Olympus E-P1 Hands-on Preview on Photo.net

<p>I paid just under $1000 for a Nikon 35Ti point and shoot several years ago. Money well spent. I wanted a decent camera for my honeymoon, but I didn't want to get served divorce papers as soon as we got home by taking my real cameras and making it into a photo excursion. :) We have excellent photos and memories.</p>

<p>I've been waiting for a digital equivalent. The Panasonic LX-3 is pretty darn close. Might even be the equivalent. I'm really happy with pictures I've taken with it so far. It was a shade under $400 for a P&S without interchangeable lenses.</p>

<p>I'm really anxious to see if the E-P1 lives up to its promise. I consider the $900 price tag for the body + 15/2.8 + viewfinder to be reasonable if the lens is decent.</p>

<p>Can't really say I'm surprised to see plastic circuit boards inside. Metal circuit boards cause problems. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Eric... plastic circuit boards isn't the point.... it's a plastic BODY with a thin metal shell pretending to be a metal camera.</p>

<p>As opposed to the more expensive Canon rebel that is plastic on a plastic body?</p>

<p>I just realized the higher thumb wheel controls the aperture while the while the lower dial controls shutter speed - this is just plain backwards and anti-intuitive! I hope the camera can be programed to reverse them. From a Nikon user.</p>

<p>Surprised by the price - Panasonic G1 is not as pretty but has a viewfinder (after a few uses you get used to it) and a higher resolution LCD. I know that the Oly looks better and has video but it still appears expensive. It will be interesting to see how the lenses perform - dpreview did not rate the 17mm but this may have been an early version.</p>

<p>What, no adamantium chassis? No mysterium shell? And where's the beryllium sphere to power it? Why, the silly thing might collapse under the weight of expectations!</p>

<p>Sorry 'bout the thread drift Hannah, but just wanna tell you that I think you're really great looking. A fine photographer and writer too! That's all <s>.</p>

<p>Jeffrey, please, if there's anybody great-looking on this thread it's Lex. Have you <a href="../shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=172915"><em>seen</em> </a> his profile picture?</p>

<p>And then there's <a href="../shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=18629"><em>Gourgeous Godfrey</em> </a> , of course :-)</p>

<p>I added in a short video clip that Hannah shot with the E-P1. Nothing amazing, but perhaps worth watching if the video stuff interests you. More to follow as she has more time with the camera.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/ep1/preview</p>

<p>The sad thing is that I am going on a European vacation leaving July 3. That will prevent me from being an early adopter unless the dollar suddenly gets a lot stronger. 799 weak american dollars is a lot nicer than 799 Euros.</p>

<p>Miserere, no offense to Lex or Godfrey, but now I know what "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" means haha. Sorry guys ;). Hannah just is <s>.</p>

<p>No offense taken. My self portrait is used as a Medusa Shield in the perpendicular universe, where it has the unexpected effect of making those who gaze upon it feel stoned. I'm trying to figure out a way to cash in on that effect so I can afford the E-P1 kit with optical finder and 17/2.8.</p>

<p>lol, Actually Lex I was taken aback by your photo. The first thought that popped into my head was "Hell's Angel." :) I had just assumed that you would have had a geekier look, haha. But what do I know, I'm unable to judge the looks of other men, best leave that up to the ladies.</p>

<p>There's been some interesting talk about the E-P1 at Mike Johnston's The Online Photographer (if you haven't seen it). Also, Pop Photo has a short review as well. After you get yours I'm interested in hearing your impressions.</p>

<p>Lastly, I'm glad you didn't get bent out-of-shape about my comment. :)</p>

<p>Hannah, does the 17mm f/2.8 come with a lens hood? If so, what did it look like?</p>

<p>If you haven't had your fill of early enthusiast reviews, here is another one from Olympus guru John Foster of Biofos.com. He liked it and posts some big file examples of each lens's output. A lot to like says Foster.</p>

<p>http://www.biofos.com/mft/ep-1_pre.html</p>

<p>Grisha, I'm not disputing your assertion that the E-P1 will be discounted. That may be. I'm only challenging your reasons.</p>

<p>Most of the reasons you've given on your blog are irrelevant to me. I don't know whether I'm representative of the majority of people who might be interested in a camera like the E-P1. <a href="http://fotopro.lefora.com/2009/06/23/olympus-micro-four-thirds-is-causing-quite-a-buzz/page1/">But most of the following doesn't concern me at all</a> :</p>

<ul>

<li>ISO 200 IN AUTO MODE - WTF? <em>(I'm interested in a discrete <strong>available light</strong> camera - I've used ISO 400 b&w film and pushed film up to 6400 for decades. I don't care how it performs at lower ISOs, only at the higher ISOs.)</em> </li>

<li>ISO 100 ONLY IF YOU CHOOSE IT? WTF? <em>(See above note.)</em> </li>

<li>flash sync sucks - 1/180 <em>(See above note.)</em> </li>

<li>YOU GET A WHOPPING 1 PRESET MANUAL WB <em>(Don't care, will probably convert most to b&w. Any others I'll take the time to fix in post-production, so preset WB is irrelevant.)</em> </li>

<li>Crop factor of 2x <em>(Oldest non-issue in the whole 4/3 cosmology. We already know it's a tiny sensor.)</em> </li>

<li>24 bit color is a probably a big fat lie <em>(Don't care, not why I'm interested in this camera.)</em> </li>

<li>NO PC SOCKET <em>(Don't care, not why I'm interested in this camera. If I need a PC socket, I'm using the wrong camera anyway.)</em> </li>

<li>NO BUILT IN FLASH - WTF? <em>(Don't care, not why I'm interested in this camera.)</em> </li>

<li>Not even an optical viewfinder, you have to buy it and it sticks out. <em>(Okay, <strong>now</strong> we have something in common. I really want at least a built-in finder. Preferably a true coupled rangefinder. But the accessory optical finder in itself is not a deal-breaker. It might be if the camera makes noise or emits superfluous glow-winky lights that might spoil my dark-adapted eyes.)</em> </li>

<li>Nothing special about the sensor tech, excep that it is very very small. <em>(Redundant. We already knew it was likely to be the same sensor. Only the package would be new, not the sensor technology. As far as I'm concerned, the same sensor in a truly compact, nimble camera is something special. We've yet to see how nimble the E-P1 really is.)</em> </li>

</ul>

<p>Also - please forgive the nitpicking - <a href="http://fotopro.lefora.com/2009/06/24/four-thirds-the-new-rebel-alliance/page1/">you refer to your comments about the E-P1 as a "review"</a> . It's not a review. It's not even a preview unless you've actually handled the camera. It's an opinion based on published specs, and possibly on other previews from folks who've actually handled the camera.</p>

<p>Okay, nitpicking aside, I actually hope you're right about one thing: the bargain bin. I love bargain bins. I hope the E-P1 does wind up priced like the E-420 currently is (below $500 USD). That should mean two things: (1) I might be able to afford it; (2) Olympus already has something ready to replace it that will address the major gripes already aired online.</p>

<p>Lex, I definitely agree with you on the points you make at the end. It sure would be nice if the price of this camera came out from under the "nice used car" or nice professional film camera end of the spectrum. </p>

<p><em>Also - please forgive the nitpicking - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://fotopro.lefora.com/2009/06/24/four-thirds-the-new-rebel-alliance/page1/" target="_blank">you refer to your comments about the E-P1 as a "review"</a> . It's not a review. It's not even a preview unless you've actually handled the camera.</em></p>

<p>Actually, Lex, I don't think that's nitpicking--I think it's a substantive and important difference. At this stage, there's very little hands-on information about the camera. I'd be interested in reading legitimate reviews and user experiences. I have no interest in a buch of pointless nattering based solely on published specifications. Calling that sort of nattering a "review" is misleading, probably intended to generate more blog traffic.</p>

<p>No, I will not buy it. Not yet.<br>

A great new camera - but also a victory of the marketing people versus the engineers. As usual. They want to cash in on the success of the Pen and make the resemblance as close as possible<br>

Tomorrow everything is cheaper and better - that is the rule of the digital age.<br>

I will buy it, when it gets an articulated screen. Next year.<br>

A shame that it hasn’t - no concept begs more for an articulated screen than the E P-1. <br>

When it has the articulated screen, it will be my perfect street shooter - preferable to all existing alternatives. A perfect back up for the E’s.<br>

Olympus & Panasonic created a new+ next generation of HQ cameras - in a couple of years, most of us will shoot them.<br>

You actually can't call them a DSLR any more, the inheritage from the analog age will be gone, no R (=Reflex) needed any more, no bulky prism, and for god's sake, eventually our luggage will be smaller again, what we expected, when we sold our Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentaxes and OMs to buy a digital camera.<br>

Can you help me with the right name, as catchy as DSLR, to describe the eVf equipped DCs?</p>

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="622">

<tbody>

<tr >

<td width="118" valign="top">

<p >Comparison</p>

</td>

<td width="69" valign="top">

<p >W mm</p>

</td>

<td width="60" valign="top">

<p >H mm</p>

</td>

<td width="216" valign="top">

<p >D mm</p>

</td>

<td width="156" valign="top">

<p >Weight g</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td width="118" valign="top">

<p >Olympus E P-1</p>

</td>

<td width="69" valign="top">

<p >120.6 </p>

</td>

<td width="60" valign="top">

<p >69.9</p>

</td>

<td width="216" valign="top">

<p >36.4</p>

</td>

<td width="156" valign="top">

<p >335</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td width="118" valign="top">

<p >Rollei 35</p>

</td>

<td width="69" valign="top">

<p >97</p>

</td>

<td width="60" valign="top">

<p >60</p>

</td>

<td width="216" valign="top">

<p >32</p>

</td>

<td width="156" valign="top">

<p >325</p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p > </p>

<p >See also the photos for the comparison. Both cameras have that solid “brick” feeling. I like to get my hands on a P-1 and do a real comparison.</p><div></div>

<p>Not familiar with the blog - so I assume I can only get one picture at a time - well, here is my Rollei 35</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you help me with the right name, as catchy as DSLR, to describe the eVf equipped DCs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It won't be easy. All of the handy names used so far during the past 10-15 years have been vilified by gear-elitists who can't accept any deviation from their 35mm-film-centric world view of SLRs and coupled rangefinders.</p>

<p>Those of us who are true enthusiasts of miniature format photography don't really care what the camera is called. We're not confined to a paradigm that claims that the entire world revolves around a 24x36 recording medium and only two acceptable viewfinder types - SLR and rangefinder.</p>

<p>A descriptive name may be unnecessary anyway. Considering the direction Olympus and Panasonic are taking, the Micro 4/3 concept is becoming its own paradigm, one which embraces miniature format photography without confining itself to any specific type of viewfinder system, design or ergonomics.</p>

<p>That's good, because the dSLR world has largely been co-opted by medium format thinking, photographers who want what used to be a miniature format camera design to accomplish what medium format was intended to do, regardless of bulk and weight.</p>

<p>There was a time when thoughts of the 35mm film paradigm brought to mind classic enthusiast's cameras like Leica rangefinders and the Olympus OM system. Then two factors spoiled that dream: bulky, heavy cameras like the Nikon F5; and self important photographers who wanted 35mm to substitute for medium format and insisted that nobody should enjoy handheld photography and that a tripod must be permanently attached to a camera. That same thinking has taken the fun out of the Canon and Nikon dSLR systems. Now, anything light enough to handhold easily is considered a toy. Small sensors are expected to emulate 35mm film quality; fool frame sensors are expected to emulate medium format.</p>

<p>Let the Micro 4/3 system be its own definition of miniature format photography, as 35mm once was.</p>

<p>Small point: It's not a DSLR. There is no 'reflex'(mirror) involved in the viewing.</p>