Olympus E-P1 DSLR leaked, slated for fall release?
By Darren Murph 
posted Jul 13th 2007 6:13PM
posted Jul 13th 2007 6:13PM
Oh, how we adore leaked PowerPoint presentations. Fresh off of discovering that Timex is indeed releasing a Made for iPod watch, it looks like that Olympus E-1 successor will soon become a reality -- we're talking October / November soon. While the 27-page document detailing the E-P1 has since been removed at the request of Olympus, a good amount of details were extracted beforehand. Reportedly, the DSLR will feature a 10-megapixel sensor, dust reduction, splash-proof body, swiveling LCD, image sensor stabilization, eleven-point autofocus, and a weather-sealed extra battery compartment for good measure. So if you're as giddy as we are about finally getting a followup to the aging E-1, give the links below a bit of your time and start pinching those pennies.[Via CNET]
Why did it take them SIX+ FREAKIN years to come up with an E1 replacement? I was an E1 user, but, like many others have moved on long ago waiting for the next E1.. it never came.
They didn't, really. Look at all the models since the E1. They may not have been professional grade, but they still make the E1 look lame in terms of features. That aside, the answer is simply a matter of market growth. The amateur market is where it's at for DSLRs. So they focused on that market to keep up revenue while they took their time with the pro model.
It will be four years, no six. FYI, between the D100 and D200 was about 4 years. Some of the other high-end Nikons/Canons also had 3 or 4 year spans between releases so this is not uncommon for the high-end models.
I like Olympus, they make some very solid gear.
However, when looking at their limited and sometimes pricey lens selection (based on the rare 4/3 mount), I'm left cold to the concept of actually using one. Compared to the rest, I don't see any serious reason why I would consider this over a D200. Besides, once this thing comes out there's no telling what the other camera manufacturers will have released as well.
Olympus waited too long.
The main advantages it has over the D200 are:
anti-dust
anti-shake
live view
swivel LCD
Those are some pretty huge features to some people; not such a big deal to others. I have a D200 and would love to have those features. Personally I'm with you on the 4/3 system though... not so keen on that.
Those features might be nice, but they are insignificant when you consider the lens selection and lens quality that is available from Nikon (or Canon for that matter). When you get done measurbating all it really comes down to is lens quality and photographer skill, with the latter being the most important. If you don't have the skill to take a good picture then no amount of camera features or lens quality will make your bad pictures good.
For me, a good selection of quality lenses is far more important than some random new feature. Almost all current DSLRs are capable of taking excellent photos, but not all of them can use the large selection of quality Nikkors available.
only somebody who never use the real IS/VR on a Canon/Nikon system can claim that in-body IS a good feature. Better than nothing, but can't beat true in-lens optical stabilizer. Furthermore, anything beyond ISO 400 on any Olympus (so far) is too noisy anyway, at least on the Canon/Nikon you have 2-stop high-ISO advantage (3 stops on mid level Canon, 4 stops on hi-end Canon - ISO 6400)
Both Olympus and Pentax anti-dust have been tested to be worse than Canon's, so it's a non-feature.
Live preview: what for? There is something more "live" than live-preview... it's called the viewfinder.
Swivel LCD... I can't argue with that. It's a good thing to have on some ocassions.
Making things worse, however, Olympus auto focus is far slower than Canon/Nikon. Smaller sensor also creates more high-ISO noise. 4:3, as you mentioned, is not the de-facto standard for pro photography.
I want to love Olympus. I've even bought them (several dSLR models) but I didn't hang on to any of them longer than a month or so. They all suck (compared to the competition).
dave,
While Olympus does not have a vast selection of older film based AF lenses, their range of digital specific lenses is very large and covers a wide range.
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html
As you said, it's the photographer's skill. And as you can see there is clearly plethora of lenses for a good photographer to choose from. All digital specific.
David Susilo,
IS - In-body IS is a bit better than "better than nothing" because every lens you have now has IS and you do not have to incur the additional weight per lens. Which works better? I'm sure what you'll find is that different types of IS works better in different lenses in different situations. Isn't it nice though that a cheap sub $100 kit lens and also a$2k+ pro f/2 zoom lens are now stabilized automatically just by using this new body? Better than nothing, indeed.
ISO - Yes, older Olympus cameras had problems at high ISO. Look at the E-410 and E-150 ISO 1600 samples. They are as good as Canon/Nikon. While one Canon may have decent ISO 6400, I'm sure the combination of very clean ISO 1600 and IS in body will meet the needs of 99+% of most photographic situations. Just a guess.
Dust. You said "Both Olympus and Pentax anti-dust have been tested to be worse than Canon's, so it's a non-feature." Read the article: http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/ I think you need to check your sources. Olympus who came up with this is the only one that works. Everyone else realized they needed to have the feature, unfortunately all others fail. Again, read the article.
Live preview: You said" what for? There is something more "live" than live-preview... it's called the viewfinder." and then you said "Swivel LCD... I can't argue with that. It's a good thing to have on some ocassions." Um... the swivel LCD is for Live-preview or Live View as its called so you can see through the LCD what you would see through the viewfinder. The advantage for difficult viewing angles like overhead or at ground level when it is either not possible to look through the viewfinder or you would at least have to be a contortionist. Also there are specialty applications like diving and underwater photography where this is very helpful. Sometimes I take photos at waist level and its nice to not have to kneel down and be completely obvious. I stand as normal, pop up the LCD and take the photo. Quick and easy.
Focus. Making general statements are not helpful. All Canon lenses are faster than all Olympus? I think we all know that is no true. Will Canon or Nikon's best be faster than Olympus' best? For now yes. But Olympus is also coming out with a new range of lenses that will be as fast if not faster than the fastest Canon/Nikon lenses. Oh, and btw, on the E-p1, they get stabilization for free! ;-).
Sorry you didn't like yours. I've had them for years and they work great. As far as I can tell they take pictures just fine.
David Susilo, it is quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Lens based IS is better most times when you have a lens that has it, but what about a lens that does not. Name one Canon macro with IS in the lens. While I agree that IS would be better for a long lens, in-body is better for anything under 150mm.
Test have shown that the Canon anti-dust system to be nearly as big a joke as the Pentax system. The Olympus dust-buster is the ONLY one that works.
Live preview is the best feature in DSLRs in years. I am glad Canon adopted it. It is perfect for Macro. You can focus so much better in Macro. For all other shots, I would only use the viewfinder though.
Olympus is slower in auto focus only when you compare to other brand USM motors. No slower if you compare to non-USM lenses. Speed is the same if you compare the TopPro lenses from Olympus.
As for quality of glass... I'm sorry, but Olympus if far better than Canon on quality. Nikon is just as good. The top best lens makers in the world are Leica, Zeiss, Olympus and Nikon. The ONLY good Canon lenses are a few of the L series. Canon has some serious quality control issues.
All brands are great and have their good and bad. Anyone who thinks one is the best one the other is the worst is a brand snob who knows little about photography.
Just buy the camera if you like it and take some photos.
Even the latest Olympus ISO 1600 can't beat Canon's ISO 800. I've tested them with controlled lighting and still the Olympus is about 1 to 2 stop worse than Canon's.
For Macro work, if you're a real photographer, you'll use a tripod. Heck, if you're setious about macro work, you can't even use auto focus because it's not accurate enough. The problem with macro work is not about shake but front/back sway. Something that no IS (in-body or in-lens) can help.
And yes, I've used in body IS from Pentax, Sony and Olympus. Although Olympus version is the best amongst those three, they still can't compare to
Canon's IS or Nikon's VR, especially at anything beyond (approx) 200mm.
David, you're still talking out of your rear. You must be just some gearhead who knows next no nothing about photography.
I don't think for a minute you have used anything other than a Canon.. The Olympus IS is and is not better. As far as the most effective, the Sony/Minolta version is best. The thing that makes the Olympus version special is that it is the only in-body IS that can do panning. Anything below 150mm, in-body IS is best. If it gets to the point that what you see through the viewfinder has too much shake to frame, no IS system in the world will help you.
I agree that nothing beats a tripod for macro, but there are times that you do not have a tripod. The same reason you have IS on a lens at all…. In the event that you do not have a tripod at the moment. With your logic, why even bother to have IS at all? Just take a tripod with you everywhere you take your camera. Sometimes you just can’t.
Anyway, a macro with IS makes a great portrait lens. The live view for macro is for manual focus.
Olympus ISO is crap above 400 on all their older models. The newer 410 and 510 are much better. Canon really only shows a half to one stop gain over either Nikon or Olympus these days. Technology has improved quite a bit.
As I said... lens-based IS is better above 150mm. In-body is better below 150mm. Choose the system the best works for your style of photography. My advice to you David, learn about photography first and then learn the gear.
hmmm, since when only in-body IS can only do panning? For the past 5 years in-lens IS can do panning.
Me, learn photography? Now who's talking out of their rear.
David, you need to learn how to read. I said that the Olympus in-body IS is the only in-body IS that can do panning. I said nothing about lens based IS panning. Anyway, only a few IS lenses can do panning.
As for who's talking out of their rear... it's still only you. Now you must learn about reading as well as photography.
Ouch! I can't believe you're spitting hate at Olympus Lenses. Olympus makes perhaps the best lenses in the industry. And as far as selection, there are a lot of lenses to choose from in the 4/3 world. Olympus has a great mid-level line of lenses, which is a step above the consumer-grade lenses. Then there are the "holy-cow-what-a-lense" pro level lenses.
I went with the Olympus e500 (and am saving up for EP-1) more because of Olympus lenses, not so much olympus cameras. it's the lens system you buy into. And olympus is hard to beat.
an Olympus representative himself acknowledged that they lost focus for a while (har), but were gonna come back this year (and have with the E-510, etc)
I admire their innovations and suspect an E-510 will be picked up before the year is through, as tempting as this one will be.
Any word on when they'll release a version that is not completely ugly?
David Susilo @ Jul 13th 2007 10:12PM sez:
only somebody who never use the real IS/VR on a Canon/Nikon system can claim that in-body IS a good feature. Better than nothing, but can't beat true in-lens optical stabilizer.
----------
Of course, it doesn't need to be. Have you actually used in-body stabilisation? From either Pentax, Sony, Konica-Minolta, Olympus?
Furthermore, anything beyond ISO 400 on any Olympus (so far) is too noisy anyway
----------
Have you looked at the E-510, E-410 yet? No, I'd say - your statement is way out of date.
Both Olympus and Pentax anti-dust have been tested to be worse than Canon's, so it's a non-feature.
----------
I'd LOVE to know where you got this. Olympus has, according to two reviews I've seen, been the BEST anti-dust system (the only effective one, in fact). Everyone else is playing catch-up. Add to that Pixel Mapping it has built into its cams for years, to deal with stuck/ hot pixels which are a fact of life with all digital cams.
Live preview: what for? There is something more "live" than live-preview... it's called the viewfinder.
-----------
Macros come to mind. Real-time results of image stabilisation when zooming in, too. Easier to see what's in focus, too. With a moving LCD the advantages of Live View are multiplied.
Making things worse, however, Olympus auto focus is far slower than Canon/Nikon. Smaller sensor also creates more high-ISO noise. 4:3, as you mentioned, is not the de-facto standard for pro photography.
---------
Is the 3:2 ratio ideal? Is 4:3? Do we have standard sensor sizes? Crop factors? Nope. The mish-mash of "de-facto standards" are far from standard. What is the point when with digital we can do with things pretty much what we please and all that matter is the end result? Autofocus has been improved in the latest models. Of course greatly improved with additional flash, anyway.
I want to love Olympus. I've even bought them (several dSLR models) but I didn't hang on to any of them longer than a month or so. They all suck (compared to the competition).
-----------
I doubt you've played with this year's DSLRs from Olympus.
WHAT!!!! I read these comments and all I can say is WHAT!!! are you photographers or camera engineers?? The idea that some gadget will make you a better photographer is so much crap. Yes some feature on Nikon may be superior to some on and Olympus and Olympus dust reduction may be better than Nikon but guess what?? Let a pro photographer take pictures with either one E1 or D200 and you would be hard pressed to tell which one took which photo. Its the picture dammit not the process.