Reading mode: Light Dark

EPl-2 review

Go to last post
Andy Crowe said:
Andy Crowe said:
Well, you are trumpeting even louder. There is no evidence whatsoever that four thirds is hindering third party manufacturers from providing lenses or accessories. So, I think you should back up that claim.
Click to expand...
Huh? No-one said they are hindering third party manufacturers. They can be as accommodating to third party manufacturers as they like but it's still not an open standard in the traditional sense.

If Micro Four Thirds was truly an "open standard" then it would be possible for me personally to 1. acquire all the documentation required to build a fully m4/3 compatible lens or camera body for free and 2. get involved in the creation of new revisions of the standard. Right now neither appears possible.

It's good that they are announcing more companies are "joining" their standard, but it's not really clear what that means and it's certainly not an open process in the same way that say HTML is an open standard. Whether those companies actually have any say in the future direction of the standard is debatable too.
Andy Crowe said:
Micro four thirds is a four thirds system standard. Yes it differs from the DSLR four thirds, but it belongs to the same body of standards that is developed by M43. So I wasn't referring to the technical content but to the legal implications. M43 is governed no different from 43.
Click to expand...
I've spent a good few minutes looking through their website and can find no information on m4/3 being open, and given the FAQ entry on 4/3rds being open is 4 years old that doesn't tell us anything about status of m4/3.

Don't get me wrong I do want Micro Four Thirds to be an open standard, but it just isn't. Giving 3rd party lens manufacturers the mount specification under an NDA agreement is no more open than Microsoft giving details of their windows API (in fact it's even less as the windows API is available free to everyone).
Click to expand...
It is debatable to what extent it is open but there other member companies that can make bodies. Fuji and Kodak currently make P&S bodies and could if they choose make a body with not restriction. So it is not limited to just giving specs to 3rd party lens makers. M4/3 is the most open current standard in the camera industry.
 
...
Andy Crowe said:
Don't get me wrong I do want Micro Four Thirds to be an open standard, but it just isn't. Giving 3rd party lens manufacturers the mount specification under an NDA agreement is no more open than Microsoft giving details of their windows API (in fact it's even less as the windows API is available free to everyone).
Click to expand...
Well, I do get you wrong because I have quoted the 43 pages, in which it claims to be open. Nevertheless you deny this without providing any evidence whatsoever.
 
...
Andy Crowe said:
Don't get me wrong I do want Micro Four Thirds to be an open standard, but it just isn't. Giving 3rd party lens manufacturers the mount specification under an NDA agreement is no more open than Microsoft giving details of their windows API (in fact it's even less as the windows API is available free to everyone).
Click to expand...
Microsoft doesn't disclose its source code to anybody. So that is completely off the mark. Windows is neither a standard nor is it open to anybody.
 
Kikl said:
Kikl said:
Don't get me wrong I do want Micro Four Thirds to be an open standard, but it just isn't. Giving 3rd party lens manufacturers the mount specification under an NDA agreement is no more open than Microsoft giving details of their windows API (in fact it's even less as the windows API is available free to everyone).
Click to expand...
Microsoft doesn't disclose its source code to anybody. So that is completely off the mark. Windows is neither a standard nor is it open to anybody.
Click to expand...
You make good points. Thanks. I do not think that many people fully realize the advantage of having interchangable lens and bodies is for the consumer.
 
Andy Crowe said:
Andy Crowe said:
Point 1

I think our definition of an open standard is different. Open standard means Plug and Play to me. This concept can not apply to Cannon, Nikon, sony or any of thier third party lens makers. All M4/3 lens and bodies are plug and play. Being an outsider this is good for the consumer and if the concpet cathes on can change this industry. Look what the PC did for computers.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a funny definition of an open standard. An open standard generally means the full specification is available to anyone for free. I believe with Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds you have to sign up to the consortium and pay a licensing fee before you can see the specification, which means it's not really an open standard.

I'd call it more of a shared standard. Panasonic and Olympus are being more open about it than Canon and Nikon, but it's still not a true open standard.
Click to expand...
That was indeed very funny definition of open standards. By that standard all one company has to do is sell information to just 1 more company and be done with it.

If two companies decide to do something together it will always be open standard no matter how many others have no access to it .

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.
 
bunfoolio said:
Fogel70 said:
bunfoolio said:
bunfoolio wrote:

Currently the Nex has the smallest body which is why it is a good camera and an achievemnt. Eventually a M4/3 body will be made smaller becasue a smaller sensor takes less real estate. But, we have to look at this from the system perspecitve with the standard kit lens on. The Olympus in this review is smaller and partially due to it having a retractable lens as compared to APSC models that are mirrorless interchangable lens cameras. The Olympus system is the smallest in it segment. The lense size issue becomes more evident as the zoom gets bigger which is a major issue.
Click to expand...
Samsung has the smallest kit-lens (20-50mm). Sony NEX has a bigger kit-lens, but it is mainly because of optical stabilization, not sensor size. Which also explains why Panasonic MFT kit-lens with optical stabilization is as big as NEX kit-lens.
Click to expand...
I was not able to find info on the Samsung Kit lens but I am sure it is out there. The Olympus kit lens(14-42) is 1.71in long, 2.44in wide and weighs 150g. What are the specs on the samsung? Also do not forget that the Oly has a 2x crop factor.
Click to expand...
Samsung 20-50mm lens is 64 x 40mm, 119g
Version 1 of Olympus 14-42mm is 62 x 43.5mm, 150g
Version 2 of Olympus 14-42mm is 56,5 x 50mm, 112g
 
I must admit I am getting a little cheesed off by now by you claiming we didn't highlight the E-PL2's small dimensions:

These quotes are from the conclusion alone, and it's repeated throughout the entire review (just as it is mentioned throughout the review that the E-PL2 is a MFT camera):

"Compact camera/kit lens package"

"For everyone else the Olympus offers very decent image quality in a remarkably small package."

"However, its compact dimensions are arguably the E-PL2's greatest plus in terms of handling."

"get all of this in a camera/lens package that is currently as small as it gets if you want a large sensor in your camera"

"For everyone else the Olympus is a great combination of image quality and portability."

What else do you need me to say for you to understand that the E-PL2 with its kit lens is a very small package? You can repeat yourself as often as you want, that doesn't make your claim any more correct.

And I better don't even get into the 'open standard' thing...
--
Lars Rehm, dpreview.com
 
You guys really don't understand what a being an open standard actually involves.

A consortium of companies creating compatible products does not make an open standard. Not even giving the spec away for free makes something truly an open standard, and they don't even do that.

Does Four Thirds meet any of these requirements for being an open standard?
  • The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
  • The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
  • The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
  • There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard[6]
Of course I'm referring to the strict definition of open standard, you could use the loose definition of an open standard as just one that entails companies working together in a consortium but then that's not really any more open than Nikon allowing Fuji to use their DSLR body technology for Fuji's S series.

It's good to have more than one first party manufacturer, but Four Thirds is not going to revolutionise the photographic industry like the PC or open source software because it's just not as open.
bunfoolio said:
bunfoolio said:
bunfoolio said:
Don't get me wrong I do want Micro Four Thirds to be an open standard, but it just isn't. Giving 3rd party lens manufacturers the mount specification under an NDA agreement is no more open than Microsoft giving details of their windows API (in fact it's even less as the windows API is available free to everyone).
Click to expand...
Microsoft doesn't disclose its source code to anybody. So that is completely off the mark. Windows is neither a standard nor is it open to anybody.
Click to expand...
You make good points. Thanks. I do not think that many people fully realize the advantage of having interchangable lens and bodies is for the consumer.
Click to expand...
 
Great review and it seems to me fair. i am very interested in this camera and nothing you said put me off.....

But I know from the Pentax forum that we are VERUY fond of our babies and noone cabn say anything against them!!!! Noone realises just how cute they are , indeed PERFECT!!!!!!

As far as I am concerned if i go down the M43 route it is between the GF1 and the ELP2 .... and given the IBIS on balance your review would make me go that way.

Of course fans of a comapny are a curious bunch ( I am guilty with pentax ... we want a really good review for the ? K5 ... but really a more negative one is more likely to improve the camera if the company get to see it.

anyway thanks .. good review

I often think looking at EPL2 v GF! or GF2 it would be great to hear from two testers who prefer one or the other and why .... we are all different in what we want
--
Tom Bell
Dartmoor
Devon

http://flickr.com/photos/tombell1
 
Lars,

I am new here and do not want to rock the boat any more. Thank you for your replies and I look forward to reading future M4/3 reviews.
 
I said in my origional post that it was a accurate and fair review. I just wanted to point out that it left our thet M4/3 camera's have interchangable lens and bodies. ALso when it comes to zoom lens the E-pl2 has a size advantage to APSC MILC
 
I got confused with all the DR functions, I really don't find them interesting, isn't all DR in the RAW anyway..? How much RAW DR the Pen E-PL2 has compared to APS-C competition?
 
Kikl said:
Andy Crowe said:
Kikl said:
For all practical purposes, this standard is as open as it needs to be. Four thirds does claim to be an open standard and micro four thirds is just a particular implementation of the four thirds standard.
Click to expand...
....

Despite Olympus and Panasonic always trumpeting about how open Four Thirds is so far I've seen no actual evidence that it's any more open than anyone else's mount, which is a shame because so it would be nice to have more open hardware.
Click to expand...
Well, you are trumpeting even louder. There is no evidence whatsoever that four thirds is hindering third party manufacturers from providing lenses or accessories.
Click to expand...
Off course they are not hindering they are selling. It is open for whosoever pays the price.

It is same as saying that sony cameras are free for whosoever pay the price. By that logic Sony is the best company on this planet for giving their cameras for free .
Kikl said:
So, I think you should back up that claim. Micro four thirds is a four thirds system standard. Yes it differs from the DSLR four thirds, but it belongs to the same body of standards that is developed by M43. So I wasn't referring to the technical content but to the legal implications. M43 is governed no different from 43.
Click to expand...
--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.
 
Kikl said:
Kikl said:
Don't get me wrong I do want Micro Four Thirds to be an open standard, but it just isn't. Giving 3rd party lens manufacturers the mount specification under an NDA agreement is no more open than Microsoft giving details of their windows API (in fact it's even less as the windows API is available free to everyone).
Click to expand...
Microsoft doesn't disclose its source code to anybody. So that is completely off the mark. Windows is neither a standard nor is it open to anybody.
Click to expand...
Why?? If you pay the correct price you can always watch the source code of Windows. The price is high but technically you can pay money and see the code so it is as open as m43 standards.

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top