Olympus Ep1- Not Strictly A Range Finder

[tgoods]

I received my E-P1 this week. I am doing fine using it as a digital rangefinder. I mount Voigtlander lenses and use hot-shoe viewfinders. I do not use the LCD for focus (I actually wish I could turn it off completely). I shoot street photography and rely on zone focus, and using the focusing tab to adjust on the fly if necessary. Works great.

My 15mm lens has a 30mm equivalent field of view. Set at f/8 the lens is in focus from 0.5 meter to infinity. Not much need to use the focusing tab with this lens at this aperture. Longer lens with less DOF range require more adjustment.

Used this way, the E-P1 is strictly a rangefinder.

 

[kbg32]

Heh. I can't respond with anything more elaborate. 🙂



Best "for you" of course, since everything is relative in photography...

You're not my "relative".
😎

 

[Pickett Wilson]

No, it's not a rangefinder. As you've set it up, It's a fixed focus P&S. You can't call a camera with no rangefinder a rangefinder. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't make any sense.

 

[tgoods]

No, it's not a rangefinder. As you've set it up, It's a fixed focus P&S. You can't call a camera with no rangefinder a rangefinder. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't make any sense.

The focus is not fixed. I am simply relying on zone focusing. With my 5D and 28mm lens I did the same. No time for AF or even manual focusing. I have the lens set to 2 to 3 meters and if I need to make a focusing adjustment it is done while the camera is being brought up to my eye. It is focusing by feel. The VC lenses have the added focusing tabs which make this all a lot easier. I know that with the tab set at "6 o-clock" the lens is focused to 3.5 feet. If I need to focus closer, I pull the tab to the left. For longer focus I push to the right. With a little practice you get the feel of how far to push or pull. But if the lens provides a large enough DOF range at f/8 then there is little need to make any focusing adjustment. If you want to call that a P&S, so be it. It works like my film rangefinder for me.

 

[JapanExposures]

Zone focus, fixed focus... focus pocus. No matter what your focussing technique, still not a rangefinder. It's a non-compact point-and-shoot :angel:

 

[splitimageview]

No, no, no, you guys have it all wrong. It's a PEN!

 

[ZeissFan]

An interesting thought. Can the software of a digital be, in effect, tuned or biased to work best with a given set of lenses? If so, is it being done? Is software used to overcome specific lens deficiencies or faults?

I can't see how Olympus would have any interest in doing this. Their goal is to sell a camera and then convince you to buy lenses and not use lenses from which it receives no financial gain.

Plus, you have the added complexity of trying to create software/firmware adaptions for hundreds of lenses.

 

[rover]

No, no, no, you guys have it all wrong. It's a PEN!

Golly, that is catchy, it should be used in an advertisement. 😀

I am really thinking of using the Penny with the CV 15 and declaring it just about right. If I do that I will revert to calling it a Bessa L+. I kinda like that.

 

[rover]

Goody,

what adaptor are you using with the CV 15? Do you have the M or LTM 15?

 

[Colman]

But folks with Leica lenses want a digital camera to use their lenses on and the Pany G1 and E-P1 are all they can afford. There seem to be a lot of people using film rangefinders only because they can't afford a digital RF, not because they really want to use film. Kind of interesting.

There may be some people like that but, for most, it seems to be a matter of wanting to have a digital option to use their nice glass on as an adjunct to film. So, if I go to Greece with an R3A and a few lenses I'd like a digital option because film isn't always the tool I want to use: the Micro 4/3 + M adaptor might be - I need to play with one to decide. I have a D200, but I just don't always want to carry that kit. An M8 or new R1 is just too bloody expensive as an adjunct. For example, if we're out late at night I don't necessarily want to burn a roll of film with son-eating-squid pictures that are going to have a really low hit rate because of the lack of light and the not very co-operative subject. With digital it might be worth doing.

Now, why do you find this idea so threatening that you're constantly denigrating it? If you're not interested in a Micro 4/3, why are you reading these threads? Why bother? :bang:

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Colman, I'm very interested in 4/3. The E-P1 size package with with a top notch built in finder for it's own AF lenses would be almost ideal. It's the compromises people are willing to make to get 2x cropped digital images from their rangefinder lenses that baffle me.

Folks post endlessly about the virtues of the Leica RF (and I own many and agree), it's simple, precise focusing, clear projected framelines, simple operation, and then fall all over a camera - like the E-P1 - that seems a terrible kludge to use with manual, third party lenses. That's what doesn't make much sense.

If most could afford a real digital rangefinder, they wouldn't look twice at the E-P1. Do you think that's a faulty assessment?

 

[Colman]

If most could afford a real digital rangefinder, they wouldn't look twice at the E-P1. Do you think that's a faulty assessment?

I don't know. If an M8.2 was EUR800 or whatever, I'd probably buy it immediately, even though it is a 1.4x crop. If I had EUR3500 to spend I'd spend it on a D700 and something wide and fast for it - your mileage may vary.

It's not obvious to me that a E-P1 with suitable external OVF would be any harder to use than a Bessa-T or a Leica-III (with other than 50mm) or any other RF with external OVF and no-one complains about people using them. I like using my Bessa-T. I want to find out if an E-P1 can be configured to replicate that work-flow with my manual lenses. It seems that it can, from what I've read, in which case it would give me a high-quality snapshot camera with its 17mm autofocus and the option of using the other lenses that are in my small bag in circumstances where I don't want to use film. This is probably worth the price.

Would I prefer a full-frame M-mount digital RF for less than EUR1000? Sure. I'm not going to get one.

 

[rover]

Folks post endlessly about the virtues of the Leica RF (and I own many and agree), it's simple, precise focusing, clear projected framelines, simple operation, and then fall all over a camera - like the E-P1 - that seems a terrible kludge to use with manual, third party lenses. That's what doesn't make much sense.

Quite honestly, while this awkwardness is speculated, from what I have read from people who actually have the EP-1 and are using MF lenses, Leica M or other, with it all say it works fine in practice. Perhaps it should be speculated that it is different, not a terrible kludge, as that simply has not been reported by actual users.

 

[back alley]

using m lenses on the g1 is fast, simple and straight forward.
i just like the kit lenses more.

 

[tgoods]

Quite honestly, while this awkwardness is speculated, from what I have read from people who actually have the EP-1 and are using MF lenses, Leica M or other, with it all say it works fine in practice. Perhaps it should be speculated that it is different, not a terrible kludge, as that simply has not been reported by actual users.

Very true. It seems the ones bashing the camera have never even tried it.

@Rover, you asked about the adapter ring I am using. It is the Voigtlander M-Mount Micro 4/3 adapter from CameraQuest. It adds about 5mm to the length of the lens.

As a user of the E-P1, I do have one complaint. I missed 3 or 4 moments today because of the auto-shut-off is a bit too quick. I cannot seem to find a menu that allows this to be adjusted. With my 5D, the camera would go to sleep, but wake up immediately when pressing the shutter release. Not so with the E-P1. You have to half-press the release, let go and then you can take the shot. Unfortunately, this takes getting used to.

This problem is of course due to the constant live view design of the camera. The auto-shut-off is quick to save on battery power. One of the problems of trying to use a camera designed for one type of photography for another.

 

[DRabbit]

There is a way to make the auto shut-off longer. It's in the custom menu, which you have to enable (you enable it in the basic menu). Information on the custom menu starts on page 97 of the manual.

From the manual (on page 103):

"After a specified period of time elapses with no operations being performed, the camera
enters the sleep mode (stand-by) to save battery power. [SLEEP] lets you select sleep timer from [1MIN], [3MIN], [5MIN], or [10MIN]. [OFF] cancels the sleep mode.
The camera activates again as soon as you touch any button (the shutter button, q button,
etc.)."

 

[Ray Kilby]

I am thinking that this is a fun camera, I am enjoying it even with the kit lens to be honest.

 

[Y.B.hudson III]

it's an adequate platform for (all be it awkward, and incomplete compared to the G1) the use of fast lenses with focus shift issues, er lenses with out rangefinder couplings (legacy cine lenses...with c00L signatures, c-mount industrial lenses, can be mounted to telescopes...yada,yada,yada...) ... so get over your conceits dudes...

Hudson...

 

[chikne]

I received my E-P1 this week. I am doing fine using it as a digital rangefinder. I mount Voigtlander lenses and use hot-shoe viewfinders. I do not use the LCD for focus (I actually wish I could turn it off completely). I shoot street photography and rely on zone focus, and using the focusing tab to adjust on the fly if necessary. Works great.

My 15mm lens has a 30mm equivalent field of view. Set at f/8 the lens is in focus from 0.5 meter to infinity. Not much need to use the focusing tab with this lens at this aperture. Longer lens with less DOF range require more adjustment.

Used this way, the E-P1 is strictly a rangefinder.

It's the way I use my film cameras as well. How about aspect ratio, the auxiliary finders are obviously not fitted the same. Does that work still?

 

[Ray Kilby]

it's an adequate platform for (all be it awkward, and incomplete compared to the G1) the use of fast lenses with focus shift issues, er lenses with out rangefinder couplings (legacy cine lenses...with c00L signatures, c-mount industrial lenses, can be mounted to telescopes...yada,yada,yada...) ... so get over your conceits dudes...

Hudson...

Why is the G1 better? I'd b interested to know.
Ray