alphonse2501
Established
Because original Pen and OM were designed by Yoshihisa Maitani. He was inspired by Leica and designed the legacy half frame Pen first.
Japanese video, interviewed before Yoshihisa passed away in 2009
https://youtu.be/rbcXDeAdlFY?t=47s
Japanese video, have detailed stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSB4IIXOivw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inknbRSlpjg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n07L7hd-NVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDaZwCwLVGM
Archiver
Veteran
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Exactly. I am certain there would be significant differences if he were still head designer. But they are trying.
rbelyell
Well-known
i approach this dof argument from the opposite perspective, starting with the superfast longer fl lenses people now seem to cherish. imo, shooting a 90mm lens at 1.4 (or the equivalent of a 50mm at .8) yields results that i personally find should be summarily discarded 95% of the time. in other words, at some point, this 'fastest lens possible' and narrow dof preoccupation sweeping 'photography' is imho wholly misplaced.
whether one likes 'the look' of m4/3 is wholly subjective, as in reality is whether one likes any particular result, or who feels dof is 'too much' or 'too little'. however, while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. an m4/3 42.5/1.2 still factually provides the same dof as a ff 42.5/1.2 lens. period. it just doubles the fl, but dof is the same. if youre happy with the dof provided by a ff 42.5/1.2, then you should be happy with the equivalent m4/3 dof of 85/2.4. same with an m4/3 75/1.8, etc etc. now we return to opinion when i question needing less dof than that. and as to the subject picture, sorry, but i probably wouldnt have considered it a keeper at any dof.
whether one likes 'the look' of m4/3 is wholly subjective, as in reality is whether one likes any particular result, or who feels dof is 'too much' or 'too little'. however, while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. an m4/3 42.5/1.2 still factually provides the same dof as a ff 42.5/1.2 lens. period. it just doubles the fl, but dof is the same. if youre happy with the dof provided by a ff 42.5/1.2, then you should be happy with the equivalent m4/3 dof of 85/2.4. same with an m4/3 75/1.8, etc etc. now we return to opinion when i question needing less dof than that. and as to the subject picture, sorry, but i probably wouldnt have considered it a keeper at any dof.
willie_901
Veteran
Oh... well I'll buy two then.
willie_901
Veteran
zuiko85
Veteran
I have a real (film) Pen F and wish they had called this camera something else. Now it will be even harder to search for Pen F items with this disposable digital stuff popping up all the time. Wonder how many folks will be adapting original Pen lenses to this camera.
willie_901
Veteran
When considered by itself the sensor area is irrelevant. The physics tell us there is no significant difference when an increase in lens surface area compensates for a decrease in sensor surface area.
The only practical issue with the Pen-F is any lens with a large enough surface area would be counter productive. The appeal of the Pen-F is it will fit truly in a medium-sized coat pocket. It's a very convenient daily-carry camera. It will have excellent technical IQ (signal-to-noise ratio).
When you stand in the same place The Pen-F is about a 1/3 of a stop below using a f 4, 35 mm lens with a 24 X 36 mm media surface area. I don't see how this is an issue. The signal-to-noise ratio should be at most only 1 EV below the Nikon Df. This leaves DOF as the primary issue.
Do you want the convenience of a very small camera with excellent IQ or do you want the DOF flexibility of a larger, heavier camera/lens combination with excellent IQ?
While I can't abide the 4:3 aspect ratio, the Pen-F would be an excellent daily carry camera.
The only practical issue with the Pen-F is any lens with a large enough surface area would be counter productive. The appeal of the Pen-F is it will fit truly in a medium-sized coat pocket. It's a very convenient daily-carry camera. It will have excellent technical IQ (signal-to-noise ratio).
When you stand in the same place The Pen-F is about a 1/3 of a stop below using a f 4, 35 mm lens with a 24 X 36 mm media surface area. I don't see how this is an issue. The signal-to-noise ratio should be at most only 1 EV below the Nikon Df. This leaves DOF as the primary issue.
Do you want the convenience of a very small camera with excellent IQ or do you want the DOF flexibility of a larger, heavier camera/lens combination with excellent IQ?
While I can't abide the 4:3 aspect ratio, the Pen-F would be an excellent daily carry camera.
Huss
Veteran
In other words it acts as an 85mm lens with the DOF of a 45mm lens.
goamules
Well-known
I love the look of this new camera!
And I really enjoyed the years I shot m4/3. I use different tools for different jobs. I don't try to force a look from one format (shallow DOF) onto another. Use the tool for what it's good at, don't bemoan that it cannot do the dynamic range of an 8x10 Large Format, or a replicate a 35mm with a speed lens. The original Pen-F could not either. Instead, it was a tiny half frame camera, that allowed 72 shots on a roll of film. Did people in 1965 complain that the DOF didn't match their F1.2 Canon RF? I doubt it.
Here is where the m43 excels to me. Using archaic, adapted lenses for interesting character. If I wanted cell-phone sharp, I'd use a cell phone. If I wanted razor thin DOF, I'd use a Petzval on LF. Kern Macro Switar:
And I really enjoyed the years I shot m4/3. I use different tools for different jobs. I don't try to force a look from one format (shallow DOF) onto another. Use the tool for what it's good at, don't bemoan that it cannot do the dynamic range of an 8x10 Large Format, or a replicate a 35mm with a speed lens. The original Pen-F could not either. Instead, it was a tiny half frame camera, that allowed 72 shots on a roll of film. Did people in 1965 complain that the DOF didn't match their F1.2 Canon RF? I doubt it.
Here is where the m43 excels to me. Using archaic, adapted lenses for interesting character. If I wanted cell-phone sharp, I'd use a cell phone. If I wanted razor thin DOF, I'd use a Petzval on LF. Kern Macro Switar:
aoresteen
Well-known
Small?
Have you seen the 7-14mm, the 12-40, and the new 300mm?
The m43 lenses are huge with a few exceptions.
That has been the stinging issue with Four Thirds & m43. The bodies get smaller but the lenses do not.
aoresteen
Well-known
But the smaller one on the left has a full frame sensor
robert blu
quiet photographer
Yes Tony you are correct if you refer to zooms but in my view the ideal with this camera is a prime like the 25 on the camera and another lens (12 ?) in a pocket! Of course just my idea
robert
robert
Huss
Veteran
But the smaller one on the left has a full frame sensor
Aaaaand you get a new sensor with every shot!
robert blu
quiet photographer
Hsg
who dares wins
Heck. So Olympus basically made a modern day Leica III? Wonder what the boys in Wetzlar are thinking now.
@Hsg - the 28mm scene you shot won't have much subject separation unless you shoot with at least aps-c and f1.4, or full frame and f2. A Nikon 1" sensor and f2.8 isn't going to cut it with a 27mm equivalent lens.
My examples of the Panasonic GM1 and Olympus 25/1.8 show that subject separation is entirely possible with a m43 sensor and fast lens, albeit at closer range and with a longer focal length.
I know what you mean about tonal variation and dynamic range, and I'm sure most of us do. I do think that a good aps-c sensor has a bit more dynamic range than the contemporary m43 sensor, but that gap is closing fast, and in many situations the difference is negligible. The difference in tonal variance between a full frame sensor and m43 is still quite large, though.
For what you want, you're better off buying a modern aps-c camera like the newly announced Sony A6300 with a fast wide angle lens, or a Sony A7 variant with the Sony 28mm f2. You still might not get the subject separation you want if the background is too close.
Edited to add: you like to capture the entire body, without cropping limbs. I'm wondering if a sufficiently blurred background is possible even with a very fast wide angle lens. Check out what Scott Schuman does with The Sartorialist blog. This is much more in line with what you want, but he uses a full frame Canon DSLR, and the 85mm f1.2, and the 50mm f1.2.
http://www.thesartorialist.com/
i agree with you on all matters, but its difficult to justify small sensor when larger sensors are on the same price level.
GaryLH
Veteran
Apsc cameras like the new Sony a6300 most assuredly but FF is still min of about 1500 unless we are talking about the older model a7 which is now under 900 new (what left in the warehouse).
On the other hand, both Panasonic and Olympus do tend to price a bit high.. Let the market decide if it remains high or sell for less about maybe 3-4 months after they start shipping unlike for example Nikon IMHO.
Anyway there is always gonna be newer tech.. R&D cost money..they need to make money to stay in business. Over time the price will drop toward what they considered their break even price..just don't expect to happen right away unless that said product is a flop.
Gary
rbelyell
Well-known
in a way, yes. it has an equivalent 'zone of focus'.
Archiver
Veteran
That's a good point.
Be thankful they didn't call it the PEN IS (Image Stabilization).
But wait, in another few years we might have the PEN15 (Pen 15).
I'll see myself out.
Bingley
Veteran
Nice review and good looking camera. Thanks to the OP for the link. As an E-P5 user, the biggest upgrade of the Pen-F is the built-in EVF. From the review, it doesn't seem like there are huge improvements in image quality from the larger sensor, and the image stabilization and autofocus speed appear to be about the same. I may wait for other reviews before deciding to buy (or not). In use, the E-P5 is a sweet camera and very good for travel.