :D
 
Canon and Nikon have no stimulus to go to micro 4/3rds or a similar mirrorless format; they can make plenty of money selling their existing line ups, which are both more complete and popular than Olympus' or Panasonic's. Then they can let Olympus and Panasonic take all the risks of developing a new type of camera and making design mistakes or targeting it at the wrong audience, and if and when they become popular (as I'm sure they will sooner or later) swoop in and make their own.
 
historicist said:
Canon and Nikon have no stimulus to go to micro 4/3rds or a similar mirrorless format; they can make plenty of money selling their existing line ups, which are both more complete and popular than Olympus' or Panasonic's. Then they can let Olympus and Panasonic take all the risks of developing a new type of camera and making design mistakes or targeting it at the wrong audience, and if and when they become popular (as I'm sure they will sooner or later) swoop in and make their own.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for a mirror in a 2:3 digital camera either. If they want to they can with the only change being a new mirrorless body. Samsung should show us their mirrorless 2:3 idea in a couple weeks.
 
Trius said:
Obviously there is no obligation to follow, but I can think of a good reason to adopt it at least as an offering. That is, to take a good part of the 4/3s market share. With their much larger R&D and marketing budgets (especially Canon), they conceivably could eat Olympus' lunch.

Not that I want them to ... see my sig line. :D
Click to expand...


I agree, but why dilute their product lines and make their customers choose between different Canon or different Nikon products. How many incompatible lens mounts did Zeiss produce in the 1950s and 1960s? Was that not part of their demise? Why should a modern manufacture make the same mistake? The "standard" DSLR form carried over from the accepted size and form of the film SLR and lenses for that matter. It is a tested and successful model, why change and chase trends?

Olympus in my eye has failed miserably in changing that form and size with their 4/3 standard as they promised to do. Only recently have they introduced smaller bodies, and their lenses are as huge as everyone elses. This has nothing to do with quality, just that they didn't deliver a product that is different enough to make Nikon or Canon even take notice. Nikon and Canon have market share, every other company is just treading water.

Maybe the M3/4 standard can change that, but without reason Canon and Nikon are going no where but to the bank.
 
Given Canikon's history of lens/camera rivalry, it becomes a major paradigm change to adapt a cross-manufacturer common platform. After all, this is what these two, and others , have been avoiding for virtually the entire history of the SLR. The last common lens mount format prior to 4/3 was Leica M, which the major Japanese players abandoned in, what, the early 1960s?

That is what makes the u4/3 format revolutionary; it's no longer correct to talk of a lens/camera format being synonymous with an individual manufacturer's design. The rest of the photography world has some catching up to do, also; many other internet discussion forums (RFF excepted) don't yet have a u4/3 forum (DPReview of note.) And then there's this annoying tendency by some lens reviewers to measure MTF of just a lens when now (at least with the G1/GH1 and I'm assuming with the E-P1 also) the quality comparison most useful to consumers needs to include the MTF of the entire lens/camera/firmware as a system, because of in-camera optical abberation correction. Things are indeed changing faster than what those firmly entrenched can adjust to, it seems.

~Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom