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

[jtk]

<p>Vivek, I understand the usefulness of articulated mini-TV to a segment of photographers. They will always be a market because people will always photograph flowers and bugs and a few shoot over crowds (like Rolleiflex). A significant, hard-nosed minority (Pentax & Leica people) don't like TV sets on cameras.</p>

<p>When TVs on cameras rival the new Oly's optical viewfinder, Pentax and Leica will install them. "Full" 4/3 will be long dead..</p>

<p>Hits counts on P.N suggest that over half of the $1000 DSLR shooters have decided to leave their TV at home. </p>

<p>Patrick thanks for your dissertation on half frame.. Bottom line : <strong>half of 35 was half as good as 35</strong> in every respect but cheapness. It was good enough to sell a few cameras to a few hobbiests until they realized they wanted something better.. Decades later the short-lived APS film cameras made better prints than half frame, but weren't as good as ff..</p>

<p>The world was full of Pentax, Nikon, Canon, and Leica shooters in the 1960s. Pen underperformed ff by 100%. Cheapness wasn't as important as image quality quality.</p>

<p>Granted, 72 frames is cheaper than 36 frames.</p>

[vivek iyer]

<p>John Kelly: My earlier post was in response to John Robison's post.</p>

<p>You, sir, do not interest me.</p>

[jean_moxhet]

<p>I don't understand why Olympus didn't made a removable EVF like Ricoh had done for the GX-100 (and now GX-200).<br>

Whit such accessory the E-P1 should be a really great camera!</p>

[william_white8]

<p>like the design ethic of this camera a lot.<br>

Agreeing that a EVF would promote this from a nice camera to a great camera. Maybe that upgrade will be called a digital OM? ....wishes.....(and add the brilliant; easy to use, multi-spot metering of the OM4....)</p>

<p>Yes, I would buy that in a heartbeat....this camera: I think the lack of a viewfinder is a dealbreaker. I've just got used to the camera being at my face......Maybe I need to change.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Gary, the mount itself is apparently the same as the original Pen cameras, except the registration distance is shorter. Vivek has some wonderful posts back with the introduction of the G1 showing his discovery of that. One of my beefs with this new format is the expense of the adapters. The OM adapter is $165 for a tube of metal with a lens mount on each end... no electronics, no linkages. That seems incredibly pricey for something any decent machinist could put together in a day... and is more expensive than the VINTAGE 1960's Pen F to OM adapter in original box that I recently purchased. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Oly probably noticed the relative success of Ricoh (nobody buys 'em) with its expensive TV set (evf), compared to decades of real cameras with accessory optical finders (eg Leica, Mamiya 7, Linhof, and recently Voigtlander... none of which bother with complex meter toys, incidentally). </p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>The lens mount is the Olympus/Panasonic 4/3 mount but with shorter register. There are lots of inexpensive adapters available for the 4/3 mount (not with the Olympus name engraved on them of course), and I'm sure they will be available in the u4/3 in due course. Someone will probably also come out with a cheap short extension tube to permit existing adapters and 4/3 lenses to be used on the u4/3 bodies. I expect we'll be seeing more from this system.</p>

<p>Actually, all of the Leicas that I've had came equipped with viewfinders built right in. Handy device. They did make some without finders, requiring an accessory in the shoe (the Ic, If, Ig), but I don't think they were a huge hit commercially, maybe 30,000 produced over 10 years.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Maybe this is more your liking Richard.... it DOES have a viewfinder... and even a fake bright-lines patch and wonderful like-a-Leica styling and Barbie-esque silvery plastic detailing that I don't think I can resist. I think Vivitar has just reinvented the meaning of "kitsch":<br>

http://vivitar.com/products/16/VC8027%20Spec%20Sheet.jpeg</p>

[john_fleetwood]

<p>I'd be happy with a fast-handling digital the size of an OM-1. With a big OM viewfinder, of course.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I must disagree with your lament, Rich. Perfect? no. Compromises? Of course.. This year long wait from Olympus to introduce its first micro model, I am betting will show that they are <strong>hitting one out of the ball park</strong> . It is not old wine in a new bottle. I got news for those debunkers who have dismissed the company product in recent years- they get good reviews and good sales. Noone mentions their wonderful lenses which are really great designs. No clinkers in there. I am personally excited to actually see and hold one of these EP babies. If they don't sell the demo model before I get chance. it is ok to disagree of course, we are all friends in this community:-)</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>The history of the pen and half frame is interesting to say the least. The best thing going for 35mm was <strong>it became a standard. </strong> A <strong>standard </strong> in film is an inherently good thing when one looks at the eclectic history of fim sizes and formats galore. Consider this Robot fellow for insrance. The Robot Star of the fifties. 24by 24mm or <strong>five</strong> ( I am reckoning) <strong>sprocket</strong> width. Sprockets are unnecessary for consumer cameras now of course, but for history, they were useful in film advance and with motor advance and gave Kodak a standard for processing film.<br>

Half frame could have been called 4 perforation or <strong>4p</strong> vs <strong>8 p ( the standard for a long time now)</strong> and got better public relations, because it was good for use with Kodachrome and a lot of monochrome too. Remember the annoyance of reload after 36 or 37 shots? "Half frame" term sounds to me like going in to Subway's sandwich p lace and ofdering a half loaf vs the six inch which I usually I buy.</p>

<p>I don't think of my 6" well stuffed and mayo'd sandwich as a <strong>half loaf</strong> sandwich. Does anybody?.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[vivek iyer]

<blockquote>

<p>Noone mentions their wonderful lenses which are really great designs. No clinkers in there.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Though I have pre-ordered the 17/2.8 and am keenly waiting for it to use it on my G1,<br>

check the Olympus supplied samples, in particular, #2. There is lateral chromatic aberration plainly visible.</p>

<p>http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/mlenses/17_28/</p>

<p>I suspect they spend more on advertisement than on R&D.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Final thought re half frame which gets a lot reference vis a vis EP-1 size..The Robot Star. which later moved to the 8 perf eventually, shares a lot of tech with movie cameras of old. Guillotine shutter, Wind up motor. No batteries. Wickedly nice interchangeable lens I can look at and say <strong>nice glass </strong> from Schneider. I bet the optical finder was only fair in size and brightness. Anyone know, who has owned one-?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect they spend more on advertisement than on R&D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vivek, hmm, I kind of doubt that. Company advertises little here. I think maybe Eu is their bigger market. I am assuming Olympus could have achieved better specs for significantly more retail price. I appraised the two sample files in the 17 mm link. I can see some CA at the periphery.Other distortions look to be corrected. Seems contrasty,sharp. I bet WA is a design challenge in any format.</p>

[vivek iyer]

<p>Gerry, If a 65 deg angle of coverage wide angle is a design challenge for anyone (in any format), in this day and age, they do not put enough cash for their R&D.</p>

<p>Ricoh GR-D I/II has even a wider coverage for a smaller format. Sigma DP-1/2, ditto.<br>

These companies apparently are not resting on their laurels as some appear to be doing.</p>

[ilkka]

<p>Sigma DP-2 is a 40mm equivalent lens. Surely less wide than the 34mm Eq new Olympus. GRs and DP-1 are all 28 equivalent. The Sigma DP-1 lens is actually 16mm so about the same as the Olympus, but the sensor is a bit bigger, making the combination a bit wider.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>You could be right in that last comment, Vivek. I lean to moderate telephotos myself. The 85- 100 mm is my niche. But for this carry around baby, it seems like a good choice. So many here and there are anticipatong the camera as a mate to the pancake 17mm. I will keep my fingers crossed.<br /> Olympus said they were surprised at the sales of the 25mm which was a surprise entry not on the map I remember... I hope they learned some about the market for primes in this quote wide normal,unquote range. They had better come through after so long. So I hope. Otherwise, Panasonic may see my micro cash first. gs</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>That focal length was chosen I'm sure for historical as well as technical reasons. That range lens is about the widest you can go and still make a phenomonally compact and (fairly) fast lens. Just look at how many small 35mm cameras came with 35mm lenses mounted to them. Leica and OM users have both called their respective 35mm lenses the best walking around lenses for street photography. This lens is most certainly aimed towards that crowd and young people will be attracted to the ability to shoot crowds of friends outdoors and at parties without stepping back 1000 feet. For many people at this point in the game, their ONLY experience with a fixed focal length lens will have been disposable cameras and cell-phone cameras, which hang out at the wide end... typically 28mm equivalency. To make a 28mm lens this size would have pushed the aperture down to the murky levels of the typical fixed-lens cameras.... while one of the attractions of interchangeable lens cameras for many people is faster lenses.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Vivek - I wait with interest your review of the 17 F2.8 on the G1. I like you must have the EVF as I use Canon FD lenses on my G1. I am not impressed with the Panasonic 14-45mm zoom and have over 25 FD lenses. A good quality pancake lens would be a real asset for the G1. The few reviews on the oly 17 F2.8 have not been that good. many of the people who criticize the EVF have probably not used it - I had my doubts but to be honest it is much better than the Contax G2 viewfinder which is the only other way to deal with zoom lenses without a mirror. While I understand the appeal of Leica and Voigtlander I suggest that it is commercial suicide to launch a mass market camera that does not work with zooms. Leica can get away with it as they sell premium products to a specialized niche market. Their sucess in digital (the M8) has been limited as the economics of the consumer electronics industry is all about production volumes and scale economies. Cameras without a zoom capability do not sell well today - most "photographers" I know do not even own a prime lens - look at the gallery section of Amateur photographer and notice how many shots in this publication are taken with a zoom (the contests are different as primes show what they can do). I think this means that for most purposes we are likely to be limited to rear LCDs, EVFs or SLRs on most digital cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[j_sevigny]

<p>People always complain about something. This is the first, affordable, small, camera with a decent sized sensor that seems capable of producing good results. I'll be keeping an eye on it to see what the actual price is. I don't mind looking at the little TV screen. I suppose the people who do never chimp on their DSLRS</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Related question: I have no objection to reinforced plastic for lens bodies, and trust their dimensional stability. Q: Do we know for sure if the micro E <strong>lens</strong> bayonet mounts are finished metal? Assumed that, since the E lenses I bought have metal bayonet rear end..even my moderate priced 70-300mm, the last. It would be reassuring if so. Anybody?</p>

[david_f._stein]

<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>Yes, this is what I would like to see. Optical viewfinders with overhead (heads-up) display. Sometimes, I think no one is really tried. The modern digital camera has and will continue to become the extension of video camera and television set/computer screen imaging. Somehow, it lacks dimension for me. Could the lens as we know it be made obsolete also?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Where did Grisha's review go?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It wasn't a "review." It wasn't even a "preview", since it was just a bunch of opinions based on specs and whatever else has already been published. It was little more than blog-spamming several photo.net forums to drum up hits.</p>

<p>The best hands-on review I've seen so far, which includes hi-rez sample photos, was provided by Gerry in another thread: http://www.biofos.com/mft/ep-1_pre.html</p>

<p> </p>

[vivek iyer]

<p>Now that I have handled one, I appreciate Rick's title for the thread.</p>

<p>So cute! So useless. :(</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Vivek:</p>

<p>Can you provide any more details?</p>

<p>Eric</p>