Just look at that little bugger. Ain't it just
so cute? All jesting aside, the adorably retro piece of kit you're inevitably peering at above rings up at $799 to $899, meaning that it's priced way too high to be slotted in most consumers' impulse buy category. Olympus'
E-P1 was launched with high hopes, and it pretty much held the weight of the Micro Four Thirds world on its shoulders. During
our time with the unit, we found image quality to be satisfactory overall and the design to be simply stunning, but we certainly didn't come away feeling it was flawless. For those of you who overlooked the entry-level DSLR in order to try something different, how has that decision treated you? Are you full of remorse? Could you not be happier? Spill all in comments below.
posted Sep 4th 2009 11:05PM
Oh I'm sorry I don't play Pokemon
Pika! Pikapika!
*facepalm*
I don't get it. What am I missing?
chu!
I'm getting too old to understand Engadget comments...
Anyway, the perfect u4/3 would be Panasonic DMC-GF1's razor-sharp brains in the Olympus E-P1's cute body.
I seriously hope comments here don't start looking like they do at icanhazcheezburger.
I believe it's an xkcd reference. It's sort of a way to blow someone off and make fun of them at the same time.
Put it in an IPHONE! I'm kidding. Downrank me, please.
With pleasure.
-faster AF
-built-in flash
-higher res LCD
-add a black edition
Firmware 1.1 comes September 15th, it's main feature is faster AF. :D
All those already available with the GF1
GF-1 is what you just described.
The GF1 isn't out yet. The GF1's optional EVF is crappy. The GF1 doesn't have in-body IS.
So far, I'd rather have a Panasonic, I think their firmware features are better. They are getting very, very close to what I want in a camera with the GF1.
did I ?
;)
But wouldn't be nice if the GF-1 has in-body IS ?
In honor of the old Olympus Pen series camera with the addition of inbody IS, this should be renamed E-PenIS.
Now let's see how more cute it could be!
The problem is that said IS takes up a lot of internal space. Leaving little to no room for the flash's relatively large capacitor. (at least without increasing the size of the body)
Give me a 4-6 megapixels with really clean high ISO shots, and an f2-2.8 pancake wide angle lens in that small of a package, and I'll give you $900 for it.
maybe in a few years' time when they are done with the megapixel rat race!
The megapixel marketing race doesn't apply to the Olympus E-P1 or Panasonic GF1 and GH1 since they have DSLR-sized sensors (4/3") which are huge compared to the tiny sensors used in most point and shoots (1/2.33") and even the advanced point and shoots (1/1.7"). For a better explanation see the section "Digital SLRs with many pixels are okay." of the page:
6 Megapixel the best compromise between pixel count and sensitivity for Consumer cameras
http://6mpixel.org/en/?page_id=32
Another good way to compare is to look at:
Digital Photography Review's camera database
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp
which lists the "Pixel Density" for each camera. They talk about Pixel Density here:
Pixel Density: when Moore is less
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08070301pixeldensity.asp
Sounds like you are a customer for the Panasonic's DMC-GF1 with 20mm/f1.7 lens. The kit goes for $900. (Eying it myself.)
High ISO isn't as detailed as in Canikon, but it's for 99% cases is as good.
But sorry, it's 12MP.
Chu!!!
cut the price in half
Twice.
Then keep my $0.25.
and give it to me for free
Make the dumb optional viewfinder an optional *electronic* viewfinder like that Panny has so it works with all lenses.
Have you seen how much the optional viewfinder costs???
I already checked - its MRPS is $199.
If I'd buy GF1, I guess my greed would force me to learn to love the LCD composing.
so this is the leader of the new 4/3rds, and in photography image quality is everything--and this new camera produces "satisfactory" images? That's like a C- or D+, right? I expect new tech like this to produce superior photo quality.
They are superior if you compare them to the same sized cameras eg G10/G11 etc, satisfactory if you compare to dslrs.
It produces very good image quality.
Engadget is great for gossip, but if you want a real in depth review of something that isn't an iPhone, go somewhere else. This comment about satisfactory image quality as well as the whining about resistive displays(with the N900) and some of the other things are getting kind of annoying.
DPreview did a thorough test and rated image quality as being better than previous 4/3rds and as good as entry level SLRs from other manufacturers. It loses to the GH1, although that costs twice as much.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/page31.asp
Click through the next pages to see comparisons to other SLRs, although they do point out that at the time of the review their RAW converter wasn't working properly so once Adobe updates ACR the quality should get even better.
What I'm really curious about is how this camera compares to Sigma's DP series.
Squeezing a flash in there would be nice, too.
Oh I'm sorry I don't play Pokemon
Mos def needs a higher res screen.
yeah right, mos def rocks 1080p on the reg buddy. he's doin just fine...
lol
Alright, with the new Panasonic out there has been a lot of speculation here. While the Panasonic is a fine camera in its own right, it is a different beast, designed for different users (also ones with more money). The Panny is more a generalist camera than the Oly with a faster AF and pop-up flash. The Oly is more the hobbiest/professional camera with its in camera IS.
What would I like?
Fast AF would be nice.
Lightroom support - required - coming soon.
Built-in Flash? They are useless for anything except snapshots - first thing I turn off.
Focus Confirmation for Manual Focus - would also be nice.
Other than that, it is a pocket camera with 720pHD video and images quality close to the Canon 5DMII. What's to complain about?
Oh, I can't wait for Lightroom/Aperture support. I always hate this with new cameras... RAW never works. And as I've mentioned, the firmware in 2 weeks should speed up the AF.
A viewfinder would be fantastic. It'd have to be electronic, but that would be OK if it were high-res enough. Right now, though, the selection of micro 4/3 lenses is *really* tiny, and the range regular 4/3s lenses isn't much better (and kind of expensive). That's the imperative part of the package.
viewfinder is what stopped me from buying it.
After using a DSLR for sometime I too can't imaging using a camera without a proper viewfinder.
Though I have used for two years before Canon's P&S which didn't have viewfinder - and it worked somehow.
Before buying, I want to find some exhibition where I can play with the camera for at least 10 minutes - to get the feeling whether it can be used without viewfinder or not.
Folks from fourthirds-user.com mentioned that there is a barrier - http://fourthirds-user.com/2009/06/olympus_pen_ep1_initial_handson_review.php - "there is no viewfinder! [...] you get used to it."
I love my E-P1. I just wish it had a high resolution screen.
Other than that, it does just what it was meant to do. It doesn't need a viewfinder, because it's not that kind of camera. Sure it took me a while to get used to using the screen (I'm so used to my film SLR and DSLR!) but now it just feels right. The AF is a little slow, but an update comes out this month (15th) that should speed that up. A flash isn't needed, since I HATE built in flashes and would rather use a hot shoe flash on any camera. The photo quality is pretty much on-par with my DSLR, the high ISO shots are good, the built in IS and dust reduction is sweet, and I don't think I could ask for much more. This camera is something new, and I hope Olympus and Panasonic work hard to make m4/3 something big. I can't wait for some new lenses to come out.
I'm getting a four thirds adaptor next week and I can't wait to try out my ZD lenses.
Oh, and DPreview has a pretty good review of the cam: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/
I think may people felt burned when the actual product looked nothing like the mockup prototype that was presented to the world:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092208olympus_micro_four_thirds.asp
http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0809/Olympus/mft1.jpg
People were also told that it would be a metal body, and it ended up being a thin metal veneer backed up by a solid plastic housing. That is why it looks somewhat cheap to people in the know. Its like those 'stainless steel' fridges you see at Home Depot that are on discount because someone dented them and now they look like crap.
http://photorumors.com/2009/06/17/the-guts-of-the-m43-olympus-e-p1/
Similarly, the lens too came in for complaint being too plastic-y.
My big complaint on video performance was that the AF was very noisy. There were some videos on the net where the AF sounded like crushed glass. 60fps @ 720p would also be great.
Finally, how could they not sell a black version? The aesthetics of the finger grip are also somewhat strange. It just looks like a decal that was slapped on.
Retro form factor yes, but fails in the details...
OLED Display
Flash
ViewFinder
....
i would smash it with a rock, or hammer.
Eggy weggs!
smaller lens. it's ugly- plain out ugly
Bigger lens gathers more light equaling better images.