a comment on E-P1 preview

although I greatly appreciated the informative review and the sample galleries very much, I was a bit disappointed to see the language about potentially slow AF:

'the samples we've tried have very slow focus in anything but perfect light'

yes, there are disclaimers about this being preproduction samples, but that has been mostly lost on the millions of people who've skimmed the preview and are now convinced the camera has 'slow AF'. You can read about this 'fact' - as reported by dpreview - on every camera forum on the internet.

Dpreview has always been very responsible about these sorts of things - did not publish Leica IR issues until confirmed, did not pubish Canon 50D 'black dot' issues until confirmed, did not publish LX3 lens correction news until confirmed, did not publish 1DmkII focus issues until confirmed (if ever?).

This is not a 'bias' issue, just maybe not thought out well in advance. When you blog about having 24 million visitor session per month ordinarily and your strong influence with manufacturers and consumers alike, do you not also have responsibility to wait until issue is confirmed before feeding rumor mill?

Perhaps it is not wise to include unconfirmed negative results for something that will naturally have such high interest - that information would probably be better served in the actual review with production camera, as it is confirmed or not.

this is meant to be constructive criticism and I hope it is taken as such.

--
Roberto M.

Gone are the days when context mattered. Today's 'truth' is based on sound bites and whatever comment can be taken out of context, in order to generate the biggest feeding frenzy.
--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3 + E-30

Pikme said:

although I greatly appreciated the informative review and the sample
galleries very much, I was a bit disappointed to see the language
about potentially slow AF:

'the samples we've tried have very slow focus in anything but perfect
light'

yes, there are disclaimers about this being preproduction samples,
but that has been mostly lost on the millions of people who've
skimmed the preview and are now convinced the camera has 'slow AF'.
You can read about this 'fact' - as reported by dpreview - on every
camera forum on the internet.

Dpreview has always been very responsible about these sorts of things

• did not publish Leica IR issues until confirmed, did not pubish

Canon 50D 'black dot' issues until confirmed, did not publish LX3
lens correction news until confirmed, did not publish 1DmkII focus
issues until confirmed (if ever?).

This is not a 'bias' issue, just maybe not thought out well in
advance. When you blog about having 24 million visitor session per
month ordinarily and your strong influence with manufacturers and
consumers alike, do you not also have responsibility to wait until
issue is confirmed before feeding rumor mill?

Perhaps it is not wise to include unconfirmed negative results for
something that will naturally have such high interest - that
information would probably be better served in the actual review with
production camera, as it is confirmed or not.

this is meant to be constructive criticism and I hope it is taken as
such.

--
Roberto M.

Click to expand...

At no point in that article do I say anything about focus speed without qualification. That said, this wasn't strictly speaking a 'pre production' camera, but an IP sample, so has come off the same line as the shipping models will, and the only difference will be the firmware version. We felt comfortable that AF speed wasn't going to improve massively moving from firmware 0.9 to 1.0, and it didn't.

I've now got a production firmware camera now and the focus is still slow (though better than the one we had originally). We take our responsibility seriously, and in this case i don't believe we did anything wrong (and we were hardly the only people to report on it!)

SJ
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

I do not see any problem with that characterization. Some more obscure glitches may not be discovered instantly or fixed as a firmware update after the release. But if at this point Olympus has slow focus it is clear that this problem is known to Olympus and the initial production cameras will also have it.

When company give a "pre production" version of their camera to a reviewer, you should not think of it as some alpha release camera. By in large, this is the exact camera that will be released, made on the same assembly line. If Olympus knew of some major improvements that will be added in the next month (before release), they would not release it for review. This is true about any camera.

I do not think I have ever seen a camera that was provided for review that differed in any major respect (if any) from the initial release.
--
Eugene
http://picture.stanford.edu/Photo

Thank you very much for an excellent review. Now that you have a production version, how does the focusing speed compare to a good compact camera? Say G10...
--
Eugene
http://picture.stanford.edu/Photo

Simon Joinson said:

I've now got a production firmware camera now and the focus is still
slow (though better than the one we had originally).
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

What I really need to know is what "slow" means. Is it as good as a regular compact camera such as a Fuji F100fd, or is it slow by comparison to a £1000 DSLR? Please try to quantify, cos I have no idea what your reference is!

Simon Joinson said:

We felt comfortable that AF speed wasn't going to
improve massively moving from firmware 0.9 to 1.0, and it didn't.

Click to expand...

thank you for the response. maybe i got confused when you said 'of course it's far too soon to tell'.....

I guess I took the disclaimer more seriously than was meant.

--
Roberto M.

Jim144 said:

Simon Joinson said:

I've now got a production firmware camera now and the focus is still
slow (though better than the one we had originally).
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

What I really need to know is what "slow" means. Is it as good as a
regular compact camera such as a Fuji F100fd, or is it slow by
comparison to a £1000 DSLR? Please try to quantify, cos I have no
idea what your reference is!

Click to expand...

wait for the review.... all will (hopefully) be revealed
SJ
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

This is the impression I get from the multiple "hands-on" reports from Berlin and NY that are all over the net now. I imagine a future "pro-grade" lens will focus faster with the e-P1 than the current kit lenses. If you have access to the 14-54 II and converter, it would be a worthwhile comparison.

Let me also add that if the review is as good and timely as the preview, then I can congratulate DPR in advance.

As the Preview started this matter with the ill-defined comments about the slow AF of the E-P1 I don't think it is satisfactory to just say wait for the Review and we'll explain what we meant. The descriptions used in this preview have caused very controversial arguments not just on this forum, but all over the internet. The terms used should have been more fully explained or and such pejorative terms should not have been used. Likewise, I feel that the descriptions used should be ammended to clarify what was meant, even if it is not a full review analysis.

Actually the AF on the EP-1 wasn't really described as "slow". The actual terms used were "meaning that it feels sluggish even compared to most compacts", "and in low light at the long end of the zoom is pretty painful", and slow was only used in the context of "we're assured there won't be a single Four Thirds Zuiko that won't AF (and it looks like there'll be no performance hit either; it's slow whatever lens you use)."

My point is not to make criticisms of the Preview, but rather to suggest a solution. At the moment their seems to be a failure to understand why these comments may be misleading and the controversy they have led to.

I've never seen or handled an E-P1 so I can't comment on it's AF. However, after reading all the previews and people's hands on experience with the E-P1 it is clear that there are very different opinions about the AF speed of the E-P1. I think a lot of this is down to people's expectations and what they are comparing the AF speed of the E-P1 to.

Many of the other comments from previewers and those who have handled the E-P1 claim that the AF appears to be better than most digicams or similar types of camera. So the term "sluggish even compared to most compacts" must be called into question. This gives the impression of dire AF that is barely useable. Please note that it says "compared to most compacts". This is a very strong statement and it needs to be qualified. Is it seriously being claiming that the AF is really much slower than most compacts, or did the writer just get a bit carried away trying to make a point and over-stated it.

The E-P1 has produced a very strong reaction - much of it positive - a fair proportion very negative. I have found it difficult to understand some of the reasoning behind the negative response to the E-P1. I can understand why it isn't the camera for many and why some feel a need for a viewfinder and would not want a camera without one. However, the E-P1 is not set to be Olympus' only m4/3 camera and Olympus have openly declared their intention to introduce a m4/3 camera with a viewfinder in the future. So it is odd to have such a strong reaction against a camera just because you are not interested in this particular form factor. The reason I mention all of this is the supposedly slow AF, derived in a large part from the Dpreview Preview is one of the main things the detractors of this camera have latched onto.

The real question is how useable the AF is compared to other cameras in the niche this camera is designed for. It is an LCD only compact type camera that is probably aimed at the type of situation in which an LX3, G10 (I know it has a tiny OVF), GR, DP1/DP2 might be carried or used. Is the AF really "sluggish" compared to these cameras or was it maybe a bit of exaggeration.

I find Olympus hard to understand at times.

They make some great cameras but seem unable to understand the benefit of a simple auto focus assist lamp. Even Canon on the entry level A580 and A470 understand this but not Olympus. If you are making a higher specification camera like the E-P1 and not fitting a flash that you can strobe (E 620 type) then FIT A LITTLE LAMP - it would not take much space.

JohnR nuwb said:

I find Olympus hard to understand at times.
They make some great cameras but seem unable to understand the
benefit of a simple auto focus assist lamp. Even Canon on the entry
level A580 and A470 understand this but not Olympus. If you are
making a higher specification camera like the E-P1 and not fitting a
flash that you can strobe (E 620 type) then FIT A LITTLE LAMP - it
would not take much space.
--

Click to expand...

I agree that the E-P1 would have benefitted from an AF assist lamp. However, your idea that Olympus don't understand the importance of an AF assist lamp is only based on a few models. The Olympus E-1 had a very good AF assist lamp and it had not built in flash. Likewise Canon DSLRs like my Canon 40D use a much less elegant solution of the pop-up flash. So I think it is not a simple matter of Canon understand it and Olympus don't.

SteB said:

Is the AF really "sluggish" compared to these cameras or was
it maybe a bit of exaggeration.

Click to expand...

If it was described as sluggish compared to most compacts why would you think it meant anything other than that?

No other previewer I am aware of, or others that have handled the E-P1 have described the AF as being sluggish compared to a compact. In fact, the vast majority make the point that whilst not being up to DSLR standards the AF feels more responsive that a compact. The very worst I have seen is that it is that is no worse than a good compact. Therefore, in the face of so much contradictory opinion such a statement as it feels "sluggish compared to most compacts" needs to be qualified.

My point is simply that I think the phrase "sluggish compared to most compacts" was maybe an exaggeration said for effect rather than an objective comment. This is Dpreview and not Ken Rockwell's website.

Perhaps you will be so kind as to quantify the term sluggish to me.

I made the comment about Canon and Olympus to show the difference between the 2 companies. Canon put auto assist lamps on even the cheapest models, Olympus on the most expensive "Pro" grade. I have seen one review that said the E 620 had no assist lamp, may be the reviewer didn't know about the flash strobe, and another reviewer commented about how the strobe light annoyed those on the receiving end.

You can see from other threads about the E-P1 being slow to focus in low light. Reports can get blown out of proportion on the internet so easily. Olympus should know how that is better than most (eg. noise) and have fitted a small focus assits lamp to help avoid bad publicity.

Just my thoughts on the subject, I can easily be wrong, like I am on many things.

Hi John

I agreed about the missing AF assist light on the E-P1 as it seems a bit of an oversight and I can't see that it would have taken up much space or cost that much to include. However, my only point was that it's not necessarily due to a clear difference in strategy between Canon and Olympus. As I said my Canon 40D relies on the pop-up flash being raised and firing a series of visible light flashes from it to gain focus - not the slickest solution and a bit distracting. Whereas my Olympus E-1 has a nice built in AF assist light that is a lot better - yes I do think there should have been one like it on the E-P1 - but other than that I am very impressed with the E-P1 so far and I'm likely to get one

SteB said:

No other previewer I am aware of, or others that have handled the
E-P1 have described the AF as being sluggish compared to a compact.
In fact, the vast majority make the point that whilst not being up to
DSLR standards the AF feels more responsive that a compact. The very
worst I have seen is that it is that is no worse than a good compact.
Therefore, in the face of so much contradictory opinion such a
statement as it feels "sluggish compared to most compacts" needs to
be qualified.

My point is simply that I think the phrase "sluggish compared to most
compacts" was maybe an exaggeration said for effect rather than an
objective comment. This is Dpreview and not Ken Rockwell's website.

Perhaps you will be so kind as to quantify the term sluggish to me.

Click to expand...

dcresource:

SteB said:

Low light focusing can be sluggish -- delays of a couple of seconds were not
uncommon. The camera really could've used an AF-assist lamp to help out with
that.

Click to expand...

imaging resource:

SteB said:

I haven't fallen in love with the 14-42. Our sample was unbearably slow to focus,
and still a little too big for me even when tucked away.

Click to expand...

imaging resource does note that the 17mm is much faster at focusing.

I don't know which previews you were reading, however I thought everyone was saying that it was slow. I do remember reading some user reports of it not being too bad but I never trust user reports.

To be fair, I only read the three previews from dpreview, dcresource, and imaging resource so it's possible that all other previews show the exact opposite.

What is your interest in the E-P1 or Olympus? You wouldn't be one of those Toll fellows would you?

Kumabear said:

imaging resource:

Kumabear said:

I haven't fallen in love with the 14-42. Our sample was unbearably slow to focus,
and still a little too big for me even when tucked away.

Click to expand...

imaging resource does note that the 17mm is much faster at focusing.

Click to expand...

imaging resource has update that says 'news that the production 14-42 lens is performing better than the prototype.'

but Simon has responded as to his thinking, so we should wait and see if dpreview still thinks the E-p1 focus 'feels sluggish even compared to most compacts'. (bad enough if E-P1 is same as 'most' compacts, but quite bad if it is actually worse than 'most' compacts.)

if that is still in the final review, then no mistake made. If review is less critical, then the statement should not have been made in preview, in my opinion.

--
Roberto M.

If the AF on the E-P1 is not really sluggish compared to a compact, or that the final production versions of the kit zoom have faster AF, that this statement be ammended. There is no need to add the insight of a full review - just a need to clarify a very important point.

The statement that the AF is sluggish compared to most compacts must mean that it verges on the difficult to use or useless. Compacts themselves vary enormously in their AF capability. None are particularly speedy but they are useable. So it's just necessary to clarify roughly where the E-P1 really sits in terms of AF usability. There is no need to determine precise speeds - just to say whether it is really slower than most compacts or whether this was just a figure of speech. No one is really expecting the AF on the E-P1 to be superfast or as quick as the G1. However, there is a need to clarify it's usability. So where does it lie relative to say the G10, LX3, GR, DP1/DP2 as regards AF speed as these are the smaller sensored alternatives to a quality carry around lighter alternative to a DSLR.

Generally these kit zooms don't have superfast AF and at f5.6 they are a bit dim for optimal AF. The Imaging Resource Preview indicates that the AF on the 17mm lens is much quicker.

So I think as a responsible reviewer that Dpreview should clarify the situation over the AF now and what their knowledge of it is, and not let the statement based on an earlier impression now known not to be true to remain. There is no need to do it in an exact way - just to state whether the earlier impression of the pre-release firmware is still the same or different on the final version firmware. After all if Imaging Resource can update their Preview on the E-P1 for an impression of this then why can't Depreview? It all seems very reasonable and I don't understand why there is a necessity to point it out.