Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Olympus digital Pen E-P1  (Read 23465 times)
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2009, 09:14:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkL
Am I right in thinking the micro 4/3 lenses don't have any positive focus control / subject distance scale / DOF markings? This is going to make street use difficult.

The reason the Pana G1 focus ring doesn't have markings is because (and note this is the same behavior as the FZ-50 P&S camera) it's an infinite twist.  That is to say, you can turn it in either direction infinitely, since it's not a "real" manual focus, just a manually-assisted electronic focus.

I don't know yet if the Olympus follows this logic or not.  If they do, you may find that focusing manually will work as you expect (or similar to a film camera) in certain situations, and perhaps not in others.
Logged
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2009, 06:26:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Deep
Actually it will be considerably better than a film camera for zone focusing.  One advantage of the four thirds format is that you shoot at half the focal length to give the same angle of view, giving a significantly greater depth of field at the same aperture/shutter speed.  This would translate to a much more forgiving experience.  Just look up what you can cover on a 17mm lens at, say, f8.  It's huge.

Of course we never looked at our film pictures gigantically enlarged on a computer screen, so shortcomings may seem more obvious with the digital format.  However, in print, the E-P1 will be much better in this respect.

Don

As well as the small physical size, this is a big reason for looking at smaller sesnor cameras for street use. As long as there is a focusing ring I ccan manually focus on something an appropritae distance away and shoot. No ideal but useable.

EDIT: just noticed that manual focus OM lenses can be used with an adapter. I guess the dof markings will be off but I guess the distance scale will still be accurate?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 04:06:30 AM by MarkL » Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2009, 06:18:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Had a play with the Pen today, briefly. Very nicely made, a quality feel but I'm a bit concerned it's neither compact enough to go in the pocket not a full dSLR. The 17mm pancake lens with the external viewfinder is nice but no focus assistance - you have to trust the AF or guess.

I'll look again tomorrow but the camera does not excite me much. I've not seen images so can't comment on that side of things.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2009, 08:18:42 AM »
ReplyReply

There are samples at the end of the dpreview preview...

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep1/
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2009, 08:25:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
There are samples at the end of the dpreview preview...

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep1/
ISO 800 looks pretty impressive to me.  I'm hoping somebody makes an underwater housing for it ... it might make an excellent u/w system.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2009, 09:26:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
ISO 800 looks pretty impressive to me.  I'm hoping somebody makes an underwater housing for it ... it might make an excellent u/w system.

They don't have any raw samples up so it is hard to tell.  There is some CA with the 17mm.
Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2009, 11:17:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nick Rains
Had a play with the Pen today, briefly. Very nicely made, a quality feel but I'm a bit concerned it's neither compact enough to go in the pocket not a full dSLR.

That, my friend, would depend on the size of your pockets.     After all my experience of jamming thick paperback thrillers into cramped jeans pockets, I think those of us who really want that camera in their pockets will get it there.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2009, 07:13:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
They don't have any raw samples up so it is hard to tell.  There is some CA with the 17mm.
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-92/oly...ronique-12.html

http://fourthirds-user.com/2009/06/olympus...to_download.php
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 07:15:21 PM by Jeremy Payne » Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2009, 02:49:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
They don't have any raw samples up so it is hard to tell.  There is some CA with the 17mm.

http://www.photographyblog.com/articles/olympus_e-p1_photos/
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 02:49:53 AM by feppe » Logged

Dale_Cotton2
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2009, 01:17:36 PM »
ReplyReply

It this page doesn't contain all the info you need to evaluate the E-P1, please let me know what's missing. The 1.0 firmware production camera has been in select hands (not including my own) for about a week, yet there's a surprising amount of objective data already available.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2009, 07:15:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I've read pretty much every preview and review out there, and looked at countless samples, here my recap: while certainly capable with very impressive sensor and optics, the user experience seems to be a typical 1.0 version.

The best and most important factor is that all the in-focus and non-blurry sample shots look good (the zoom) or great (the 17mm). The camera is small and light, and looks great. UI seems to be ok, except for the very clunky and slow AF/MF interface.

There are a lot of bad factors thrown in. AF is slow, especially for those used to dSLRs. Battery life is not great. There is no flash, and the external flash is pretty large. LCD is very low resolution, and FPS drops with certain filters - and same happens with video. Low-res LCD makes manual focusing difficult, although some say that's not the case. Olympus apparently made some pretty serious shortcuts in order to keep size and/or power consumption low. They certainly didn't make shortcuts to keep price low...

Most of the favorable reviews seem to be from passionate people who love the concept, and justify the poor user experience with poor excuses: slow low-res LCD is inexcusable on a camera lacking an optical viewfinder. To me this and other main complaints can be fixed in future iterations: at least one website speculated about a future "pro" version of the E-P1.

Bottom line seems to be that the camera is not a compact, nor a dSLR. That results in some quite serious compromises - whether those are deal-breaking shortcomings or acceptable depends on the user.

I've been looking at a compact camera for a while, and even the best reviewed compacts produce images which I just can't stand - especially bokeh is awful on most, with disgusting shadow noise and digital artifacting. I'm still considering pulling the trigger on the Oly, as the image quality is stunning, and form factor for travel photography is just too much to pass. If they release a fast 100mm (FF equivalent) portrait lens, it would make the Pen a pretty complete system for me, with all its shortcomings. I'm convinced the 2.0 or pro version will be unmissable.

And who came up with the name? It's only marginally better than calling a camera "PEN," and certainly an entirely forgettable moniker for a camera which Olympus and many users consider to be nothing short of revolutionary.
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #51 on: June 27, 2009, 11:08:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Bottom line seems to be that the camera is not a compact, nor a dSLR. That results in some quite serious compromises - whether those are deal-breaking shortcomings or acceptable depends on the user.

With the wide availability of a Pana G1 with lens at $629 U.S., and the short-supply Oly price-with-lens at $1050 U.S., they had better rush these to market really quick to get the price down, else it'll wind up in a very narrow niche, given the shortcomings.  That's a $421 difference.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 28, 2009, 03:28:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
With the wide availability of a Pana G1 with lens at $629 U.S., and the short-supply Oly price-with-lens at $1050 U.S., they had better rush these to market really quick to get the price down, else it'll wind up in a very narrow niche, given the shortcomings.  That's a $421 difference.

Indeed. Don't forget the 1080p video -enabled GH1 being released any day now in Europe/US, though it is even pricier than the Olympus. With it, Oly's only advantage remains in-body image stabilization. While this is pretty big advantage for many shooters, Pana's advantages - fast AF, EVF, built-in flash, rotating high-res LCD - are far more numerous. Even the G1 beats the E-P1 at a much lower price, as long as you don't need video.

If only the Panasonic wasn't so ugly and designed so conservatively, and there was more than one (1) prime lens (goes of course for the Oly). There's not even announcements of new primes, yet!

It might be worthwhile to pass this generation, and wait a year or two for the next versions.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 03:36:12 AM by feppe » Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2009, 08:57:56 AM »
ReplyReply

When I got my G1, I put the 14-45 lens in the closet, never to be used, since I use the 45-200 only.  Anyone who's buying the Pen EP1 body and wants to save on a lens and take a chance on the G1's 14-45 (I assume it would work), can have mine for $50 plus shipping (about $25 u.s.).  Don't reply here - private message only.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #54 on: June 28, 2009, 04:44:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkL
As well as the small physical size, this is a big reason for looking at smaller sesnor cameras for street use. As long as there is a focusing ring I ccan manually focus on something an appropritae distance away and shoot. No ideal but useable.

EDIT: just noticed that manual focus OM lenses can be used with an adapter. I guess the dof markings will be off but I guess the distance scale will still be accurate?
Why would the depth of field markings be off?  Depth of field is dependant on absolute focal length and aperture (a lens function), not relative or equivalent focal length.  Sensor size will dictate angle of view with a given lens but not depth of field.
Logged

Don
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2009, 05:45:44 PM »
ReplyReply

It's becoming increasing frustrating to continue to wait for a well sorted camera of this type, each time we seem to get closer but so far every attempt has some serious flaws.  The G1 was a big advance but we are still not yet there. Sensor technology seems to be there now, price is acceptable but a proper solution for viewfinder allowing manual focus and decent af system still need to be worked out.

My ideal camera would be rangefinder (leica M8-esque) with AF. I can but dream  

Quote from: Deep
Why would the depth of field markings be off?  Depth of field is dependant on absolute focal length and aperture (a lens function), not relative or equivalent focal length.  Sensor size will dictate angle of view with a given lens but not depth of field.

You are right of course, I wasn't thinking! CoC would be different I guess but that isn't a huge issue.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 05:48:06 PM by MarkL » Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2009, 06:11:56 PM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='MarkL' date='Jun 29 2009, 10:45 AM' post='294326']
It's becoming increasing frustrating to continue to wait for a well sorted camera of this type, each time we seem to get closer but so far every attempt has some serious flaws.  The G1 was a big advance but we are still not yet there. Sensor technology seems to be there now, price is acceptable but a proper solution for viewfinder allowing manual focus and decent af system still need to be worked out.

My ideal camera would be rangefinder (leica M8-esque) with AF. I can but dream  

I'd bet everything I have that Olympus is listening.  They have a head start on everyone but Panasonic and already said they chose to start with this model to make the most of the small size possible with the micro four thirds concept.  They have also said they will produce models with electronic viewfinders.  As the reaction to the "Pen" shape has been so strongly positive, it seems certain that a slightly larger version with viewfinder is just around the corner.

For me, though, this is my idea of a second camera, where size is important.  I have an SLR for jobs and enthusiastic days.  For general carrying around, the E-P1 is already perfect for me.  I'm just not rich enough to leap out and buy one until the dust settles a bit!

Don.
Logged

Don
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2009, 10:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Had a play with one of these things yesterday.  I would have bought one if they had the 17mm available.  Nice little camera.
Logged
schrodingerscat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2009, 01:28:24 PM »
ReplyReply

And who came up with the name? It's only marginally better than calling a camera "PEN," and certainly an entirely forgettable moniker for a camera which Olympus and many users consider to be nothing short of revolutionary.
[/quote]


The name comes from a series of 1/2 frame 35mm cameras Oly had in those dim and dusty days of film. The E-P1 even looks like one, too bad no optical viewfinder.

The store that I contract with got in the 17mm and are waiting for the cameras. The lens is nicely engineered and constructed, so it will be fun to put it through it's paces.

BTW - I take it "zone focus" refers to hyperfocal, correct? Used it most of the time with an M and 35/1.4.
Logged
Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2009, 02:16:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I played it for awhile and can't say I want it.  The piano finish is interesting but not nice enough, the entire assembly gives a little "cheap" feeling, although it should be OK, but it needs to be better when introduce at this time that many compact cameras are well built.  AF is in fact quite good, I like it, and the shutter is a real mechanical feel, besides the image quality, it is perhaps the best feature.
The lens built quality is not good, very light and feels plastic, regardless what material it is use, it feels quite cheap.  I play around the 17mm, it is slightly better than the kit zoom lens, but not good enough.  On the hand, I would say by DP-2 is a bit nicer in built quality. And certainly G1 is in my point of view, a lot better.
However, image quality comes first and I did not tried enough to conclude. I think it is a nice camera, wish it to build with better quality, size is not really compact. But compact camera today has different definition as in the past, the EP-1 tried to carry the tradition from the original PEN, and in similar size, to me is considered large. Before more interesting lens (perhaps something like the Hologon for Contax), I would say it is and should be a nice camera, but not for me yet.

Brgds/K
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad