Olympus Rant

Marty,

Great pictures.

I don't have any complaints about the pictures taken with the Olympus cameras and if the LCDs are usable in bright sunlight, I may go ahead and get one.

I just don't want to have to spend the extra money on the EVF in order to have a fully usable camera.

Ed, just brighten up the LCD screen & get over it
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mauimoe/

If I never had a bad day, how would I know whether I was having a good day?

Ed B said:

Interesting.

If resolution isn't the difference, what would account for one LCD being better than another in direct sunlight?

Click to expand...

Different LCD technology. Not all LCDs are constructed the same way or of the same materials.

Resolution is not relevant with respect to visibility in bright sunlight.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

If $250 for the Oly EVF raises your ire, don't look at the GF1. Panny charges $250 for the GF1's EVF, and it's half the resolution of the Oly EVF, and has an incomplete data display.

Panny puts a higher res LCD on their cameras, but the one I used was harder to see in bright light than the Pen's LCD. Don't know which I'd prefer, the Panny LCD was definitely better resolution, if you weren't in bright sunlight. If you were...

Oly uses in body IS which works on any lens, but their video isn't stabilized. Needs to be, the Pen's video can get a bit rubbery if the camera moves. Unless video isn't that important. Isn't to me.

Oly doesn't offer a dslr style M4/3 body. There are times that the little Pen is too little, especially when the lens gets longer.

Fortunately, once you've worked out what you like the most, you can change bodies and keep the glass, no matter who you bought the M4/3 lenses from. Can't do that with most other systems.

I have a D90 with a wonderful LCD and the E-P1 with a supposedly not so good LCD.

Frankly the difference is over stated. I do a lot of manual focus and the E-P1 LCD has been usable for that.

Bottom line. The LCD is what it is. It won't prevent you from taking any photos and works well enough to get the job done in my year long experience with it.

If it doesn't work for you then you either have to wait for something better or move on to something else.

Honestly I'm waiting to see what's after the E-P2 as it wasn't enough of an improvement for me to "upgrade". I'd like to see Oly with a GH1 type effort and a built in EVF. But it needs to have enough resolution for critical manual focus work.

Ed B said:

I have been close to buying one of the Olympus micro four thirds cameras several time but I just can't get past the fact that it has such a low resolution LCD.

Olympus seems like all they want to do is suck every last dollar out of their customers.

They put an inferior LCD on their cameras and then have the gall to charge $250.00 for an EVF.

I like the design of the Olympus cameras and the idea behind micro four thirds but just don't think I want to give Olympus my money until they can give me a camera with a decent LCD, a built in view finder or an EVF that doesn't cost as much as most compact cameras.

Rant over, sorry if I upset some Oly owners.

Click to expand...

--
Aroundomaha
http://www.aroundomaha.com/
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com/EP1

Sounds like you might be a a candidate for a built-in EVF. Have you considered the Panny G1?

Best regards,
Lou

Ed B said:

Brent,

That's a nice macro picture but my worry about a low resolution screen is the simple fact that it may be worthless in bright light.

Let's face it, unless you're willing to shell out "big bucks" for the EVF, that screen is all you have to compose your picture.

Click to expand...

I got the EVF2 for my E-PL1 when the sun made it hard to see the LCD. That settled that issue. But I was also pleasantly surprised with the EVF's articulation to 90 degrees up. I now can easily take pictures really low down of dogs, kids, flowers, birds, pretty girls' toenails, you get the picture. You can see a couple of shots I took of geese in my gallery if you're interested with the camera shooting from grass level. Even at 45 degrees or so is nice because when I shoot on a tripod, I don't have to extend the pod up to eye level which keeps a more stable platform when I shoot with slow shutter speed. And since it use operates like a SLR viewfinder, you can follow action shots a lot easier.

Of course you have to be ready to explain to complete strangers who come over to find out what that thing at the top of your camera is as I did in this picture. Come to think of it, she didn't seem to be a camera type at all. Hmmm.

I bought the EP1, loved the image quality and the portability, but I could not live with the lcd screen, so I returned the camera.

There was no comparison to the screen of my G10, which is easily viewed, even in bright sunlight. I might wear glasses to see, but the EP1's LCD screen was almost impossible for me to see, even to frame a shot in bright sun. Indoors, or in the shade was an entirely different matter.

I felt "cheated" by not having the ability to use the full capability of this camera, including manual focus with the inferior screen.

Like you, Ed, I just can not rationalize an additional $250 for an EVF. I will wait for either an improved screen or an included viewfinder.

Just my 2 cents.

Hi Ed,

My experience with the E-PL1 is that its LCD is good enough for composing the images, even in bright light. There's an anti-reflective coating that seems to work rather well. That being said, there are some areas for improvement:

• The coating seems to hold on to dirt and fatty substances from touching. Not that I have extremely dirty hands, but getting rid of fingerprints is rather tough. However, this also goes for the 460k resolution LCD on my TZ5.
• Judging DR on the screen itself is hard in bright light. Areas that seem nearly black in review on the screen do have lots of details in the final image when viewed on the computer. The live histogram will help to get the exposure right.

All in all, I think that 230k is perfectly usable. But from a marketing perspective Olympus should really improve. Even much cheaper cameras have better resolution. I know that Olympus has said something about better visibility with a lower resolution and also something about better energy efficiency. But still...

IMO the viewfinder is not an absolute must. It will help most in situations where you're forced to use manual focus on legacy lenses. I have not needed it yet for my general shooting.

Damien

Ed B said:

I have been close to buying one of the Olympus micro four thirds cameras several time but I just can't get past the fact that it has such a low resolution LCD.

Olympus seems like all they want to do is suck every last dollar out of their customers.

They put an inferior LCD on their cameras and then have the gall to charge $250.00 for an EVF.

I like the design of the Olympus cameras and the idea behind micro four thirds but just don't think I want to give Olympus my money until they can give me a camera with a decent LCD, a built in view finder or an EVF that doesn't cost as much as most compact cameras.

Rant over, sorry if I upset some Oly owners.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1

Just to add to what others are saying: I agree that resolution is purely that: how sharp and detailed the image CAN appear on the monitor at its best. Visibility in bright sunlight is a whole different issue and depends on a lot of different aspects of technology - none of them directly related to resolution. There's the question of the exact technical specs of an LCD - two apparently-identical (on paper) LCDs in different cameras can have quite radically different visibility characteristics. There's the quality and type of the anti-reflection coating, the exact polarization characteristics of the LCD screen (affecting its angle of view - some are narrow and will white-out or posterize/go partially into a "negative image" at certain angles while others won't), the maximum brightness of the backlight, the contrast level achievable and so on. I suspect that as with most things photographic, it's a case of "swings and roundabouts" - improving one aspect can have detrimental effects on another - and/or the price! There are other factors too - e.g. the Olympus E-420 DSLR has a somewhat "transflective" LCD where a layer behind the image looks crystalline and reflective - this boosts visibility in bright light and actually also means you can still read it as a data display with the backlight off completely in bright enough ambient light. Refresh rates can differ too, but that's more of an issue for low-light viewing comfort.

I agree that Samsung's AMOLED in the NX10 is very, very impressive. That's a rather different technology to normal LCDs and it does seem to be pretty good for viewability in bright sunlight too (at least in my experience).

Olympus's VF-2 viewfinder is eye-wateringly expensive (as is Panasonic's for the GF-1, but the Olympus even more so) but that's partially because the Olympus EVF produces a much larger image at a much higher resolution (via somewhat different LCD technology) than the Panasonic unit. But I do think both ought to be priced a LOT lower than they are now. Unfortunately, that's only a potential customer's point of view, though!

Ray Sachs said:

I have the S90 and the EPL1 and both of them can be hard to see in bright sunlight. I don't find one easier than the other. With the EPL1, I have the option of the evf, which I use under those conditions. With the S90, I don't think about it because there is no option, so I just make do. If there's an LCD made that can be well seen in bright sun, I haven't seen it. Despite the differences in resolution and size, I can't see any real difference in practical terms between the LCDs on these two cameras. I can frame a picture well enough in either of them in bright light, but as to the details of focus and exposure, I just have to hope the settings work and the auto focus gets it right.

Click to expand...

I am not sure about S90, but my Canon SX100 IS has a much much better visibility in bright sunlight than my E-PL1. Resolution is the same on both LCD's. So
1) good outdoor LCD can be done relatively cheaply

2) LCD resolution has very little bearing on outdoor visibility (provided it's sufficiently high)

Ed B said:

djst,

Interesting.

If resolution isn't the difference, what would account for one LCD being better than another in direct sunlight?

Click to expand...

There are a number of properties of an LCD screen that affect brightness in direct sunlight: the type of LCD technology used, the quality of the material, the reflexiveness of the crystals and back material, the glossiness of the front material, etc etc. Resolution actually has nothing to do with any of this.

To give you some real-world experience: I have used the E-P1 in direct sunlight in Paris at noon, and I had no more problems framing a shot with it than I've had with any other camera I've owned, including the twice as good LCD (in terms of resolution) of the Panasonic LX3.

I wouldn't recommend attempting manual focus in direct sunlight, but I think that goes without saying. But in terms of composing a shot, confirming auto-focus, adjusting exposure and reviewing a taken photo, it works without problems.

Also, to give you some more perspective, I was personally worried about my choice of E-P1 because of the fact that it doesn't even have a hot shoe for the EVF even if I wanted to shell out $250 for it. But in the end, it turned out to be a non-issue.

To summarize, I think you may be overrating the importance of screen quality and the problems you think you'll have with the Olympus cameras. Still, if I were you, I'd go to a camera shop and ask to use it outside for a couple of minutes to try for yourself.

Why do you care. It is a framing/focusing device. As long as it is god enough for that, what more do you need? If not, get the EVF.

Ed B said:

Brent,

That's a nice macro picture but my worry about a low resolution screen is the simple fact that it may be worthless in bright light.

Let's face it, unless you're willing to shell out "big bucks" for the EVF, that screen is all you have to compose your picture.

Click to expand...

Being able to actually see the screen is independant of resolution. It has to do with reflectivity(or anti reflectivity) and the amount of lumens the LCD can produce.

Well, I hope most of you know what you're talking about, when it comes to the LCD screen, because I went ahead and bought an EPL1.

If it doesn't work out I guess I'll have to buy the EVF but I hope I don't need to spend that extra money.

Anyway, thanks for all the technical advice.

Once I get the battery charged I'll take it outside in the sun and see what happens.

Brent Gair said:

We're dealing with a small display that most of us just use for framing the subject. For that purpose, the resolution is pretty much irrelevant. It could be half the current res and it wouldn't really matter. I've done some manual focusing. Never had a single problem manually focusing. I just have no resolution related complaints.

Click to expand...

For manual focusing one usually uses magnification so it's a non-issue.

The problem I have is that "closeups" I take with the 20mm f1.7 looks unsharp/out-of-focus/soft (whatever you want to call it) on first sight. It's impossible for me to say whether it might be a keeper or better should be retaken without closer inspection which drives me nuts at times. Especially in social settings I do not want to check every single picture taken but on the other hand I also do not want to snap away like a mad man at people just in case , either of which I simply have to do with the Oly body to at least get a few decent pictures.

--
Servus, Daniel

Not only that, but it's also almost impossible to tell whether your exposure is right or not outdoors. Histogram helps, but you'd like to see whether the green patch over there is too dark or not and with Oly LCD you just can not tell.

Buy the EVF. It's not very expensive. you'll be glad to have the additional contrast on bright sunny days.

One thing no camera manufacturer has implemented, is a color calibrated LCD display. There is no way to see an accurate representation of the photo you took, until you display it on a calibrated LCD monitor. What you see on the camera LCD looks different than on a calibrated display connected to your computer.

Also the LCD on my E-PL1 reminds me of the Sony Mavica Floppy Disk Drive Camera with 2.5" LCD that we have at work. The LCD is very similar quality, and the Sony camera is over 10 years old now. The problem is all of these manufacturers today, don't care to make a real quality product. They are all run by sales and marketing that are only interested in the bottom dollar. If an old-school LCD saves them $10.00 on each camera, they will use that instead of a nicer LCD.

Sony Floppy Disk Drive camera...

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-MVC-FD73-Mavica-Digital-Optical/dp/B00000JYLO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1278040541&sr=1-1

Yes, indeed, even when I got my E420, that 2.7" 230K is not in anyway cutting edge. Well Ok so on the E420 it can suffice. But on a M4/3 where one need to control, monitor, frame, focus and etc on the LCD. That basically the same 2.7" 230K just feel so outdated. No less one take a look at the Panasonic 460K or even better those 920K screen ( say one on the Ricoh GRD-III )

A performing LCD display is quite clearly needed, and as for the EVF, its a fine unit but simply overpriced .. as all these external EVF goes. The Panasonic G1 / G2 / GH1 had a better EVF and the camera is not significantly expensive for that ..

--

• Franka -