Yesterday, I talked about the next big thing. Well, it looks like the next big thing is a small thing: The Olympus E-P1. I saw it mentioned on T.O.P. and then headed over to DP Review to see what it was about.
As Earl said, this doesn’t push his gear-head buttons. It doesn’t do anything for me, either. I’d like to start by making a comparison that is perhaps not apples to apples, but more of oranges to tangelos! When I got my first serious digital camera, it was a Minolta Dimage A1. Certainly, a competent camera. As a matter of fact, I took one of my favorite pictures with that very camera and it still hangs in my computer room at home in Charlotte.
The major downfall of this camera was that it had two electronic view finders. One for your eye, and one on the back of the camera. The screen on the back of the camera was 1.8 inches diagonal, and the pixel count was 118,000 pixels. Compare this to the new E-P1 which has one EVF @ 230,000 pixels on a 3 inch screen. Certainly more pixels and more real estate. However, what it is lacking that the A1 had is a tiltable viewing screen, invaluable!
I never did get used to using exclusively EVF. It was just slow and somewhat unnatural. Sure, I know that technology has advanced in 5 years and refresh rates and contrast are better; however, I’m just not sold on this format. It’s too difficult to use in the sunlight and almost impossible to focus manually. The crispness just wasn’t there, even on the D300 with its 922,000 pixels!
I would suggest that if you are considering one AND you have a camera that can operate in live view, like the Nikon D300, that you take your camera out for a day and use nothing but live view and see how annoying/fun that is. Mind you, the D300 has the same size screen and more pixels (922,000), so it should be better and easier to use. Or if you don’t have such a camera, borrow one of your friends point-and-shoots that doesn’t have a viewfinder and see how much you like it.
I’ll admit, it is a sexy looking camera, but I don’t think that it is something that I would even consider buying. If I wanted a carry around camera, I’d probably opt for the Canon G9, or something similar.
I’ve seen a few people on other blogs salivating at getting their hands on one and I’d like to see some of the feedback.
What do you think?
Related Posts :
When I had my Minolta DiMage A1, it was pretty cool. For the most part, I really liked the came ...
Egad! Lad! You took this with a 6 MP camera! I've seen a number of places on the web where ...
Jan 14, 2004 - Trinity River - Irving, TX My first serious digital camera, as mentioned yester ...
13 Responses to “The next small thing.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think it looks great. Modern LCDs are pretty good in bright light – I don’t have a problem with my LX3. Reading the specs it looks like the PEN has a nifty manual focus aid: when manual focus is engaged it will automatically enlarge the screen view. Should speed it up.
My biggest problem with cameras with only an LCD is responsiveness, and that’s not inherent with the viewing method.
Now if only the picture were upside downn…Would make the LF user in me right at home.
Doonster: LOL! I don’t know if that upside down feature would be something that the general public would want.
I have followed the rumours around this system for a while, and most where disappointed with the lack of a descent viewfinder. Olympus claims however this camera to be aimed at consumers (aren’t we all?), if I recall right. Other cameras for the prosumer (apparently not.) segment will hopefully be equipped with elecronic viewfinders. It’s an interesting system to me since I have a 4/3 system myself.
Really nice picture you posted today. That was one heck of an tricky exposure, I guess. You got the water wonderfully smooth and the foliage with lots of contrast. Very nice job and a beautiful picture.
Ah, someone that bucks the trend. Sweat….
I’m still trying to understand what a 4/3 camera is. It came out of nowhere and I haven’t a clue.
@Ove: Thanks! Actually, the light was pretty decent, so this was an easy exposure. I had to play with it a bit in Lightroom to get it like I wanted. I’m glad that you like it!
@Tom: What can I say? I’m a trend bucker!
A 4/3 camera simply speaks to the format of the image, in this case 4/3, or 1.33:1 … television format. Interestingly, the Mamiya 645 is a 4/3 format camera. However, these smaller (micro) 4/3 cameras have a smaller sensor, no mirror, and no pentaprism at the top, so they can be a lot slimmer, of course you give up a view finder in exchange for a smaller camera, but you still get to keep interchangeable lenses.
Having owned the D300 and now the G1, there’s little comparison for working with them. The G1′s much better for manual focus work, especially in the EVF which is both larger and easier to focus with than the D300′s finder. The EVF system is from a pro video system and has little in commmon with the awful EVF’s that have been seen in previous digital cameras. The G1′s rear LCD is also very crisp despite having only 1/2 the dots of the D300′s. It’s also very responsive with no shutter lag. The real frustration I had with shooting the D300 in Live View was the huge shutter lag, focusing and tracking action were quite easy.
The E-P1 however presents some problems in comparison. It lacks the EVF which makes it usable in bright light, and only offers half the resolution of the G1′s rear LCD, making focus less precise. It seems more like a dedicated low-light camera than a do-nearly everything camera like the G1, I’d hesitate to use it in good light unless I had the 17 with the OVF on.
To me, one advantage that cameras like the G1 and E-P1 will always have over compact cameras like the Canon G-10 is the support for interchangeable lenses. Zoom lenses on compacts (all of them? I’m not certain) are not continuous zooms, but zoom change focal lengths in discrete steps.
As for the EVF, I find it looks for me in most occasions. In extreme sunlight and glare, I use a Hoodman Loupe, hold it up the the LCD and now I’ve got a huge viewfinder!
It does look intriguing but I like to look through a viewfinder…I cannot get used to using live view on the back of the cameras. I still have not used live view on my D700. It is interesting to see a truly compact camera with interchangeable lenses. But I doubt it would be for me.
Paul – the (micro)4/3 standards for cameras have nothing to do with aspect ratio (although most cameras are in 4:3) and everything to do with sensor size (in fact, image circle diameter). That’s straight from the white paper (Wikipedia has it wrong on that regard).
Several have variable aspect ratio, and Panasonic do it with full diagonal for each aspect ratio (thus overall larger sensor).
As much as my shoulders would appreciate dropping all the weight, there isn’t enough to tempt me.
I’m salivating. Yes, there are compromises; I’d prefer to have a viewfinder. (And at least an optical viewfinder attachment is available.) But every camera has compromises. I think for me the advantages of a compact camera with large sensor will outweigh the drawbacks. We’ll see. As someone who carries a D300 with 35mm f/2 with her almost everywhere, I’d very much appreciate a stealthy camera half the size. And I can’t get the shallow depth of field I want out of the tiny sensors.
Sad news, eh Paul?
Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak’s taking Kodachrome away
AP
By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer Carolyn Thompson, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jun 22, 8:45 am ET
ROCHESTER, N.Y. – Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak is taking your Kodachrome away.
The Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday it’s retiring its most senior film because of declining customer demand in an increasingly digital age.
The world’s first commercially successful color film, immortalized in song by Simon, spent 74 years in Kodak’s portfolio. It enjoyed its heyday in the 1950s and ’60s but in recent years has nudged closer to obscurity: Sales of Kodachrome are now just a fraction of 1 percent of the company’s total sales of still-picture films, and only one commercial lab in the world still processes it.
Those numbers and the unique materials needed to make it convinced Kodak to call its most recent manufacturing run the last, said Mary Jane Hellyar, the outgoing president of Kodak’s Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group.
“Kodachrome is particularly difficult (to retire) because it really has become kind of an icon,” Hellyar said.
The company now gets about 70 percent of its revenue from its digital business, but plans to stay in the film business “as far into the future as possible,” Hellyar said.