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

<p>Olympus just divulged official information that has been buzzing about for months now, on their new micro four thirds super compact E-P1 DSLR. 1959 saw the release of the Olympus Pen Series half-frame film cameras, which collectively sold about 17 million units. The most advanced half-frame camera that was designed was the Olympus Pen F single lens reflex. The Pen F was a very compact interchangeable lens camera, and also had an unusual viewfinder, with a system of mirrors and prisms, to allow for a more compact body.</p><p>The new E-P1 camera takes the Pen concept, size, and some features over to the digital world. Olympus’ slogan: “Not a Point & Shoot. Not an SLR … It’s a PEN .” The Pen E-P1 provides excellent optics, interchangeable lenses and multimedia capabilities, art filters, and combines the creative freedom of a sophisticated digital SLR with simple controls and a small size similar to a point-and-shoot.</p>

 

<p><i>Ergonomically, this camera feels very good in my hands. It feels solid (partly due to the fact that the body is stainless steel), rugged, and able to withstand some heavy use. Although solid in feel, it’s by no means heavy or overwhelming, just more substantial than many of the point and shoots on the market. On the right front side of the camera is a comfortable raised plastic textured grip, and on the back right side, there’s a little raised lip for your thumb to rest. The camera feels comfortable and secure to hold.</i>

 

<p>Read the full <a href="../equipment/olympus/ep1/preview">Olympus E-P1 Hands-on Preview</a>.</p>

<p>I'd like to see a standard 'normal' lens of 40-50mm equivalent in 'full frame' 35mm format (that would be 20-25mm I believe). A black body would be nice too.</p>

<p>It's listed on Amazon right now. It's going to be a huge success.</p>

<p>Might be the end of 4/3... Oly may not want to divert resources into that failing format when they can put everything into m4/3.</p>

<p>17mm is roughly 34mm, "normal" for many/most Leica users. The accessory viewfinder is a brilliant solution, recognizing something fundamental: the best photographers want better viewfinders than Olympus's DSLRs have ever offered, save E3....Contax's G1/2 failed mostly because of the lousy "zoom" viewfinder.</p>

<p>John, you are ever the joy of the Olympus/FourThirds forum with your sunny predictions. </p>

<p>Godfrey, the worst part of my predictions so far is that they've come true. I do wish somebody would make a square format, especially m4/3, since that'd make better use of the optics without significantly increasing camera body size. But amateurs do get habituated to formats, whether 4/3 or 2/3 ...or 6X6, the favorite of art directors..</p>

<p>John, the G1, GH1 and Oly Pen do 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, and 1:1 (they call it 6:6) formats. The GH1 offers those formats via a larger sensor so it retains the same number of pixels for 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 formats... unfortunately it crops down from 4:3 to do 1:1 but it still does it right in camera. The cool thing about that is that no matter format you choose with the GH1, your lens stays the same view angle. On a camera that gets 16:9 by cropping down from 4:3, you end up loosing half of the data and your wide angle lens ends up looking like a normal angle lens. dpreview doesn't have enough data to be able to tell if the Pen does different formats by cropping a standard 4/3 sensor or via a larger sensor.... but certainly your argument falls flat for at least the GH1.<br>

Square is not necessarily better use of the optics. In order to get the popular 4:3 and 3:2 and especially 16:9 formats out of a square sensor, the sensor would need to be significantly larger than it would be useful for.... and when shooting in square mode it would end up cropping in all directions. Maybe a + shaped sensor would allow you to get more coverage out of the square format but the ideal is a camera that could handle all four formats and keep the same MP per shot and keep the same diagonal coverage of the lens... something the GH1 almost does.</p>

<p>Hannah - Look down about five entries in the Olympus forum to the photo I posted of an all black model. I can't remember where I got it but it looks official. I hope it's coming later.</p>

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, Sanford, but that black camera image is one that someone on the net is cruelly foisting on us. Compare it closely to identical images on the web of the white model. They've simply inverted the tones and then cleaned it up. The tipoff is that the shadow on the right side of the body on the white model has turned into the pale area on the right side of the black model. A good photoshop hacker would have fixed that.</p>

<p>I want a black one too, but the silver one will suffice. I use a brushed steel Panasonic P&S here at work, and I've grown to really like the surface and the look.</p>

<p>Yeah it seems to def only come in Chrome and White.... Black would have been a nice option but I guess stainless steel and chrome is the same as black in this release.... I would expect Olympus will make more available later. The fact that the G1 now comes in a Skittles array of colors may speak to the future of this camera.</p>

<p>Patrick, the E-P1 doesn't have the oversized sensor of the G1. Sadly. But strangely enough, if you look at the file sizes listed on the DPR specs page, the first two are:</p>

<ul>

<li> 4032 x 3024 = 12.2MP @ 3:2 </li>

<li>3200 x 2400 = 7.7MP @ 4:3</li>

</ul>

<p>What gives? Are Olympus hiding something? As they are marketing this camera as a 12.3MP, the above numbers might lead you to believe that 3:2 is the native size, however the specs state:</p>

<p>Aspect ratio: 4:3(Default), 3:2, 16:9, 6:6</p>

<p>Furthermore, the chip size is listed as:</p>

<p>17.3 x 13.0 mm active area</p>

<p>which is 4:3 ratio. I'm confused :-)</p>

<p>4032 x 3024 is 4:3 and 3200 x 2400 is 3:2... look at the numbers a little closer, it's probably just a misprint. ;) The various sizes I saw listed consisted mostly of just different file sizes at different compressions rather than a comprehensive list of the various formats like we have seen in press releases of the G1 and GH1... which makes me think Olympus might be keeping those stats to themselves because of some shortcomings.</p>

<p>Am I the only person who thinks the price is a little high? Compared to the e-620, which this camera is apparently derived from, the body is actually more expensive. So for $50 more you get a more compact body with a bigger rear LCD... but you don't get a built-in flash and the matching flash will cost you another $200, you don't get to use any 4/3's lenses you already have and the adapter will cost you another $180, you don't get a swiveling LCD (no adapter to fix that yet, although I'm surprised no-one has developed an S-video or USB mini LCD that mounts to the flash shoe), you don't get a proper veiwfinder although for $100 you can get an optical viewfinder that only works at one focal lenght, does not confirm focus, show DOF, or even have any information at all. So to put together this little kit... still no lens, you are looking at spending as much as on an E3 body. I mean, I think it's a beautiful product... but why does a machine that is supposedly bridging the DLSR and compact markets cost twice as much (with lens adapter, flash and viewfinder) as Olympus's most advanced compact DSLR, which it supposedly shares technology with, and comes with those "accessories" built-in? I suppose the fact that the GH1 offers a built-in flash and has an advanced digital viewfinder and costs twice what the EP1 body alone does puts things into perspective.... but still!</p>

Why is it priced like that? Because it can be. Right now there's the early adopter premium, boosted further because Nikon, Canon, etc., don't (yet) have competing models. If you want it cheaper, just wait a while.

<p>It's funny how often I've heard people say they would pay more for camera that was made of metal and felt like a solid "real camera" instead of a cheap piece of plastic. Olympus delivers a stainless steel, solid-feeling camera, and we hear, "It costs too much!"</p>

<p>Absolutely Patrick, I agree with you 100%. Where do they get these prices? With a stainless steel body and a build quality to match (we'll see) I'm willing to go to $550.00.</p>

<p>...and they better lower the price of that flash as well.</p>

<p>Patrick, thank you for double checking my disastrous maths. I shall now resign from my current job LOL!</p>

<p>PS: I don't think it's an expensive launch price, especially if it's going to come down in a few months. It's not a plastic POS, it's an actual metal camera. Anybody remember those? :-D</p>

Many P&S digicams are all or mostly metal, as is my (free) cellphone. Nowadays you have to pay thousands to get an all-plastic DSLR.

 

I was never much interested in Olympus 4/3 lenses until now. What's the skinny on single-focal-length lenses (AKA primes) in their lineup? Perhaps they will repackage them for micro-4/3.

 

For 35mm film, I always thought 50mm was the suckiest focal length. Not wide enough to get much in the frame, and not long enough to show anything with intimacy. So the 17mm seems like the best place to start. I am not sure this camera autofocuses fast enough to support telephoto.

<p>The camera is a great concept but no VF killed it for me. Aux VF's for each lens gets quite expensive. Price? All digicams are relatively expensive given the product life. Hopefully, this will not be the last camera in this genre.</p>

<p>" The accessory viewfinder is a brilliant solution"</p>

<p>.....really? other makers have been using them for years. You say 'brilliant solution' I say 'very poor compromise'....and it's hardly a solution either....especially with an interchangeable lens camera.</p>

<p>Olympus is working on the next micro 4/3 camera, which will feature a VF (they've said so). When it's released...we'll all be here bitching about it again :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's funny how often I've heard people say they would pay more for camera that was made of metal and felt like a solid "real camera" instead of a cheap piece of plastic. Olympus delivers a stainless steel, solid-feeling camera, and we hear, "It costs too much!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am going to get one of these little guys as soon as it comes out, largely for that reason. I hate the viewfinders on APS-C cameras and want something that is built like my Contax SLRs. I was going to get a rebel, but it was too chintzy and I don't like the shutter release button on Canon DSLRs these days.</p>

<p>I also realy like the folding lens that comes with the camera. That will keep me happy until some fast primes come out.</p>

<p>For everyone bolstering the stainless steel body.... you may want to take a look at this....</p>

<p>http://photorumors.com/2009/06/17/the-guts-of-the-m43-olympus-e-p1/</p>

<p>In a day and age of magnesium and titanium alloys, this is just another plastic wonder. I can't help but be reminded of disposable cameras I've taken apart when I see these images. No wonder Olympus has shyed away from one of their typical marketing images... the durable metal chassis sitting in a pile of parts and optics...</p>

<p>ok...$475.00</p>

<p>Lol.</p>