Olympus will disclose new M4/3 product on 16th!

<p>In the previous thread:<br>

http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00TLgr<br>

I reported that Olympus CEO said that the company will disclose their new M4/3 products on the 15th of June.</p>

<p>However, today (15th of June!) Olympus announced that they would disclose their M4/3 products tomorrow (on the 16th) afternoon. Oh, boy, they are teasing us!</p>

<p>In the meantime, a famous Japanese website for digital gadget reviews posted a side-by-side comparison of Panasonic G1 and GH1 in terms of their noise performances here:<br>

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/longterm/20090615_286515.html</p>

<p>The report is, of course, all in Japanese, but I hope you can read the name of the camera and ISO value below each thumbnail. Click each and open full-res JPEG image. In general, GH1 is noticeably cleaner at ISO800, and is clear winner at ISO1600 and 3200, not only in terms of noise, but also the images of GH1 set at thise high ISO values retain details very well. I think it's remarkable.</p>

<p>FWIW, the lens used for the comparison test was Lumix G Vario 14-140mm/f4-5.8. The hydrangea and another flower were shot at 140mm/wide open, and the stained glass, at 48mm/f8.</p>

<p>It's so nice looking too isnt it?<br>

<img src="http://i44.tinypic.com/2aaecd1.jpg" alt="" width="815" height="584" /></p>

<p>Well, I would think that's just another concoction based on the word "Pen-F concept".</p>

<p>I would doubt the need of zoom-lock switch wich is normally needed for the lenses whose internal barrel is heavy and prone to creep when directed downwards. If the designer decided to put the zoom-lock switch for this tiny kit lens, he would have put the same switches on the majority of 4/3 zooms which are gigantic in size and have far heavier inner barrels. I'm not sure if there are any Oly 4/3 zooms with zoom-lock SW. Are they?</p>

<p>Also, I would doubt the need of such a large space in the left-hand part of the camera which used to be there to contain the film patrone.</p>

<p>Finally, look at the mockup of Panasonic's pancake lens:<br /> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/170516-10545-21-2.html<br /> Notice the 46mm filter size of the lens. Even though the speeds and focal lengths of these lenses are quite different, the whole package appears to be almost the same. So, there shouldn't be such a great difference of the filter size as much as 9mm.</p>

<p>Everything will be clear tomorrow anyway. I'm mostly interested in Oly lenses rather than the body.</p>

<p>If Dan's photo is correct I hope they won't pull that trick of selling the camera without aux VF and then charge $250 extra for the VF. Sometimes I think these VF's are just huge profit builders for the camera companies. More so when they are priced at 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost of the lens they cover.</p>

<p>do you have a link to that announcement? i cant find it anywhere.</p>

<p>i found on the pen site that a new video is due on the 16th and they still have the 1966 penft video to show.</p>

<p>[[ Sometimes I think these VF's are just huge profit builders for the camera companies.]]</p>

<p>Well, of course they are. :)</p>

<p>It's a way to get cameras into the hands of more consumers. Why add to the cost of the base camera when you can sell the accessory to people that really want it? The rest get a camera at lower cost.</p>

<p>Warren, everything will be clear about 13-14 hours later. You have patience, right? ;)</p>

<p>John, personally I haven't been big fan of external viewfinder since the days I used Leica M film cameras. To me, the additional viewfinder is nothing but distraction of the beautiful compact design of Leica.</p>

<p>Also, Leica M2 and later models didn't need external viewfinders for 35mm (later 28mm) and longer lenses, so external viewfinder for 34mm equivalent is total nonsense. I never liked Ricoh's idea of external EVF for GX100 for the same reason.</p>

<p>After the initial gearhead geeks buy it, this thing's going to be a huge bust. No one else is going to bother with high priced accessory external viewfinders. And why a prime lens of f2.8 and not 2.0? Laziness and greed, that's why!</p>

<p>i just noticed the M in front of Zuiko.</p>

<p>Nice! <br>

No Leica body has ever had a built-in finder that's as good as Leica bright line accessory finders, save M3 with 50mm. A perfect 35mm bright-line view has always required a 35mm accessory finder for literally all other Leica M cameras. With a bright line finder, a screw mount Leica equals any of the M bodies unless you're willing to live with built-in metering or think you need lever advance.</p>

<p>"Also, Leica M2 and later models didn't need external viewfinders for 35mm (later 28mm) and longer lenses, so external viewfinder for 34mm equivalent is total nonsense." - Akira S.<br>

Akira, many Leica M users, including the most recent M6 users, have a hard time with the 35mm frame, especially if they wear glasses. Bright, fully usable 35mm frame is one of the few advantages of Voigtlander, Hexar M&AM, and "Zeiss" over all Leica M for 35mm lens (in addition to hinged back :-)<br>

With Leica and the several other good bright frame finders one enjoys a) very accurate brilliant frame (great in bright light and in lowest light) and b) a view of the scene outside the bright frame (one of the biggest advantages of a good rangefinder over any SLR/DSLR).</p>

<p>Oh, yikes...</p>

<p>That accessory finder eliminates one of my objections to the new Oly: no built-in optical finder.</p>

<p>Must... resist...</p>

<p>John, I have to agree with your comment on the 35mm frames in Leica M bodies. For those who wear glasses (including me), 35mm frame is not very convenient to use. Having said that, I don't think that 35mm frame is as impossible to get accustomed to as 28mm frame in M4-P and later models with 0.74x finders. And I would still choose to try to get accustomed rather than mounting external finder on top of the camera.</p>

<p>Hi, Lex, welcome to the 4/3 forum! :P</p>

<p>I haven't seen much discussion of the Voigtlander 15-35 zoom viewfinder. If you're a rangefinder shooter you may be interested.<br>

http://blog.photo.net/?p=4912<br>

http://cameraquest.com/voigt_1535_vf.htm</p>

<p>Well, if this does come to pass, I'll eat my words in saying that Olympus wouldn't put out a new digital camera with a rangefinder-style viewfinder. But if the viewfinder does get offered, I still think it's gonna flop with consumers like a beached fish.</p>

<p>I hope it has an optical viewfinder but don't like the accessory finders as they are vulnerable and compromise the ability to throw the camera in a pocket. It will be interesting to see how this does in the consumer maket - I disagree with Daniel as I think most consumers are not really interested in an optical viewfinder. Indeed I see it all the time in Banff and Lake Louise - you would be staggered how many people use the LCD on the back of their DSLR to compose - handheld!. I often wonder how you steady a DSLR at arms length - perhaps this accounts for the popularity of IS systems. Indeed I have concluded that most people don't like their lenses as you rarely see lens caps in use (or even protective filters). I think the key factor for the Olympus will be it's price - at $400 with a lens and no optical viewfinder it will sell at $600+ it will struggle. </p>

<p>Akira, my guess is that Oly thinks there are people out here who are more into photography and less into camera ownership than is widely understood. For many, but maybe not for flower/bug/duck/kid/sunset/cloud photographers, a bright frame accessory finder is very attractive. If you read the accounts of photojournalists who use Leica M, they talk constantly about how necessary the accessory finder is and how angry they are at Leica for not making its "foot" more rugged, locking in place. They love the finder and they hate the damage and loss it incurs. I think Oly knows that some will want the finder t any price abecause they're serious about images, while others won't want the finder because they can't afford it or are more concerned with convenience.</p>

<p>Looks like official info and a preview is out:<br>

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e_p1-review<br>

Not sure how I feel about this yet. I've been looking at the LX3 but it's hard to find it in stock anywhere. And this will probably push upwards of $700. <br>

And then I've been dying for a compact camera with a real focus ring, but then this is hamstrung with LCD only focus. </p>

<p>It's hard not to be really interested in this camera. Olympus might have pulled itself up from the grave with this one if it performs well and they support it with a set of fast primes.</p>

<p>Okey, the recently leaked images turned out to be true. The zoom-lock switch seems to be there to lock the lens in retracted position. Filter thread is located a litte farther inside than Panasonic 20/1.7.</p>

<p>John, I understand what you mean. It is said that there is 100-200msec delay until the image captured on the sensor is processed and displayed on EVF/LCD, so the optical viewfider should be better for the photographers who are critical about capturing "decisive moment" by sacrifying 100% view and the total absence of parallax. You make a choice. Unfortunately, the additional optical viewfinder appears to be made in plastic, so there might be still some complains...okay, I'll shut up for a while :P</p>

<p>Does anyone else think the white top and bottom plates look excessively cheap a'la the white XA2?</p>

<p><img src="http://www.biofos.com/quest/_img/xawtjf.gif" alt="" width="211" height="145" /></p>

<p>The classic Pen F lens caps are a nice touch though.... I'm glad I got myself a Pen FT in the winter... because this thing is bound to drive prices through the roof!</p>

<p>Akira, happily the Oly optical finder is relatively inexpensive, even vs Voigtlander's, according to Amazon. Leica's plastic foot is badly done (plastic needn't be that breakable, should be lock-able), hopefully Oly's is better...won't be as vulnurable on the feather-weight Oly as it is on the far-heavier Leica M. </p>

<p>IMO parallax is irrelevant in a camera that small, was also irrelevant in Leica M because that sort of camera is the wrong tool (M is the wrong tool, EP-1 will be the wrong tool) for macro-photography. Macro photography will be easy/fun with EP-1 because it has "another" finder, but m4/3 will never beat APS for that kind of work. Few serious photographers are concerned first about macro photography, but those who are will stick with DSLR. Parallax in a Leica or EP-1 will be irrelevant to scenic/architectural/street/portrait etc etc etc.</p>

<p>Oly's squinty DSLR 4/3 viewfinder (save E3) is FAR inferior to similarly priced APS DSLRs (especially Pentax K10/20D, K7), so people serious about SLR-style photography will continue to avoid Oly. </p>

<p>John, here's a cross-section of VF-1:<br /> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/294/162/html/05.jpg.html<br /> I'm not sure whether the foot is made of plastic or metal, but I would think plastic foot is chosen for safty. When excessive force is subjected to the mounted vewfinder, camera's accessory shoe would be broke if the viewfinder has a sturdy metal foot. Lock-ability should be able to be achieved with plastic, though.</p>

<p>I would find no reason to oppose your points. However, to me, M4/3 camera WITH EVF is the great combination of the accessibility of P&S degicams and image quality of DSLR. I have used Nikon D2H and D40, and have never satisfied with the viewfinders as their magnification factors (even that of D2H) are not large enough. I find even the viewfinder of E3 is all-too-small, too. Pentax camears use some nice finder screens and the larger magnification factor is great. But I, as glass-wearer, cannot see the entire screen and display in the viewfinder without vignetting, which is very frustrating. Let alone Canon and Sony.</p>

<p>So, I'm happy to have settled on my G1 and have never looked back at any types of optical viewfinders since. At the end of the day, I think that optical viewfinders are for film cameras and not for digitals.</p>