http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/ Engadget Comments for Olympus E-PL1 review http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 2:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
It smells pretty good too. ]]>Apr 1st 2010 2:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 7:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 2:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 2:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
There are different setting to reduce the flash intensity. (this might be what you are experiencing) I bought this, and have had one since they went on sale at the beginning of last month. Mine is extremely bright when on full intensity, but the next step down is 1/4 intensity, which is exactly what it implies (Not very bright at all).]]>Apr 1st 2010 4:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 6:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 2:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 2:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
Second paragraph:
"For people who know their way around aperture and shutter speeds, and rely on those manual controls to make the camera do what they want, there's still plenty to love about the E-PL2"
I'm sure you mean E-P1, since there isn't an E-PL2 camera (for now, at least).

Third paragraph:
"Aesthetically the camera takes a hit in comparison to the E-PL1 and E-PL2"
I'm sure that you mean E-P1 and E-P2 here; after you can't really compare a camera against itself (or imaginary cameras for that matter).

Honestly, I love Engadget, but over the last month or so, there seems to be an increasing number of small, but sloppy errors across reviews (and some large ones too, like in a couple of Joanna's recent reviews). Raise the standards guys.

As for the camera itself; it looks like a useful piece of kit - would like to go and try one out in person to see how it feels in the hand and get a better sense of the size of it before considering a purchase.]]>Apr 1st 2010 3:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
That's entirely incorrect. You've linked PREVIEWS in the past, not full reviews.]]>Apr 1st 2010 3:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 3:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
How does it stack up against the GF1?]]>Apr 1st 2010 3:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 3:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 3:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 4:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 4:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
3/4" jack? Sorry boys, doesn't exist. Maybe you meant 1/4"?

Or if the 3/4" jack did exist, that'd be one heck of a giant hole to put in a camera thats barely bigger than your run-of-the-mill point-and-shoots, with more crammed electronics. For that matter, so would a 1/4" jack. 3.5mm or 2.5mm, maybe.]]>Apr 1st 2010 4:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 2nd 2010 8:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
A camera like this (and the EP1) are cute compacts that are leagues better than point and shooters in terms of image quality and the flexibility of interchangeable lenses (maybe, if they ever get more than 3). But don't trash your DSLR, or decide against a DSLR if you're in the market for one, in favor of a camera like this, you'll regret it.]]>Apr 1st 2010 5:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 5:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
What's wrong with a camera that provides scene and art filters as well as fully manual controls?

Perhaps you would also have words with the P/Play in the PASM dial, and perhaps believe this dial should not exist at all, as all one requires is M?]]>Apr 1st 2010 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
1. My problem--and note that I clearly state that it's what I don't like, not you or anybody else--is that the manual controls are buried in favor of these fake controls, and in my view it encourages laziness.

2. If you like this style of camera, go for it. Unlike you, I make no judgments about what would work for other people.

3. Perhaps you should not presume what other people want in a camera. You don't know me or my photography, so take the snarky remark at the end of your post and shove it up your aperture.]]>Apr 1st 2010 7:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
Your problem is that you are commenting on a camera class you clearly would never like. This type of camera clearly has an audience, and that audience more than likely prioritizes scene and art filters but may on occasion want to use manual controls. There is always the E-P2 for the other type of user, so really, what was the point of your comment?

Some simply want a blurry background without the need to academically understand bokeh and depth of field. Perhaps you should not presume that people want to know why a background is made blurry. While you're at it, you should also not presume that your snarky remark cannot be replied by a snarky remark; it makes it look like you have a thin skin.]]>Apr 2nd 2010 4:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/It's the only thing that makes these new cameras unusable for me.]]>Apr 1st 2010 6:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 2nd 2010 8:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/The Leica Digital Rangefinders have a good optical viewfinder system.
They should use their imaginations and implement something like that.
But yeah, within the budgetary realms of us mere mortals, SLR's are the way to go as far as viewfinders go.]]>Apr 2nd 2010 10:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 1st 2010 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/
That last comment kind of sums up a significant percentage of what differentiates a high end SLR from a mid-range model. IF E-P2 buyers based their purchase solely on the desire to have a big-sensored point and shoot, then they have more money than sense.]]>Apr 1st 2010 7:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 2nd 2010 4:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/Apr 2nd 2010 3:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/olympus-e-pl1-review/May 9th 2010 6:39AM