New PEN-F

<p>Unlike other retro cameras I've seen (like the Df), this one doesn't seem to compromise function for fashion.</p>

<p>Seems very cool...</p>

<p>thoughts?</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/history-repeating-olympus-pen-f-first-impressions-review?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu</p>

<p>There's a review here:<a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2016/01/27/review-olympus-pen-f/"> http://blog.mingthein.com/2016/01/27/review-olympus-pen-f/</a><br /> Just like Leica M cameras (or the Q) - pay extra to get a grip (which at least here already has the Arca-Swiss dovetail in the baseplate. Why any manufacturer sacrifices the molded grip for "retro-style" is something I fail to comprehend.</p>

<p>At least now the retro fans can shoot the camera just like in the film days - use the viewfinder, turn the LCD display around (hiding it), shoot JPEG (or use Olympus software to process the RAW) and select between B&W, color and slide-film modes with the front dial.</p>

<p>As far as retro goes , definitely a better incarnation than the Df.</p>

<p>The new Pen looks lovely, but I would have to try one before judging. To me, the real value of the Df, more than its "retro" look, was the high-ISO performance of the D4 at a much lower price.</p>

I like the look and the dedicated exposure comp dial. I shoot RAW so the the new front dial would be a totally

useless for me. But it does not have PDAF, and without improved AF for moving subjects, for me its a no sale,

especially at $1,200.

<p>Yawn. What we need is a 10mm prime wide-angle lens in M43 and Four Thirds.</p>

<p>I'm in the same camp as Kenneth - not too interested unless AF has been improved.</p>

<p>Looks OK, but the lack of a grip and that stupid front dial are deal killers for me. Maybe it will provide a step up in IQ, but that remains to be seen. Not wild about the design.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unlike other retro cameras I've seen (like the Df), this one doesn't seem to compromise function for fashion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Df stayed true to being a retro. It's an SLR like good old cameras that it looks like. The original Pen F was an SLR too.</p>

<p>I don't know about the front dial being "useless". let's face it, most of us shooting M4/3 are using it as a 2nd, backup or "just for fun" camera. I'm not ditching my Canon DSLR system for M4/3. But it's nice to have something in your pocket or glove box at all times. And shooting just for the heck of it with the Mono front dial fills the bill. I'm sure that if we select Raw + LF then we'd still have the option to outdo the internal chrome or mono processing in post. But why bother if it does a decent job for your "just for fun" shots. I intend to check it out as soon as it shows up in stores. However, I also intend to wait till the price drops before I sell some of my M4/3 bodies on ebay and upgrade. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know about the front dial being "useless". let's face it, most of us shooting M4/3 are using it as a 2nd, backup or "just for fun" camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Not sure how true this is. I know for myself that my µ43 rig replaced my Nikon stuff.</p>

<p>I also shoot two systems, and always shoot raw. For me, that front dial is a waste.</p>

<p>Where I live it rains a lot (A LOT) and the absence of weather-sealing on a none-too-cheap camera is a step backwards, especially as Olympus have some weather-sealed lenses. Rest of spec looks OK, but the real challenge is the quality of the files, especially dynamic range and the ease of pulling up detail from shadow areas. The improvement in resolution going from 16 to 20 MP is really very small.</p>

<p>Definitely a cool-looking camera for the retro set, but... $1200? for arguably a less-capable camera than some of the OM-D series? they might as well have called it the OM-D<em>f, </em>as it seems to follow the same philosophy as that Nikon body: offer a little bit less at a premium price. well, sort of, as the two bodies are only somewhat comparable, given the different lens sets. from a marketing standpoint, this signals a shift from previous digital Pens into high-end territory, but is that price point really justifiable, given the larger-sensored competition? And just as importantly, is this a worthwhile upgrade for current m4/3 users, especially Pen owners? The lack of weather-sealing and phase-detection AF seems to say "no," although the addition of an EVF is a plus. but why would anyone pick this over one of the OM-D models, the next iteration of which will surely get the 20mp sensor too. And if you're choosing between this and the Panasonic GX8, you give up 4k video and dont get much in return, except a 50mp trick mode which is useless handholding.</p>

<p>My take on m4/3 is that the entire system has an inherent disadvantage, because of the relatively smallish sensor. thus, Olympus has to load up those bodies with extra bells and whistles to compensate for the technical limitations. but as the camera market shrinks, all manufacturers across the body are emphasizing higher-cost products to make up for the loss of volume sales. Which kind of puts the squeeze on m4/3, despite the fact they have a really nice selection of available lenses. We've seen a lot of disruption with Olympus' product line, with fire sales a-plenty on older cameras (and rumors the entire camera division isnt very profitable), so in this case, one wonders how long the Pen-F can maintain its introductory price point. at $800 or so, this would be a much more sensible purchase. at $1200, you're paying extra just to keep Olympus in the game. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>across the body</p>

</blockquote>

<p>*across the board.</p>

<p>Eric, while the smallish sensor is a disadvantage regarding image quality (when compared to larger sensor cameras), it offers a big advantage when it comes to lens size and weight. Compare the Panny 35-100 2.8 to a Nikon or Canon lens of similar angle of view, and the difference is stunning. Same for the 12-35 2.8, which is he equivilant of a 24-70.</p>

<p>Image quality is also very, very good, and getting better. I've enlarged a couple of shots from my GX8 to 4' wide, and they look good! So if it meets your needs, having access to that small, light, and high quality lens set is a real luxury.</p>

<p>Very little of what I shoot is used in any commercial way, but I enjoy taking great pictures in every respect. I enjoy documenting my life with my family as well as sharing pictures with friends. People like pictures. I enjoy the act of taking the pictures in every respect a whole lot too, and that makes me love this Olympus. I remember when I finally realized that my Leica M6 was the answer to my camera quest. I preferred the size of the Leica CL, but it was clearly not made as well and didn't operate as well either. (I could detail but won't). The Sony a6000 and this Pen-F have settled into that perfect size, which is not more than 3" tall nor wider than 5". That is optimum for being small as a go anywhere camera IMO but still having space for the controls needed for medium size hands. I have gotten so tired of waiting for Sony to make a small high quality fast equivalent 35 APS-C or a reasonably priced fast small zoom. And I don't like the way Fuji doesn't offer a DMF type feature, and frankly although their cameras are pretty cool, they feel kind of hollow to me. Note that the X-E2 weighs just 12.3 oz. while the Pen-F is slightly smaller and weighs 15 oz. I've got lots of cameras, and I've been shooting for decades. Yes, I'd like my camera to have a little jewelry quality to it, and I'm all too happy to occasionally buy a little bit of "crazy." $1200 is a little steep, but that camera with the 35 1.8 eq. and the 12-40 zoom is about all I would need. I'm waiting to see what the a6100 looks like, but then I might have to bail on Sony.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, while the smallish sensor is a disadvantage regarding image quality (when compared to larger sensor cameras), it offers a big advantage when it comes to lens size and weight. Compare the Panny 35-100 2.8 to a Nikon or Canon lens of similar angle of view, and the difference is stunning. Same for the 12-35 2.8, which is he equivilant of a 24-70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i get that m4/3 is a complete system and that it is actually micro, as the name implies. certainly, there are situations where it is advantageous to cut down on weight and size. I'm also aware that under ideal conditions, IQ can be pretty good, even outstanding. but the high ISO and diffraction limitations are unavoidable with that size sensor, and m4/3 may not be able to continue to play the megapixel escalation game much farther past where it is now, at 20mp. That being said, Olympus and Panasonic are still putting out new bodies which are loaded with features and do have appeal to some shooters for all the reasons mentioned.<br>

<br>

In terms of the Pen-F, it's aimed at jpeg shooters, which is another way of saying social media uploaders and smart phone upgraders. i'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it enters a crowded camera market at that relatively steep price point. So if you're not already invested into m4/3, i don't know that this camera is going to tip the scales, considering the other options out there. i wouldnt necessarily say the lack of weather-sealing is a fatal flaw, but adding that would have helped to ease sticker shock.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have gotten so tired of waiting for Sony to make a small high quality fast equivalent 35 APS-C or a reasonably priced fast small zoom.<br>

I'm waiting to see what the a6100 looks like, but then I might have to bail on Sony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there you have it. The A6000 IMO was an awesome camera, especially at that price point, but the enthusiasm lessens considerably when you start parsing lens choices. That's obviously not the case with m4/3, which has the most mature lens lineup of any mirrorless system. I just wonder how long Oly and Panny can continue to play in the $1000-and-up market.</p>

<p>anyone interested in the Pen-F might want to check out <a href="http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2016/01/olympus-pen-f-review-part-1.html">this review</a> from Robin Wong. Some really great sample shots taken with an assortment of Oly primes, but a few caveats as well: the front dial can rub uncomfortably against your finger due to poor ergonomic placement, the camera isnt super comfy to hold without the grip, and there doesnt appear to be a significant IQ boost from the new sensor. on the plus side, the high-ISO files look (slightly) better than the EM-10II, and there's a lot of customizable features, if you're into that sort of thing.</p>

<p>How do you set the aperture and shutter speed?</p>

<p>Eric, I just read the Robin Wong review. Thanks for locating that. The sensor quality was encouraging to me. I read somebody else complain about the position of that front knob, so I just went and held my Canonet QL17 and Olympus RD and Leica CL, all very close in size. I find that for me, my middle finger is bent down and positioned much lower than in Wong's picture holding the camera, so I don't think it would be a problem. In fact the shutter speed dial on the CL is even closer to the edge and on the front like that and was never an issue for me. The idea was that you could reach it with your shutter/pointer finger. I am remaining optimistic for now. <br>

The idea that the grip is helpful is no surprise. My technique of wrapping the strap around my hand before grasping the camera was the way of compensating for the classic flat front, and I thought it was endearing that in the pen-f promotion video, that is exactly what the guy does. With a small lens, the grip isn't needed, but with a larger one, the grip is probably very helpful.<br>

Wong feels there are more dials than needed. I don't know. I just finally realized sometime back that the number of things that can be changed on a digital camera to good effect are much more than with a film camera, so more dials and switches are needed...unless you want to just do it in the menu, and most people don't like that, me included.</p>

<p>i think the Pen-F is one of those cameras some people will love and others will be like... meh. if it appeals to you, by all means, get one. </p>

<p>I think the Pen-F is better looking and better built than the original PenF. Since it's not yet available and so is the manual. I wonder how to set the aperture and shutter speed?</p>

<p>it has two control dials. </p>

<p>I read Steve Huff's preview. It's a cool camera and it makes sense. These days, Micro 4/3 is so good that it can replace DSLRs for press and even sports applications (but not all). The Pen is not supposed to do the job of the E-M1/5/10</p>

<p>The high-res mode of the OM-D cameras is so good that it actually produces nicer images than DSLRs. No colour mazing or moire. The Pen doesn't seem to have this mode but its purpose is somewhat different.</p>

<p>The Df is way overrated. It doesn't do retro properly. The files are nice, of course.</p>

<p>My personal favourite sensor size - if I was only allowed one camera - is Super 35 or APS-C.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a cool camera and it makes sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok but are you actually gonna <em>buy</em> one? <br>

<br>

let's be honest here: the Pen-F is a cool-<em>looking</em> camera at a premium price. at that price, it should have better performance and been more advanced, other than the new sensor. the front dial thingy is gimmicky and only applies to JPEG shooters. the AF isnt any better than the last OM-D and the processor is also parts bin stuff. So it doesnt appear that IQ is significantly improved, despite the new sensor. and no weather-sealing. the Pen-F does have the 50mp JPEG/ 80 mp RAW trick mode but im not sure i would call that a headline feature -- it's a bit counter-intuitive to the street shooter ethos, since it requires a tripod. ultimately, this camera is aimed at the Japanese market first and foremost, as a fashion statement. <br>

<br>

FWIW, the Steve Huff review is completely lacking in critical reasoning and typically breathless, punctuated with marketing copy and lots of exclamation! points!. How many times does he say it's a FUN camera? I actually thought the Robin Wong review was more objective, even though Wong is an Olympus employee. Wong also has far better sample images. the <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2016/01/27/review-olympus-pen-f/#more-12379">Ming Thein review</a> is also way more balanced than Huff's, although we'll have to wait awhile for completely independent (i.e. non cherry-picked by Olympus) assessments to come in. (for a laugh, check out MT's thoughts on Huff in the comments section.) i definitely think there's a place for this camera, but i'm not sure why i would pick it over a Fuji XT1 at around the same price, unless i had specific Olympus lenses i wanted to use with it. Had Olympus made a less-compromised, weather-sealed, version for the serious street shooter, even at the expense of some of the FUN! bells and whistles, they might have made a classic. As it is, IMO the Pen-F appears to fall a bit short of that mark, at its lofty price point. I do think it could work for <em>some</em> photojournalism work -- up to ISO 1600, which is where DSLRs were in 2007 -- but mirrorless cams are never going to be completely embraced by sports shooters until they fix the EVF blackout issues in AF-C.</p>