Is the EP1 just clever marketing?

<p>Why do people think that the E-P1 is expensive? An E-P1 with lens ($799) costs less than a digital rebel with a kit lens ($849). The rebel technically has an optical viewfinder, but it is lousy. </p>

<p>I am looking for a sub-$1K body that mounts Contax lenses, and the E-P1 is looking like the winner, especially for stop-down metering. In reality the choice comes down to the E-P1 and the Panasonic G1, which costs a little less.</p>

<p>As for there being plastic in the E-P1, the rebel is all plastic. The E-P1 at least has the nice shell.</p>

<p>Too much rumination, Patrick. I don't buy a camera because it's pretty.</p>

<p>The EP-1 is precisely what it is, despite all the marketing hype on style, historical associations, and all the other nonsense. It's a very compact camera with a DSLR-sized sensor and interchangeable lenses. It has an LCD for viewing and focusing, and a nicely laid out set of controls. It's nicely sized and can be pocketable with the right lens options. I expect its imaging quality is as good as other cameras with a similar sized sensor and a good lens, aka the E-system DSLRs and the Panasonic micro-FourThirds offerings with the same lens mount. </p>

<p>On that basis, its form-factor, format, performance and lens versatility give it a use niche which I find appealing for a certain class of my photography, and that's why I will likely purchase one. The fact that it is also a pretty thing is nice, but mostly irrelevant.</p>

<p>This came out one day after I purchased the E620. In a way I'm glad it didn't come out before I made my buy since I would have been in a quandry. I do mainly street photography, so this E-P 1 has it's appeal for me. But I can wait. If it gets the rep as a great street shooter then I will really be tempted. But for now I think the E620 is very nice and fairly quick and unobtrusive for street. I also have my Hexar AF's to use.</p>

<p>Peter, good luck with that Pen F. Last year Pen F bodies and lenses cost about the same as OM gear. Today after this announcement, prices are collector+ level. The Pen F system is alot of fun but it's mid 1960's technology... def not the mid 1970's technology that most people associate with the idea of a "classic SLR"... so if you do get one, don't expect the feature set you might find on an OM1 for instance. </p>

<p>Matthew, your calculations are off a little.... if the sensor is 13mm tall then the mirror could be 13mm "thick"... however that doesn't account for light entering into from the edge of the lens.... so it would have to be taller to capture all of the light. I was actually thinking split prism... so it could be half of the total thickness, with part of the image going up and part going down. Of course this introduces lots of issues like multiple VF sensors etc. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gerry, the price is what convinced me out of it... or perhaps I should say my wallet. ;) My point is that this camera reminds me of the New Beetle. When VW announced plans to revamp the Beetle everyone thought that what was coming would be the revamping of the Beetle concept...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pat, I toss this out only because I think we both look at design and weigh it against value and servicability for task. Let us use the <strong>original bug</strong> VW Beetle you picked. I owned one. It moved us. Not in style. I did not love it but it was cheap. and learned to dislike the thing. Cramped. Noisy flat four air cooled engine. So light and high it swayed on windy hillsides. I used to sail it in California canyons... Battery under the back seat and other quirks. My model ('61) did not even have a fuel guage. And a balky and not very smooth manual tranny. It was a cheap small car.<br /> More to the point perhaps. I also owned the Canonet GIII rangefinder model. Well priced for its purpose, no Leica, no Minolta or Miranda or Olympus Pen. Had an optical finder, Canon QL loading and distance based coupled flash for. Hard to see rangefinder overlay in any light. Nice lens of course, fast, good reliability due to simplicity but not for today standards by a long shot...Servicable enough for its time.( Recommended (Just) maybe ? )</p>

<p>If I were to pick an all round handy dandy up to date 2009, small, grab and run serious camera....hmm, well it <strong>might</strong> <strong>indeed</strong> turn out to be that little EP-1 <em>if</em> the 17mm is up to snuff. Better be or them buggas gonna be sorry and not come to my birthday party no how...:-((.. ( for a lot of us we all already invested enough in models that are servicable and well set)</p>

<p>It will maybe need to come down wee bit after the early odopter rush of course before I buy one I suppose.I can get by with what I have this Summer, learning to make- do late in life :-). Disclosure:I don't do serious candid people shots ...Or jump out of the car to capture a sunset. I admire those who do and are fleet of snapping.. For city touring I can use anything with a lens and five or meg. I guess maybe you too. Keep a close watch on the CC balance. I <strong>AM</strong> from New England so there your are:-) aloha,gerry</p>

<p>@John Kelly, the G5 shoots raw, has a viewfinder that tracks with zoom and the LCD is flip out (ala waist level or over the fence finder), and fully manually controls. That camera is five years old (and obviously was ahead of it's time), as I would expect more for newer technology. I paid $850 for that new.<br>

@Patrick, I cruised ebay today, and finding Pen F's around $250 to $450 (with a few lenses). I shoot FD so I'm no stranger to old tech and manual controls. I just want a pint size option over my 40D, and the EP1 came up a little short. I'll stick with the G5 and see what canon or nikon does in response this. Who knows. Patience.</p>

<p>Peter... ebay prices for the Pen F have always been mysteriously steeper than other online sources. A year ago KEH had dozens of bodies, dozens of lenses, adapters, the lot. I bought into a less-than-mint FT for cheap, got the 38mm f/1.8, the 50-90mm zoom, lens case, body case, OM adapter all for less than $300. Granted both of my lenses suffer from sticky apertures, but I simply opened them up and disconnected the spring... I shoot wide open 95% of the time anyway, so it's really not an issue for me. The lenses are Pen F lenses and don't have the special markings for the FT meter, so I have never even bothered with the meter. It's literally... THAT kind of camera... like my Minolta SR3 or my OM1 with the broken meter or any one of my folders. It's a classic and has to be respected for that... but then again, so are all my other machines. (I have a penchant or perhaps a curse for dying light meters that I have come to respect and expect in life).... maybe that's why I have a hard time imaging paying so much for a 100% electronic camera... me and electronics... we have our issues.</p>

<p>Walt F. wrote: "Many pros like to always have a camera with them." So do many of the rest of us. The EP-1 is nice but I will suffer with my G-10 and wait and see what is offered down the road.</p>

<p>Patrick, wouldn't it have to be wider/thicker since it is at an angle forming effectively a triangle?<br>

You know what I just thought about it and realized that your right, the mirror would only take up 13mm of 'mirror box' space when at a 45 degree angle, but it would have to be around 18.4mm long (which means when flipped up it would take up 18.4mm of the mirror box floor or ceiling).<br>

I still think it could be possible if they wanted to try to work it out.<br>

At any rate, Olympus probably won't do that. I'll be fine with simply a good EVF. It'll never be THE camera, but it certainly would be what I would be looking for. With a good EVF I'd say its probably likely it would even be the camera that causes me to go digital, at least part time. In the fullness of time I could see the E-P1 and a 2-3 pancakes/primes being the backup to something like say a Canon 5D.<br>

Till that happens I'll 'live' with my OM gear (or maybe I should say really enjoy). I have been getting more interested in getting a Pen F or FT with a 38/1.8 and an OM adaptor.<br>

Do you ever have problems with minilabs and the half frame development? I don't need prints, just development.</p>

<p>Canon G series was great for what it was...but the miniscule P&S sensor made it unattractive for people into fine prints (ie prints they produce for themselves, rather than accepting "prosumer" standards). Canon's zooms have always been great, for zooms. I doubt the G series zoom rivals Oly's EP1 zoom, and it can't come close to the potential of the 17 prime in width, speed, or probably, detail resolution (after all, Canon L zooms don't come close to good primes by any of Canon's competitors).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, it is just clever marketing, but we'll embrace it! Despite the shortcomings, it is almost exactly what we have been moaning for for years... there will never be a perfect camera, but this one comes close. <br>

As far as price is concerned, it will more than likely be available from a multitude of online dealers for less than retail in a few months. <br>

And that Will it Blend video is hilarious!</p>

 

<p>Matthew, processing/printing is a problem. Any lab can to the chemical processing part for a few bucks... that's actually a really good deal. The bad part is you really need to do all the scanning (72 exposures per roll!) yourself. Some labs will print you centered images (2 per print) but it takes longer than an hour and it's a good way to ruin your relationship with your lab. The thing about the "half-frame" format is that 2 half-frame exposures are wider than 1 full frame exposure... the gap between the frames adds a few millimeters. It doesn't take many exposures for that to put off the spacing completely, so the automated scanning gets all flustered and they have to sit there and manually center each and every frame, occasionally missing ones as they go. I sat and watched the girl at my lab do it once for 45 minutes. It was excruciating to watch. Because of that I scan my own. Unfortunately my scanner sucks donkey balls so I'm thinking about investing in a V500 just to be able to get in-focus scans! So consider a good scanner capable of getting detail out of a tiny negative as part of the investment into the system.</p>

<p>fyi there's a person on 'bay who sells half-frame (and 16mm and APS) carriers for Nikon scanners. Nikon V, IV, and 5000 (but maybe not 4000) focus exceptionally precisely and they use those 'bay carriers.</p>

<p>Patrick, I scan my 120's and larger on a flatbed. For 35mm and smaller, I fit those negs into the carriers that came with the scanner. Then using a 40D and super sharp 100mm macro mounted on a stand, shoot them against a light table. I then post process (reverse) the curves in PS in batch, or run a preset via tethered capture in Lightroom. It's much quicker and sharper than flatbed scanning.</p>

<p>Just to let you "young fellows" know the appeal of certain vintage cameras that had style and good construction and serious optics, I found a photo on line of my swiped 1964 Kodak Instamatic 500. It is just a little smaller than the specs of the EP-1, and was a carry everywhere item had a <em>collapsible lens</em> and a bright optical finder. And a tiny bulb flash to match. Only imported from Stuttgart buy Big Yellow for two years and was intended just as a gift item, originaly, for big Kodak distributors. I think it was a snazzy camera in form and function. And its Instamatic film developed for me without problem in Nikor 35mm spools, wth a little curve. I was though and am a big fan of square format vs the 2:3. However, 4:3 will suffice since I can't see a digital Blad in my future.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Will try that once more.</p><div></div>

<p>Gerry, that was certainly one of the prettiest "Kodak" cameras... I use the name Kodak loosely because I think it was a German re-design. The Pen viewfinder cameras are certainly handsome in their own right... and the original Pen had such a tiny lens it's hard to believe it wasn't fixed focus. I personally own a Pen EES2, Pen FT, 35RC and an XA. In terms of amazing compact cameras the 35RC and XA easily take the cake... being full 35mm cameras that are the same size and smaller than the Pen viewfinders. The Pen F may be small compared to a Nikon F, but it's really not that small a camera, all things considered. The EP1 doesn't seem to be a ground-up Micro Four Thirds camera... I really think it's just a 620 with the mirror and prism removed. The Olympus tradition of the Pen and OM cameras was never ever about taking existing machines to the chop-shop to make them smaller, but always about total redesigns. Anyway, some more classic camera porn from my collection:<br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Cameras/olympusfamily03.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really think it's just a 620 with the mirror and prism removed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's okay by me. The proof's in the pudding of course, but I suspect actual camera handling between these two to be quite different.</p>

<p>Just from specs, there really isn't another camera in the EP-1 niche at the moment. The Panasonic offering (a camera that I am/had been considering quite seriously) doesn't count - it's a different aesthetic.</p>

<p>I don't like buying at product introdution, so it'll probably be close to year end before I decide whether to buy into the EP-1. However, this camera appeals to me a lot because:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Boy, it sure looks like Olympus hit a home run re-interpreting all that was attractive about old, high quality 135 format rangefinders.</li>

<li>It's a an interchangeable lens, large sensor, non-SLR. I don't really care that much about probable noise improvements relative to say, a Canon G10. I am much more excited about the prospect of getting a modicum of control over DOF again (in a small form factor body.)</li>

<li>It's got IS built into the body. Yea!</li>

<li>It's got decent video capabilities - more than decent actually considering the EP-1 price point, DOF capability, and interchangeable lens.</li>

</ol>

<p>The 17mm lens / shoe mount OVF is a very attractive package. The only likely addition for me is probably a 50mm f1.4 prime for the occasional portrait. I've got a M42 Pentax SMC that would be perfect, jewel of a lens that.</p>

<p>"Do you ever have problems with minilabs and the half frame development? I don't need prints, just development."<br>

I used to have trouble until I found Costco (in the U.S.). Just specify "half frame" in the special requests, or "135H." Prints, and CDs, come out perfect every time -- at $10 for 72 distinct photo prints and scans.</p>

<p>I might consider the EP-1 if it came with a fast (aperture and autofocus) and compact 50-200mm telephoto. But at that price I would expect a full frame sensor.</p>

<p>Thanks for the information Patrick. One of these days I think I will try investing in a Pen F (afterall, I lived with an OM-1 with a broken meter for 2 years when I learned photography). I'll just ask them to do processing only. I use an Epson 4490 for scanning right now. It'll certainly be a bit of a bear to scan 48 or 72 images from a roll, but at least each image will almost certainly take less scan time then the same number of 35mm would.</p>

<p>Dana, I think that really depends on the lab. At my lab I had to explain to the young lady what she was looking at. I honestly don't think putting "135H" on the drop-off would have gotten me anywhere. Maybe where-ever Costco (in the North only?) sends their's out to understands the special instructions. </p>

<p>Yes Matthew... if you have good exposures (not too many over or under exposed) then you can "bulk" scan them in one pass and crop them up afterwords which is much faster... 9 or 10 images per pass instead of 5 or 6. Oh yeah and if you get half-frame processed at a lab be sure to tell them "do NOT cut the negatives!" you might have to find whoever runs the machine and tell them in person. Most labs keep old 35mm containers on hand which they will politely roll your negs into. If they cut your negs you will almost certainly be guaranteed to get darker frames sliced right in two.</p>

<p>"I do mainly street photography, so this E-P 1 has it's appeal for me'<br>

==================================================<br>

I'm not sure if this camera belongs under a glass enclosure at a museum or on the streets.<br>

</p>