Olympus E-PM1 or Nikon J1

<p>I am looking to supplement my Nikon D700 with a small, mirrorless camera. I find that as much as I love my D700, I don't carry it around often enough unless I'm travelling or at an event, and so end up taking too many pictures with my pocket-sized point & shoot. I think a small, mirrorless camera with a pancake lens is small enough to take with me in a coat pocket or briefcase, and so almost everywhere I go. In particular, I take a lot of photos of food in (dim) restaurants, and want a lighter and less obtrusive camera for this purpose.</p>

<p>The two cameras I am seriously considering are the Olympus PEN E-PM1 and the Nikon 1 J1, each with their respective pancake lenses that provide a 28mm (FX equivalent) field of view. In fact, I have just bought the Olympus E-PM1, but am now having soome second thoughts after borrowing a Nikon J1 for the weekend and shooting with them both.</p>

<p>Of course, I'd appreciate any further thoughts or advice, but I'm writing here mostly to share my own observations after using both cameras over the last few days. I realize that for other people's needs there may be other cameras that are more appropriate. I would consider the Fuji X100, Samsung NX210 and Ricoh GXR, except that they all are considerably more expensive than these two. The 16mm (24mm FX equivalent) pancake lens for the Sony NEX cameras is too wide for me. Maybe I should have looked at the Panasonic GF5 more seriously, but it's larger and heavier and I figure that the in-body stabilization of the Olympus is a big advantage, and I don't need a flash.</p>

<p>With the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 lens the Olympus E-PM1 is 110mm x 64mm x 55mm and weighs 320g. With the Nikon 10mm f/2.8 lens the Nikon J1 is 106mm x 61mm x 51mm and weighs 311g. So the Nikon is slightly smaller and lighter. I don't think this is too noticable, but I would say that the Nikon J1 is really quite small, and that's pretty amazing for an interchangable lens camera.</p>

<p>I have tested the cameras side by side, and the IQ looks very similar. At low ISO values, I would say the Olympus has a slight edge, while at high ISO values I would say there is a very slight edge for the Nikon. In JPEG, anyway, and I suspect this is because Nikon's high ISO noise reduction is superior. Overall, both cameras are very similar in IQ. Nikon's sensor is smaller, but it's newer and clearly more advanced, which makes up for the size. As an aside, Olympus' defaults result in terribly over-sharpened JPEGs. Once sharpening is turned down, they look fine. Both have nice colors. Both pancakes lenses seem very good and focus fast. The Panasonic does seem prone to ghosting when bright point sources are in the image; not sure about the Nikon. The Panasonic lens has nice bokeh wide-open, with only a hint of coma. </p>

<p>The Olympus' sensor is stabilized, but the Nikon's electronic shutter is vibration free. In my testing, the Olympus has a one-stop advantage over the Nikon. For the 28mm (FX equivalent) field of view, I can reliably get sharp images at 1/5 sec on the Olympus, and sometimes at 1/2.5 sec. On the Nikon, I can reliably get sharp images at 1/10 sec, and sometimes at 1/5 sec, never at 1/2.5 sec. I realize that the slow 10-30mm zoom lens for the Nikon is optically stabilized, and I suspect that I could get one or two stops better results with it than the Olympus (due to the vibration free shutter of the Nikon). But a zoom, even the small Nikon 10-30 or small M43 14-42mm zoom, is too large for my purposes.</p>

<p>AF on both cameras seems very good. Perhaps the Nikon is slightly better, due both to its phase detect AF system, and the less exacting focus requirements of the smaller sensor. The high speed shooting and video modes on the Nikon are intriguing, but I don't know how often I'd use them. I do have to say that my D700 does 8 fps only with a grip or an AC adapter --- it's neat that a ~$500 mirrorless camera can do 60 fps (or 10 fps with focusing between frames, the same absolute frame rate as a $6000 Nikon D4, at least for the first 30 frames).</p>

<p>I have a cabinet full of Nikon F-mount lenses, but none of them are AF-S, so the existence of an adapter for the Nikon 1 series bodies that focuses with AF-S lenses is not relevant to me. (If only it would provide a focus aid for AF-D or MF lenses . . .) In fact, there are currently tilt and shift (but no tilt-shift) adapters for F-mount to M43, but not for F-mount to 1-mount. I don't intend to use F-mount lenses with these mirrorless bodies often at all, but getting a tilt functionality might be useful for the occaisonal shot, and doubling or nearly tripling the effective focal length of my 800mm f/8 lens might be useful occaisonally too (not that stabilizing the non-telephoto 800/8 isn't challenging enough already). If I ever want another native M43 lens it would be a fast prime for portraits. The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 lens exists for M43 and is affordable; there is no comparable lens for the 1-mount, but I suspect that's on Nikon's list in the next couple years. I am sure that there are many inexpensive MF 50mm f/1.4 C-mount lenses and adapters for both formats that might be acceptable as well.</p>

<p>Overall, I would say that the Olympus physically feels more robust. There are many more user-customizable options; the Nikon J1 feels more like a camera designed for amateurs. On the other hand, the Nikon is more responsive. Neither has serious shutter lag, but the Olympus lags in startup and playback, while the Nikon feels instantaneous.</p>

<p>Finally, I am considering purchasing a 28mm optical viewfinder. The Olympus has a standard hotshoe; the Nikon does not. If I went with the Nikon, I might glue on a standard shoe mount to allow the OVF to slip on and off. I realize the Nikon V1 has a terrific EVF (and an accessory shoe that can take a standard-size shoe). But the V1 is too big and heavy for my purposes.</p>

<p>By purchasing a kit and the prime lens, and then reselling the kit lens, I am able to purchase a (refurbished) Olympus E-PM1 and the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 lens for $400, and the Nikon J1 and Nikon 10mm f/2.8 lens for $500 (via Hong Kong). So the Nikon would be $100 more expensive for me.</p>

<p>While I like both cameras, there are some serious things that annoy me about each of them.</p>

<p><br />Things that annoy me about the Olympus E-PM1:</p>

<p><strong>(1) Loud shutter sound.</strong> Sure, it's quiet compared to my Nikon D700, but a lot louder than I was expecting from a small camera. It sounds like a (small) bolt-action rifle! It's not just a click, it's a sharp, noticable and unpleasant sound. And the shutter triggers (for some reason? dust reduction?) whenever the camera is turned on. On long exposures the IS system is very audible, and something in the camera (dust reduction?) makes a whir as the camera is turned off. (Nikon J1, with the electronic shutter, is literally silent --- it's quieter than my Canon SD940 IS point & shoot!)<br>

<strong>(2) Slow startup.</strong> When I turn it on, the screen turns on instantly showing the live-view through the sensor, but it takes more than 3 seconds before the camera will take a picture. (Nikon J1 is ready instantly).<br>

<strong>(3) No orientation sensor.</strong> You have to be kidding me, Olympus! Every camera I've used since 2007 has an orientation sensor. What a pain to rotate images manually in the computer. (Nikon J1 has an orientation sensor).<br>

<strong>(4) Auto ISO is too aggressive.</strong> Auto ISO tries to ramp up the ISO much too early before decreasing shutter speed. With a 14mm lens, it seems to want to keep the shutter speed no lower than 1/60 sec. That might be okay for action (but in which case I would rather switch to shutter priority anwyay). Mostly, however, it's useless, which means I have to set the ISO manually. The camera controls make that easy, but it's still an extra and unnecessary step.<br>

<strong>(5) Slow playback</strong>. Scrolling through images is very unresponsive. (Nikon J1 scrolls through images instantaneously).<br>

<strong>(6) Difficult to delete an image.</strong> It takes five separate button presses to erase one image (OK, Dial CCW, OK, Dial CW, OK), and then the operation is so slow as to require a progress bar across the screen. (Nikon J1 has a dedicated Delete button which takes the standard two button presses of the same button to ask to delete and confirm the deletion of an image).<br>

<strong>(7) Unusable with EyeFi card.</strong> Although the Olympus E-PM1 officially supports the EyeFi card, and even has a menu option to enable to enable/disable its use, the camera is not actually usable with an EyeFi card. It is extremely slow with an EyeFi card and sometimes randomly freezes for 10+ seconds. With a regular, consumer-grade SD card the camera is much faster and has not frozen once. (Nikon J1 works perfectly with the EyeFi card).<br>

<strong>(8) Camera looses date & time memory.</strong> Every time I remove the battery for charging, I have to manually reset the date and time, but no other settings. (Nikon J1 does not have this problem).<br>

<strong>(9) Anomalous light behavior.</strong> I set the AF-assist light to "Off". To me, that means that it should never, ever go on. Sometimes, but not all the time, it blinks on at startup. And if the "Document" scene mode is selected, for instance, the AF assist lamp seems to go on in low light automatically (even though it's set to off elsewhere in the menus). I can fix this with some tape over the light, but I shouldn't have to. The blue power indicator LCD is also obnoxiously bright. I've dimmed other blue LCDs with a dab of black lacquer --- you can just barely see the indicator through the lacquer, but it no longer glaring. (I do not see obnoxious lights on the Nikon).<br>

<strong>(10) No IR remote.</strong> There is no IR remote available, but there is an option for a (proprietary) wired release that is expensive and short. (Nikon J1 uses the standard Nikon consumer DSLR IR remote).<br>

<br />Things that annoy me about the Nikon J1:</p>

<p><strong>(1) No easy access to WB and ISO.</strong> You cannot change WB and ISO without going into the menu system. You can access rarely needed functions like flash mode, AE-L, and the self-timer from dedicated buttons. If Auto-ISO is very good, maybe I'd rarely need to change ISO, but I change WB frequently. The menus are good, but there is no customization of the buttons possible at all. (The Olympus allows customizable buttons to be set to access WB and ISO).<br>

<strong>(2) No live histogram, RGB histograms, or blinking highlights.</strong> You can get an overlaid grid display, but no live-histogram while shooting. After the image is taken, you can get a histogram, but you can't see RGB histograms to see if you blew out an individual color channel. You also can't see blinking shadows/highlights. (The Olympus has all of these things).<br>

<strong>(3) No scrolling between images when zoomed in.</strong> In "Play" mode, you can easily and rapidly scroll between images. You can also easily and rapidly zoom into one image. Once you zoom in, you can easily and responsively pan around the image with the direction pad. However, if you turn the wheel, nothing happens. You can't zoom into a spot on an image and then rapidly scroll into the next image to check the same magnified spot for focus and sharpness. It is made all the more important by being able to take photos at 60 fps. It would be nice to be able to check sharpness and delete all but the best images on camera. (The Olympus, like my Nikon D700, has this basic feature).<br>

<strong>(4) No accessory shoe.</strong> There is no shoe, hot or otherwise, on the Nikon J1. I would consider attaching a 28mm optical viewfinder to the J1 if it had a standard hotshoe. Maybe I could just glue one on the top of the camera. Or glue on a shoe, and then slip on the OVF. (The Olympus E-PM1 has a standard hot shoe which can accept any OVF or a special EVF).<br>

<strong>(5) No MF ring on lens.</strong> Nikon 1 lenses have no manual focus rings. There is a manual focus mode, where you control focus by a coarse lever on the camera. Admittedly, I have<br />never once used MF on my P&S camera, but then again, it's tiny sensor has near infinite DOF. (Olympus MF is a weird "focus by wire" system, but at least it has a regular ring on the lens and automatically magnifies the image when the MF ring is touched, a feature I have used many times already).<br>

<strong>(6) Mode dial turns uncommanded.</strong> The "mode" dial sits flush with the edge, which means that it can easily turn when you don't want it to. Just holding it in my hand for 30 minutes, I turned it twice accidentally. There is no reason to even have this dial at all, because pressing the record button on top should start video, and pressing the shutter release should take a photo. Why have a separate dial for taking a video in which the shutter release button is disabled in video mode (until the video starts, then you can use it to take stills during the video), and where the record button is disabled in still photo mode? (The Olympus don't have no stinkin' dial).<br>

<strong>(7) Why are the top buttons flat?</strong> On the Nikon V1 the top buttons (On/Off, Shutter Release and Record) are slightly raised, so you can feel them. In the Nikon J1 they are flush, I guess for aesthetic reasons. (The Olympus has a standard raised Shutter Release button and recessed On/Off button).<br>

<strong>(8) No auto-bracketing.</strong> I wouldn't use this feature so often, but a camera with 60fps seems perfect for HDR, or just general bracketing. (The Olympus has terrific bracketing options).<br>

<br />I think all of this is to re-confirm something that Thom Hogan says about mirrorless cameras, "They're compromise cameras. No matter which one you pick, there will be things that you're compromising." The worst part is that most of the foibles are in firmware! In theory, they could be changed easily. From prior experience, I wouldn't hold my breath. If Nikon would fix my first three "annoyances" I would buy the J1 over the E-PM1 in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>In short, I really, really like the silent shutter of the Nikon J1, but don't like the difficultly of setting WB and ISO, and of not having RGB histograms. The Olympus is just barely responsive enough that I won't be tempted to break it into tiny pieces with a hammer, but I wish the shutter were not so obnoxiously loud. I think the one-stop advantage of the Olympus in shooting static subjects in low-light wins it, but I am still thinking it over for a few days.</p>

<p>I hope my descriptions are helpful to others making a similar decision, and would love to hear any other thoughts.</p>

<p>Why not buy a d3100, 5100 or a rebel? It's rather hilarious that you looked at the two cheapest mirrorless models currently available and then declare that all mirrorless cameras are compromising. Word of advice: Instead of looking at what mirrorless can not do from a dslr perspective, look at what they actually could do instead...BTW all cameras are compromising, not just mirrorless...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think all of this is to re-confirm something that Thom Hogan says about mirrorless cameras, "They're compromise cameras. No matter which one you pick, there will be things that you're compromising."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tend to agree with Leslie. Painting all mirrorless cameras with the same brush is unfair and inaccurate. And yes, all cameras compromise in some form or another. Your own comments indicate that you are having to compromise with the gear you have by either carrying more size/weight than you want or getting lower quality results than you want.</p>

<p>I would encourage you to move away from looking at the smallest/cheapest of the mirrorless cameras. While they may have a place for advanced photographers, that isn't who they are aimed at. They are entry level cameras designed to be low-cost "system" starting points for people coming over from point and shoots. Their size and intended market segment mean that there are likely to always be a higher number of compromises than what you are likely to want for your stated uses. In the Oly line, the E-M5 is a joy to use for the advanced photographer. But even the E-PL3 is a significant step up from something like the E-PM1.</p>

<p>Olympus E-PM1 or Nikon J1? Easy...NEX 7. :)</p>

<p>But seriously, if budget is a concern try picking up a used NEX 3. Just got one for my wife for only 200 bones and its <em>amazing</em>. Or spend a little more and buy a NEX 5.</p>

<p>Leslie right about,..-just buy yourself a rebel !</p>

<p>For small size I just picked up an EPM1. Got it for reconditioned from Amazon with 14-42 for $290 add in a $70 Amazon points bonus and the little thing cost me $220. </p>

<p>As stated above all camera are a compromise in some way or another You can't cup your D700 in one hand and be descreet nor would you shoot pro sports with a EPM1. I don't get the small dslr suggestions on a mirrorless forum.</p>

<p>If you just want a compact camera and don't mind the lack of manual controls, go for the Nikon system. If on the other hand you want to invest in another system and grow it over time, get the Olympus. The Nikon 1 system will never grow beyond the market of casual users that it caters to.</p>

<p>BTW, IMO the "weird focus by wire" works better for manual focusing than the mechanical focusing ring of many AF lenses - exactly because it is by wire and thus is not restricted by a focus throw designed for AF.</p>

<p>As for Thom Hogan, he is right, but he is talking about an industry attitude, not about a technical limitation. MILCs made compromises so far because of the marketing strategy of targeting P&S upgraders. I expect this to change over the next few years and there are signs already that a change has started: XPro1, E-M5.</p>

Try a Leica M8 or M9. They don't fail many of your criteria. They just miss on IR remote (although you never use them

remote)! No live histogram (although the viewfinder gives true live view), and no auto bracketing (although manual

bracketing is very easy). I cannot comment on EyeFi as I have never tried it but I suspect it will not work. The obvious

disadvantage is the price although a used M8 and CV lenses are not that bad - perhaps $3500 and with a lot less

depreciation that anything else? The M8 body has fallen from a launch price of $4500 to a used price of $2500 that is a

decline of under 50% in five and a half years - much better than My Canons. Of course the IQ is right up there M8 on a

par with 5d and M9 with 5DII. That said the lenses are much better than those L series ones I use on my Canon in terms

of real world images (as opposed to test charts)

 

Don't get me wrong I still shoot 10x as many frames with my Canons but since I went digital with Leica I carry my M

bodies almost everywhere. I had the advantage of being a film Leica user so I had the glass but for a long time I messed

around with mirror less bodies (Panasonic G1 etc...). Finally I spent the money and bought an M8 and have not regretted

it. If you find Leica too expensive then look at the Fuji bodies (x100 and X1). The Sony NEX7 takes good images

although I did not like the handling. I think there are only two approaches you can take to a mirror less system - either

buy it as a cheap throwaway and don't get too committed to a system and lens mount or invest in a quality system.

<blockquote>

<p>I think there are only two approaches you can take to a mirror less system - either buy it as a cheap throwaway and don't get too committed to a system and lens mount or invest in a quality system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I prefer to find features and ergonomic I like than to buy the least or most expensive. Your method seems to be like most newbies or inexperienced shooters. FWIW The J1 and EPM1 both auto focus faster than both Fuji (X1, X100) and most Leica (maybe all) cameras. Some cameras are more versatile (dslr, for example) but, again, they are *all* compromising in one form or another...</p>

Leslie I am not a newbie I have been shooting for almost 35 years. You are clearly not familiar with Leica M as they have

the slowest AF of any digital body - as they are not AF! Thus by definition the J1 will have faster AF than the Leica M

which does not have AF.

 

The reason I suggested the OP should either go cheap and throwaway or high quality is that most mirror less systems

(M4/3, Samsung, Sony, Nikon J1 etc...) appears to be on a rapid upgrade cycle. Thus you should either buy a cheap

model expecting the camera to rapidly be outdated (and without any significant used value) or go expensive and hold

onto it.

 

With the exception of Fuji and Leica there is really little to choose between the various offerings of the vendors in terms of

features and ergonomics. The only choice they really give you is price vs sensor capability and the presence or absence

of an EVF or flash.

 

As I explained in my earlier post the Leica M and Fuji bodies clearly offer a different approach. As someone who has

shot Leica and Contax rangefinders for almost 25 years (in addition to Cannon SLRs and Mamaiya / Fuji MF for around

35 years) I find your inference that I do not care for ergonomics rather condescending. If you have shot a Leica M (or

similar rangefinder) perhaps you will understand.

<p>Hmm Just received my EPM1 and though it may be the smallest of the pens there's nothing cheap about. Very well made. The start-up time is faster than I've been reading. Maybe 1/2 sec. Autofocus is very fast and the camera is responsive. Menus are a pain and there is a learning curve involved. </p>

<p>The reason we buy small cameras is, well #1 they're small and portable and are very stealth as well. When you increase in size you start loosing the advantages you were buying a small camera for. Mine is set up to shoot raw with a 17mm, dedicated 3rd party hood and a beautiful Voigtlander 35mm finder which frames very close to what I see on the screen when in the 3/2 aspect ratio. I just leave it @F4. Gets a thumbs up from me. </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>With the exception of Fuji and Leica there is really little to choose between the various offerings of the vendors in terms of features and ergonomics. The only choice they really give you is price vs sensor capability and the presence or absence of an EVF or flash.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure I agree with this statement. The ergonomic and feature differences between cameras like the E-PM1, E-M5, GF3, & GH2 are significant. </p>

<p>Josh - I just find that these CSCs are turning cameras into "consumer appliances" constant upgrades but little progress and built to be thrown away. This comment is based on my ownership and use of a Panasonic G1 and use of several other M4/3 and Sony NEX bodies. For example the GF2 was replaced by the GF3 in 7 months and added video and a few film and creative filters. Similarly Olympus intruded the EPL3 in January 2011 and replaced it with the EPL3 in June 2011! Of course the EPL1 was only launched in February 2010 so in a 17 month period the replaced a new model twice! Similarly Sony has launched 8 NEX bodies (according to Wikipedia) since June 2010 - five of which they say are now discontinued!<br>

While rather off the OPs topic I am concerned that the manufacturers will turn the camera industry into another consumer electronics business with rapid obsolescence and cheap throw away devices. Even if you want to keep them software changes and compatibility can be used to kill off older devices. Perhaps I am getting old but I regret the shift away from quality. My M4/3 lenses lack the build quality of my Canon EOS lenses (they are much cheaper) and my EOS lenses lack the quality of my older Canon FD lenses. I could go on but mentioning Leica and Zeiss lenses (the real ones not Panasonic branded plastic) seems unkind. I also note that my M4/3 lenses are corrected in software - even for "RAW" images - see the link for more details<br>

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/414-pana_1445_3556?start=1</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just find that these CSCs are turning cameras into "consumer appliances" constant upgrades but little progress and built to be thrown away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now that is a different issue. Your previous comment said <em>"there is really little to choose between the various offerings of the vendors in terms of features and ergonomics"</em>, which is what I replied to.</p>

<p>If your real issue is the lack of innovation between upgrade cycles for various companies, then that is a different thing and one that I would be more inclined to agree with you on. However, the argument can be made that it is something that is an industrywide problem and not just limited to the mirrorless system camera segment. One could make the case that it is actually a global issue cutting across all product segments. After all, how often is a 2011 car significantly different from the new 2012 version?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>there is really little to choose between the various offerings of the vendors in terms of features and ergonomics"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Hmm...how about the different features and ergonomic offerings between the M3 and M6? Almost 50 years to add AE on to the M7. Philip, give me a break with your leica skewed tunnel vision. And yes, I'm familiar with leica RF...I owned four plus a Hexar RF (and an AF)...</p>

Josh I find both factors are an issue. First the basis of competition seems to have shifted away from picture taking to

convenience and "functions". I am always reminded of video recorders with 1 year timers as an example of worthless

features. I suspect no one ever set a video to record a program nine months before it was shown.

In terms of features and ergonomics I see that the various offerings have evolved into two form factors (SLR style or compact style)

and functionality is very similar between brands and models. My point was that except for the high end products (Sony

NEX7, Panasonic GH, Fuji, Leica and Ricoh) you gain little in functionality, ergonomics or build quality buy paying extra

for a mid range body over the base body.

 

Leslie you seem to resort to personal insults and stereotypes rather than debate. I am not sure what I have done to you

beyond having different opinions but first you accuse me of being a newbie and inexperienced and now you accuse me of

Leica skewed tunnel vision. You even ask me to give you a break perhaps you could explain what you need a break from.

Just to respond to your latest attempt at character assassination using a crude (and inaccurate) label I do not suffer from

Leica tunnel vision. I shoot a number of systems including GX680, M4/3, Canon EOS, And Leica. I even occasionally

shoot Canon FD, Contax G and Mamiya 645. Your Response to the OP was also (in my opinion) rather rude and appeared to miss the point. He wants a small compact system to supplement a D700 - suggesting a Canon Rebel does not seem vey logical as it is not that small, is inferior to his current body and requires a complete new set of lenses. Similarly saying that the Fuji bodies are not suitable due to slow AF suggests you did not read the OP's note As he has no issue with the AF on the two bodies he looked at.

<blockquote>

<p>you did not read the OP's note As he has no issue with the AF on the two bodies he looked at.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is because the EMP1 and J1 both blow away the fuji and leica (for much less). Why are you evading the topic at hand? which was your reply:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"there is really little to choose between the various offerings of the vendors in terms of features and ergonomics"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>You are just wrong, as Josh noted. <br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is clearly no purpose to this debate since I am unsure what issue I am evading. If you think I am evading the fact that these CSCs have faster AF than Leica M this is not the case. I know that there is no AF on Leica M bodies but since I shoot action sports with Canon 1D and 7D I am not sure why this is relevant. The OP has a D700 which has very fast AF and reasonable fps - he is looking for compact camera that takes good images.<br>

You seem to have a very arrogant attitude where only your opinion is correct. I clearly stated my opinion and since it is my opinion it cannot be wrong - it is merely different from yours. The facts is that while there are differences between mid and low price CSCs I find that these differences have little impact on the photo taking experience and thus are minor. Your opinion seems to be that they are major. There is no right or wrong here - just opinions. </p>

<p>Leica is manual focus thus *by definition* it is slower than any auto focus. You wonder why I'm being a bit condescending? You couldn't even grasp such simple concept!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would personally rather have a compact camera with high image quality than fast AF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, do you see what your leica skewed tunnel vision? AF had being the standard since how long?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps you can tell me what topic at hand I am evading</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, for the fourth time, and I quote (your above reply):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"there is really little to choose between the various offerings of the vendors in terms of features and ergonomics"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Again, you are wrong. There are plenty of differences between models (unlike the leica M). Enough wasting my time...goodbye, good luck!<br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>As I stated quite clearly my opinion is my opinion and thus cannot be incorrect - nor can anyone else's opinion. You need to be able to distinguish between opinion and fact. You seem fixated by AF speed. If you were a sports shooter using professional bodies I could understand this but as this is a CSC forum AF speed should not be as big a deal. By the way MF on a Leica can be very fast - indeed with a lens like the 12mm CV you basically do not even need to focus since the hyper focal length of the 12mm CV lens is 1.12m (i.e. set the lens to 1.12m and everything from 0.6m to infinity will be in focus - even with the lens wide open).<br>

In addition while you may need fast AF to shoot the snaps in your portfolio - this she was taken using MANUAL FOCUS - and a 7D as the AF will not catch the skier travelling at 70mph as they come into sight over the jump. While the shot was panned it is sharp enough to read the smaller text on the lift pass on the skier's goggles. Still think that you always need fast AF!. Before we had AF we had to shoot sports using MF. You just need skill.</p><div></div>

<p>Oh just stop it already. You lost the OP's attention three arguments ago.</p>

<p>I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond to my message. I appreciate your time and thoughts. Even if the thread of an argument tails away from my original post, it doesn't mean that we learn less from following the exchange of opinions and experiences.</p>

<p>I understand the temptation for people to reply suggesting their favorite camera system as the solution to my problems. Generally, we all own only one or two systems, so it's easy to suggest that with which we're familiar. I still don't quite get why people suggested some choices that I had already explained weren't for me. I hadn't considered a Leica rangefinder, and so thank Philip for making me think about that possibility, although I came to the conclusion that a Leica is too large and too expensive for my needs at the present.</p>

<p>I also want to thank Laurentiu for getting me to remember that I'm not only buying a camera and one lens, but potentially buying into a system. I still find focus by wire disorienting, but after shooting a part of a wedding this past weekend with my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens by manual focus (because the AF on the lens stopped working), I was really reminded how difficult it is to manual focus a wide aperture lens with a short focus throw optimized for AF. I still wish the E-PM1 could indicate to me when I reach the near or far focus limit while manually focusing though. Although the Nikon J1 does do this, its much more natural to focus by twisting a ring on the lens, than to move a coarse lever around.</p>

<p>For me, I went after the Olympus E-PM1 and the Nikon J1 not principally because they are cheap (although that's nice) but because they are very small, and both systems offer a "pancake" lens in the 28-35mm range. The only other comparably small mirrorless cameras (with large sensors) are the Fuji X100 and Ricoh GXR. Not only are they considerably more expensive, but as innovative as the Fuji X100 is, it really did not feel like a finished product when I used one at B&H for awhile. Spending $1000 to obtain a Ricoh GXR worried me too, since my last experience with Ricoh (a Caplio R2 that I purchased in 2005 in Tokyo) was so poor, and even B&H did not have a GXR for me to lay hands on and tryh myself.</p>

<p>Of course all cameras are compromises in a tautological sense. My D700 is not small, light or quiet, and neither does it cook dinner and do the dishes. This is obviously not what I meant. Note that my quibbles with these two mirrorless cameras are not like being upset that ISO 12,800 isn't clean, or that there's not a 10-300mm f/0.95 zoom lens available for $100, or that AF isn't instantaneous and clairvoyant. I was not even judging these cameras by DSLR standards (although if I were, I might point out that the Olympus E-PM1 has better Auto WB in the 2000-3000K range than my D700, and the Nikon J1 has a continuous shooting speed 12x faster). If I were to make a similar list of frustrations for my Nikon D700, there would only be one entry: the inability to use mirror lockup properly without carrying a remote release. Not that I don't wish it could have the ISO performance of a D4 and the resolution of a D800, but the Nikon D700 is a mature, well-designed product. It is --- other than the mirror lockup problem --- without compromises. None of the mirrorless cameras I've tried seem as mature or polished. That doesn't mean I think they are all horrible, or anything like that, but I think the format is new and has a way to go yet. (Leica film cameras are certainly that polished, but the M8 I borrowed for a week a few years ago was anything but!)</p>

<p>Most of my frustrations with the Olympus E-PM1 and the Nikon J1 are due to interface choices that could be changed in firmware. They are not just choices, I think they are mistakes. I don't find it "hilarious" to talk about problems in products that happen not to be the most expensive available. I don't think that they are the cheapest of their respective lines should mean that they are condemned to errors, but maybe the absence of professional users who would simply abandon a system if it cannot deliver is part of the reason. Or maybe it is simply the novelty of the form factor that has otherwise experienced camera manufacturers making design errors. Maybe the products are being rushed to market due to intense competition in this segment. Maybe the product cycle times are so fast that manufacturers have decided to wait until later versions to correct errors. Maybe the cameras are being purposely crippled to prevent cannibalization of their existing product lines. Or maybe, as I think some in this thread have alluded to, the overwhelming market for these cameras are amateurs coming from point & shoots, and the camera manufacturers are just not designing or testing for the very small enthusiast section of their customer base.</p>

<p>In any event, Olympus has released a firmware update that corrects the operation of their camera with EyeFi cards, and I have installed it and it seems to work. Although this is totally undocumented in the manual, it looks as though the minimum shutter speed for Auto ISO is actually partially controlled by the "Flash Slow Limit" setting in the F-section of the custom menu. This makes Auto ISO more usable, although it still seems to insist on minimum shutter speed of 1/30 sec (presumably due to the focal length of the lens mounted), which is at least an improvement. From reading the manual, I figured out a way to get the number button presses to delete an image down to 4, from 5, by setting a different default, or down to 1, by using another setting. The latter is very dangerous, and the former is still twice as many as it needs to be, but it is an improvement.</p>

<p>Clearly, aspects of the Olympus E-PM1 firmware are targeted at the advanced photographer. I'm impressed by the customization possible. I can even set it up to do back-button AF! Even as I lust after the silent shutter of the Nikon J1, I think its virtually un-customizable interface will just drive me too crazy, and the availability of M43 lenses and adapters makes this a viable system choice, even if I don't intend to abandon my FX Nikon DSLR anytime soon.</p>

<p>I've been liking it more and more, and so I've decided to keep the E-PM1. I added a Ricoh GV-2 optical viewfinder and an Aki-Asahi leatherette covering. But I still think that with even a few minor firmware changes both the Olympus E-PM1 and the Nikon J1 could be much better cameras. Make no mistake, I like them both, and I've really been having a lot of fun with a camera as good as the E-PM1 in my jacket pocket, but I just think they could be better, and without heroic effort.</p><div></div>

<p>Samuel - if you may want to look at an EVF if you plan to shoot in Manual focus. KEH has the Olympus one used for about $190 (although I am unsure if it fits all bodies). I shoot MF lenses on my Panasonic G1 (Built in EVF) and find that they perform better than the Panasonic lens. I personally like using my Contax G lenses as they fit the body well and are very sharp (My Canon FD lenses feel rather large on the body). By the way I wasn't just suggesting the Leicas but also the new fuji X1 Pro - which is a lot cheaper although slightly larger than a Leica M</p>

<p>Confession. I haven't read the entire thread.<br>

I own and use, both professionally and for recreation a couple of Nikon DSLRs (mostly the D700) and a wide range of Nikon lenses including the Big Three 2.8 zooms. I'm tired of lugging this stuff around - unless someone's paying me - it's just too bl00dy heavy.</p>

<p>I recently bought an Olympus OMD after first considering the Nikon V1, The NEX 7 and the Fuji X-Pro 1 system. It's a brilliant little camera by any standard. Complex menu system allowing almost excessive customise-ability, but on balance it meets every requirement I have. Came equipped with the 12-50 (24-100 eq.) kit lens. I've subsequently bought the Panasonic 14mm 2.5 and 20mm 1.7 lenses for a minimum size system. There's an amazing range of excellent MFT lenses now available too - if not exactly cheap.</p>

<p>Highly recommended - read some of the numerous reviews and user reports out there.</p>

<p>Roy</p>

i suspect you want to capture mostly candid/unplanned situation/moment, so get the optimum system.

 

nikon 1 - fast everything except shutter speed (low light)

nex - fast shutter, okay auto-focus, but never impressed with final images, okay but boring. esp 16mm pancake, soft but

not smooth (my vintage lens soft wide open but smooth -& buttery). the photo's color -boring..

samsungs - seriously? i were using 1 samsung smartphone but will never come back. beside that i feel samsung are

immoral, copying everything that working & claiming they are innovator. they good on making some hardware but not the

system.

other becoming aps-c systems - they don't have togetherness, lens are not interchangeble, still lack of good lens.

naturally slower than smaller system, not matured yet (at least for now). will be better, so as smaller systems.

m4/3 - in-between. fast focus, fine IQ (can be great after some tweak), lens lineup, fun. recomended. of course they have

higher noise, but i see it to more humble result photos. when cleaners photo belong to profesional photographers, which

is xxxty thousand bucks worth tools (subsidized by selling photos), i think hobbyist like me more appreciated when take

humble photos -but worths thousant words (compositions i mean of course)

 

i recomend flash build in since whatever you said, ocassionally you need to use filll flash (eg: too bright background, but

you need it in frame). the system (to date & smaller form factor)? for lumix, maybe gf5 (or whatever gfs) or oly epl3 should

be great (epm1, er like i said, when it come with smallish flash, make body bigger attached, i know that because i'm using

it!) or better system like gx1 or ep3, which is some 1/2 stop better noise handling. for oly body, simply turn off the noise

reduction, they just soften the image without any good.

 

lens: everyone (including me) happy with pana 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, but the issue is slower auto focus. if money (not

really much from 20mm) & form factor not an issue, just get the pana leica sumilux 25mm f1.4. 40-50mm equal lens more

desirable, since it will catch whatever your naked eyes see, so it's easier to compose since you get the idea

instantenously, great for candid moment. also the output more relax, humble & honest photos. imagine ferrari wannabe

corolla, that's what if you push too much on small system. i'm using zoom kit lens if i want 28mm equal - just make sure

enough light or still subject (unless purposely let the subject moving). other high praise lens (if money not an objective)

pana 7-14mm & maybe telephoto zoom lens. but i think additional 1 fast prime lens just enough especially when you have

greater system, it will also will be premier lens for the system & not missing kit lens at all. for video (when last i'm taking

video?) i'm simply using zoom kit lens.

 

but you know what? in the end i think lately smartphone cam more than enough to catch candid moment. because it's

always with you, start & catch immediately. good for social web or small print. pixel peeping? seriously? the person i know

doing that simply can't take any good picture - boring & i don't know what they try to tell. to date, hard to say no to

iphone's cam. followed by sony, but the output - just like nex system, okay but little bit boring (er, i'm using xperia arc, wife

- iphone. samsungs, neight, they always wrong in IQ, also SQ (i love music too).