Steve Huff Reviews the New Pen F

Huss said:
I like that he makes a big deal that it is the best Pen ever. Of course it is, every single new version is better than the last.
Click to expand...

Not always. I happen to think the Pen EP1 is the best of the line. But this latest Pen-F does look intriguing.

Newer is not always better: I remember a lot of people were very disappointed when Olympus followed up the near-excellent E-1 with the um-okay-so E-3, and we had to wait so many years for that disappointment to turn up. Panasonic, too, followed up a very good GF1 with the what-are-they-thinking GF2, and then the what-are-they-smoking GF3. The Nikon V1 has a sensor that looks better than the V3, and the V2 handled better than the V3. And so on.
 
Definitely a camera that I want.

Unfortunately for Olympus it is only the third in line after the X-pro2 (to replace the X-pro1 that I use almost daily) and the D500 (which should replace a battered and ductaped allover D200 that I use for sports a couple of times a year).

The Pen-F could replace a couple of GF1's that I practically never use due to lack of viewfinder.
 
Gregm61 said:
.............As to his comments about how Olympus and their software handles highlight recovery, the answer to that is, they don't very well at all. I'll just leave it at that. There's typically plenty of detail to get at in the highlights of Olympus raw files if you use one of the better third-party software to get at it, like Adobe's camera raw. Olympus' own software is worth what you pay for it, which would be, nothing.
Click to expand...

Never had an issue with Olympus files when recovering highlights, actually the reverse, one of the best files to work with when processing them.
Third party software is the norm today, even the Sigma files go to PS after a straight conversion to a TIFF file in SPP.
 
Ok, so there is a monochrome mode on this thing, right?

Don't see the point, just put a roll of tri-x in a real pen-f if you're so crazy about it. Not that hard to do.
 
Another interesting option to have beside my film camera when i need the advantages of digital.
robert
PS: IMHO a B&W file needs to be prepared to obtain a good print, as we did in the darkroom, a little bit dodging, burning, ... a jpg OOC can only be a starting point...
 
fireblade said:
Never had an issue with Olympus files when recovering highlights, actually the reverse, one of the best files to work with when processing them.
Third party software is the norm today, even the Sigma files go to PS after a straight conversion to a TIFF file in SPP.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my comment. There's plenty of highlights to get at, if you use the right software. Olympus Viewer 3 is not the software to be using. That was my comment. Viewer 3 software is basically an external jpeg engine with no real recovery tool at all. Adobe Camera raw is great at pulling back slightly clipped highlights.
 
Gregm61 said:
You misunderstood my comment. There's plenty of highlights to get at, if you use the right software. Olympus Viewer 3 is not the software to be using. That was my comment. Viewer 3 software is basically an external jpeg engine with no real recovery tool at all. Adobe Camera raw is great at pulling back slightly clipped highlights.
Click to expand...

Cheers, all good. Viewer 3 is average at best.
 
So I wonder if they all come with the dent on the base plate? :D


24653509676_90f37110b8_o.png
 
Loved my original Pen f, except for the noise it made, and its reliability.

The dial on the front is lame, but in black, I'm smitten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom