New Oly "Pen" only half "Pen"

[cametacamera]

<p>The old Olympus Pen had a native portrait format. To get landscape you would have to tilt the camera 90 degrees in either direction. The thing that makes it most "Pen" like is that the sensor is 1/2 as big... just like a Pen. Even though I am not a fan of 4/3rds I am looking forward to handling one. The new design will be the wave of the future: Lens, LCD... a few controls, what else do you need?</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>EVF or optical view finder. That's the only thing missing for me.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>The sensor is actually 1/4 the size of full frame. I agree with you that vertical format cameras are awesome, but let's face it, todays market is picky picky picky. People bitch if the camera ONLY does 5fps. Imagine the sh*tstorm of a vertical format. A "square" camera with controls on the corner that would be easier to shoot either format would be nice though.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...todays market is picky picky picky."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Got that right. And what's with this lingering "full frame" obsession? Why is that still the paradigm by which all cameras are judged? Who decided the 24x36cm miniature format was "full frame"? Pretty sure it wasn't Oskar Barnack. Couldn't have been anyone who started out with medium format or larger. What's larger than 24x36, fuller than full? That's like people who claim they're giving "a hunnert and ten percent" effort, a logical impossibility. To me, that translates to "When I say I'm giving 100%, I'm actually on cruise control at 90%."</p>

<p>Patrick, I'm just going from memory here, but I was a kid getting into photography in the 1960s and met some adults who were fans of the Pen series. I don't recall anyone ever once - not once - referring to all photography in terms of "full frame" as if 24x36 was the sole paradigm, or fretting over differences in DOF and all the other quibbles we hear now. The term half-frame only served as a reference point relative to 35mm cameras, but the term "full frame" was never used the way it is now. But I get the impression you've done quite a bit of research here. Have you found any comparable references in the magazines or other publications of that era? Any similar obsessions with minutiae?</p>

<p>Just curious because what I remember is that people back then embraced 35mm cameras and even half frame cameras as gems of miniaturization for the purpose of enjoying handheld, candid and casual photography. And when the OM-series hit the market, it was celebrated for that very purpose.</p>

<p>Now, instead of celebration, I see a lot of gnashing of teeth over whatever the latest Olympus model <em>isn't</em> rather than what it <em>is</em> . Hell, I didn't even realize until recently how comparable the E-420 was in size to the OM-series, mostly because that asset has been dwarfed by wailing about what 4/3 <em>isn't</em> rather that what it <em>is</em> .</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm looking forward to getting my mitts on the E-P1 just to find out for myself what it <em>is</em> .</p>

[larry_myers4]

<p>I'm really curious as to how well this thing is going to sell. It doesen't seem to fit any particular demographic very well- consumers who want a pocketable camera will see little reason to shell $800+ when they can get a decent compact bridge camera for under $500, while many (most?) serious photographers will probably be irked by the lack of a real viewfinder.<br>

It also seems like any type of zoom lens would completely nullify its compactness (which appears to be its main selling point), and using a telephoto lens would be really awkward with such a tiny camera.</p>

<p>It does look like a really cool little device, but I just doubt that many people will be able to justify spending nearly $1,000 on what most photographers would view as a secondary camera.</p>