Olympus Micro-4/3 "Digital Pen": swing and a miss

<p>I just got a look at the new Olympus Micro-4/3 camera, which they're "unofficially" referring to as the 'digital Pen" (a reference to the landmark 1963 Pen F, the compact half-frame SLR). It certainly looks the part, and I was really excited at the thought of a 12MP digital successor to this inspired and timeless design. And then I saw the camera from the back.<br /><br />It has no viewfinder! NO viewfinder! After coming this close to a digital equivalent to the pocketable SLR, Olympus instead created an interchangeable-lens Sony Mavica, a wave-it-around-at-arms-length $800 point-and-shoot! After 45 years, the guardians of Maitani's legacy took the opportunity of a generation and chucked it in the wastebin to save the cost of a decent electronic viewfinder. It's enough to bring one to tears.</p>

<p>:\=</p>

<p>The Olympus guy responsible for this new PEN line said in an interview that there are more bodies to come, and some with a viewfinder of some kind. EVF? I am certainly interested in the system but this first body isn't enough to make me buy one. I also wonder what the cost of the follow-on bodies will be, with this first offering already at $800. Any higher is a deal killer for me. The system is desirable, For someone just starting out on the DSLR road and wanting to keep it small, this is a big deal, but not enough at those prices for me to replace my E-420 which serves my needs well.</p>

<p>Eh, considering it's awfully close to the hypothetical digicam I've had in mind for a few years, I'm not complaining. The addition of an accessory viewfinder seems like an acceptable option for now.</p>

<p>I don't want an EVF either. My main use for this type of camera will be stuff like photographing live performances locally (theater, opera, etc.). I don't want anything that glows or spoils my dark-adapted eyes. So for me a virtually silent, non-glowing, tiny camera is just about perfect.</p>

<p>But this seems very much like a first generation effort, something for the bleeding edge folks to toy with. I'm betting Olympus will follow through with something closer to what fans of miniature format, handheld photography are really hoping for.</p>

<p>Consider the first generation Voigtlander Bessa L from Cosina, very cheaply built on the same basic chassis as the pseudo-brand name entry level 35mm SLRs sold by Nikon (FM-10), Canon (T60, I think), Olympus and others, including Vivitar. Basically, Cosina whacked off the prism and mirror, gave it a Leica threaded mount and offered accessory viewfinders for zone focusing with wides and ultra-wides. And look how Cosina took off from that start.</p>

<p>Sure, it'd be nice if Olympus had priced the new "Pen" cheaper, but they didn't have the advantage of building on an existing model. Besides, until fairly recently Olympus has rarely been known for being particularly competitive in terms of price. Even when the last of the OM-4 and OM-3 series had been discontinued and no more manual focus Zuikos were being made they still weren't bargains. That's one reason I switched to Nikon 35mm SLRs in 2002 - better values in bodies and, especially, lenses. Heck, I waited for Olympus to discount their first generation film scanner after it had been discontinued - no dice. Even the local electronics discounters were selling open box scanners at full price, while apologizing that their contract with Olympus prohibited unauthorized discounts. I finally gave up and bought a first generation Minolta Dimage Scan Dual for less than $100.</p>

<p>If Olympus is smart they'll drop the price on the E-P1 quickly and seed the rumor mill with "oops" leaks of a follow-up model that addresses the most pressing concerns.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the micro four-thirds system has been strongly pointed at the "tweeners" since the begining. People that want to move up from a p&s to a better camera. But who find DSLR's "scary". This has been mentioned over and over by various people from the m4/3 companies. So the lack of a viewfinder isn't exactly surprising.</p>

<p>Still, I'm with Lex. The viewfinder issue isn't a dealbreaker. I can slap a Voigtlander VF on there if I'm really interested in not using the LCD. That having been said, I've done some great work with just the LCD on cameras like the Panasonic LX3. I think it's just a change that many people are going to have to get used to or work around. sort of like the switch from ground glass to a reflex finder 50-70 years ago.</p>

<p>I can see your point on using an EVF in the dark, but I could see one with a manual or automatic brightness control, something like the car instruments that get dimmer at night. EVF image quality would be a concern, I assume that will continue to improve over time... but you certainly can't go waving that 3 inch LCD around in a darkened theatre, and I don't like having to pop accessory viewfinders onto my screwmount Leicas and I'm not likely to enjoy it much more on a new digital.... especially when the whole raison d'etre of the entire system is compactness.</p>

<p>I hear you Richard... I'm actually really suprised with the extra time Olympus has had since the G1 release to look at people's comments that they didn't seriously consider a removable EVF, or an optical viewfinder with some kind of feedback, at the minimum focus confirmation, at the most, an optical version of the main display with zooming elements and lights for all the most common settings/warnings etc. The fact that sub-cigarette-pack sized cameras can have viewfinders like that with autozoom and all kinds of lights at a low price really makes the doubt any kind of real technical difficulty here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that sub-cigarette-pack sized cameras can have viewfinders like that with autozoom and all kinds of lights at a low price really makes the doubt any kind of real technical difficulty here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Patrick - do you know of any that can swap out lenses?<br>

Richard - true, I was also a bit disappointed when I read that the new Pen didn't have a viewfinder. I was also upset back in the 1990s when contax released their G1. How on earth did they release a system with no focus control built into the viewfinder! I vowed not to get one then, and in early 2000 picked one up and haven't regretted it since. I'm willing to give Oly a chance on this, and if it doesn't work out I'm sure my system will sell well used. And I really think I'll need more than a few minutes testing a demo at a store or reading about it from online reviews. </p>

<p>Rick,<br /> <br /> The 17mm f2.8 pancake can be purchased with a finder (for range focusing only). But, that's sort of reminiscent of old Leicas, no? <br>

I agree with you - a finder is a necessity. I've been playing with the Lumix G1, and like it quite a bit. I may have to pick up the new Oly pancake for it, though.<br /> <br /> Reed</p>

<p>the concept is important and as others have said, future bodies would take into account a lot of the suggestions. in the meanwhile, if you can afford it do buy a body. olympus needs to survive this economic downturn and what better way to say thank you to this wonderfully innovative company than buy their products.</p>

<p>Sorry, I don't spend money (especially $800-plus) to say "thank you" or to keep alive a company in hopes that it <em>eventually</em> will put out something I want. On the other hand, I'm not pronouncing the whole idea of a digital Pen dead, based on this first camera body; after all, in retrospect, I likely wouldn't have bought any of the first few Pen 35mm film cameras. Nonetheless, I own, and still use, Pen Fs and FTs, because, by and large, they work terrifically.</p>

<p>Me neither, I've waited this long, I'll wait for them to get it right.</p>

<p>Viewfinder is very difficult to do for an interchangeable lens camera. Of course they could build one inside the body, either a small nearly useless one like most digicams that still have one, or a good one like Leica M8, making the body quite a lot bigger. But what finder would it be? A fixed 35mm equivalent for the new 17mm lens? Or a zooming one for the 14-42? What about other lenses? I want a separate optical finder, yes. But I would not want to buy a camera that has a finder that is either uselessly small, inaccurate or dim, or covers focal lengths I do not use, but not some that I do use. I think Olympus is exactly right in their decision to offer separate finder that attaches to the hot shoe. I have been using finders like that for years with my M6, GRD and DP-1.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Me neither, I've waited this long, I'll wait for them to get it right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>:) </p>

<p>Yeah, "some things are worth waiting for." :-)</p>

<p>The onus is on Olympus to make proper products to survive and excel.</p>

<p>Rick, Have you tried the G1/G1H?</p>

<p>No, I haven't tried the G1 but that's more like what I was expecting in the Olympus - a G1 in a neater package. If that's not on its way, then the G1 is worth a serious look.</p>

I've never owned an SLR and never wanted one for more than 5 ninutes or so but the Pen D was one of my alltime favorites. So the pancake lens (welded in place) and the optical viewfinder would look good to me,

<p>My main use for this type of camera will be stuff like photographing live performances locally (theater, opera, etc.). I don't want anything that glows or spoils my dark-adapted eyes. So for me a virtually silent, non-glowing, tiny camera is just about perfect.<br>

Lex, I agree. But $800 for a camera with an LCD that may be useless in bright sun is a deal breaker for me. However, I do like the EP-1 concept.</p>

<p>Richard, I suspect that an EVF will just not fit in the body and still retain it's slim form factor. I have a suspicion that the GH-1 is shaped like it is because Panasonic could not fit their EVF in a smaller space, at least not with current technology, and still be as good as users say it is. I've engaged in many "...why don't they just build (fill in the blank)" musings myself but sometimes wonder if we are expecting too much from the design/engineering departments of these camera makers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a suspicion that the GH-1 is shaped like it is because Panasonic could not fit their EVF in a smaller space, at least not with current technology, and still be as good as users say it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is incorrect. It is the pop-up (front) and the swivel TFT screen (rear) that add the bulk. Without the pop-up, the thickness (while disregarding the not very useful "grip") it is 36mm. Close to the Olympus pen F.</p>

<p>Also, let us not forget that Panasonic have the sophisticated EVF technology (from video) and Olympus and other camera companies (barring, perhaps, Sony and Canon) might not.</p>

<p>Vivek, although I've read about the Panasonic EFV I'm not sure I'm understanding it's operation correctly. Is it like a little rear projection system? I thought it must take some space to implement. About an articulated LCD I think your right. If Oly had added this to the E-P1 it would have been 7~10mm thicker and I think they were going for the thinest body they could for this first offering.</p>

<p>I'm a Pen fan from way back, both the non-EE full manual control VF Pens and the reflex Pen F series. I've waited to see the Olympus micro 4:3 offering but at this time think I would still pefer the GH-1. The problem right now is that where I live I'd have to travel many miles to even hold and look through one. Bummer!</p>

<p>The EVF is almost exactly like an optical view finder on an SLR, except instead of an image produced by light reflecting off a mirror in the lens's beam path there is an image formed by and LCD screen in the view finder. My wife's old Sony digicam has an EVF. Not especially great, but then again it is also about 4-5 years old. It lags a fair bit (maybe 1/8s, noticable) and if light levels drop at all (well, okay, lets say medium interiot illumination) the EVF noise (just like the back screen) is really, really bad. That is probably more a function of the tiny sensor then anything though.</p>

<p><strong>The Pen "half frame" died because it was dramatically inferior to ff 35mm</strong>...a few buyers suffered for a while with Pen F despite the terrible viewfinder and some suffered longer because they weren't especially concerned about image quality. A brighter (therefore bigger) prism wouldn't have saved it (as E3 may-not save 4/3). </p>

<p>Photographers wanting small devices dumped Pen for far-better-performing full frame (such as OM1 and Pentax, or they moved up to Leica M). </p>

<p>Articulated viewfinders are marketed to people who think in DSLR terms...many Oly-$-budgeted photographers don't bother with them (using Pentax and Leica, for example...)</p>

<p><strong>....there's twice the interest on P.N's Pentax Forum that there is on Oly-4/3</strong> (and twice Sony) despite all the exciting news about TWO best-selling m4/3. People on Leica and Pentax Forums are talking about m4/3, <strong>not complaining about lack of articulated TV on their cameras</strong> because, presumably, they're photographers more than consumers. </p>

<p>John, The EVF is a tiny TV with real time images (the same thing shows on the TFT screen). You can magnify a portion of the image to 7X or 10X for accurate focusing (if you use manual focus)</p>

<p>This sort of images can even be projected on one of your glasses (blackhawk helicopter pilots have such a thing to get info on one eye from a command center while using the other eye to look at their environment).</p>

<p>With the articulated TFT screen, the G1 is like a versatile TLR. Waist level shooting, ground level shooting and over the head level shooting, all are possible.</p>

<p>Yes, I still have an F and an FT and a whole host of lenses.</p>

<p>The pen F 42/1.2 is one of my favorites on the G1 because accurate focusing can be achieved as well as better metering compared to the film pen Fs. The results are simply stunning.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can order an optional view finder with this camera, it slips right in where the optional flash-gun is supposed to go.</p>

<p>"The Pen "half frame" died because it was dramatically inferior to ff 35mm"</p>

<p>No. It died because film processing got cheaper. The entire appeal to half-frame was getting more pics in the frame. In 1965 when the Pen F was introduced, half-frame was already loosing popularity due to changing prices. Leica was developing a half-frame SLR prototype at the same time and abandoned it due to the shrinking market and the cost of bringing something that complex into production, the only reason Olympus pursued it was because they wanted an SLR and they were the number one half-frame camera maker. In 1965 people knew Olympus pretty much exclusively for half-frame cameras, so it made sense. When the first Pen viewfinder cameras were introduced in 1959, the 35mm market was still growing and the SLR market for professional use was still in it's infancy. The Pen FT has a dim viewfinder but the original Pen F viewfinder is just as bright as the ones seen on Canon and Nikon SLR's of that era... they were ALL dim. The only thing that made half-frame dramatically inferior to 35mm is that 1960's era film emulsions pretty much sucked. Today shooting half frame is not a big deal at all. The result basically looks like a 1-2 stops faster film. When I shoot 125 speed FP4+ it looks about as grainy as 400 speed TRI-X. Portra 160 looks like Porta 400... not a big deal at all. It is far less than the quality difference of going from 6x6 or 6x9 to 35mm... even 645 to 35mm is a bigger leap in quality. It really wasn't until after the Pen line died that 35mm became more of a mainstream professional medium in the 1970s and 1980s... which was largely due to better and better film emulsions as well as the investments that companies like Minolta, Canon and Nikon put into sophisticated metering technologies that made 35mm better and faster than medium format + hand-held meter for sporting events etc. In fact, many professionals never shot 35mm because of being "dramatically inferior" to medium format and are now moving directly from medium format to large sensor digital.</p>

<p>swing and a miss LOL..</p>

<p>I mean for a personal use camera, it's awesome, get a 1.4 lens off ebay, find an adapter, set the ISO to 800-6400 (or so the Pen claims to be able to do somehow) and what palmcorder does that with interchangeable lenses and photos.</p>

<p>Not meant for pro use of course but considering how cheap and small it is, I like the prospects. It's already 1-200 cheaper than the HV20-30 series and you don't have to worry about tapes, lack of aperture control, low light etc...</p>

<p>Now I'm new to this, but exactly what mount does it use? Sounds like it has it's own unique mount, or is it the same as the film Pens? I'm assuming adapters would be hard to find, but if there's a healthy supply of adapters, I may bite. I'd love to have something so versatile and small that would fit in a lunch bag. <br>

Video I've seen is not overly impressive, then again, it's consumer's using it for the time being. <br>

Olympus is nuts if it doesn't release it's own high end hybrid, the fact that their line as built in IS is a potential goldmine for this new hybrid craze, videographers would eat up a 1080p hybrid that has IS enabling them to use telephoto primes and zooms without the exhorbant prices of the IS/VR lenses.</p>