SayJaiBow
Leading Member
Hmm now that you've mentioned this.. Why preserve an older slower shutter design for the most expensive version? Maybe to retain the loudish retro shutter click sound to go with the look of the camera? hmmm
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nice cameras, but ... Olympus's thinking looks scrambled
- Thread starter Hen3ry
- Start date
Absolutely right. The little extra flash is a top contender for most easily lost/broken/left behind item of the year.
Yesterday, I was photographing singsings at the Warwagira festival in Rabaul, New Guinea. Needed a touch of fill on dark skins in bright light forming dense shadows. Flipped up the G1 flash and got straight into it.
The other thing -- you can't use that little flash unless you fit it into the accessory shoe. Hello! What if you are using the VF-1 (as I will be with the 17mm f2.8) or the VF-2?
The G1 is a wonderful camera but it has two three failings -- lousy color compared with Oly, OIS instead of IBIS, and for daily, walk-around use, bulk/weight.
Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-does-standard-of-living-mean-in.html
THEY've switched it around! E-P3 with flash, E-PL3 no flash! Built in, that is. Mind you, the FL300R flash looks to be a neat unit, but what if you're shooting with the VF-1 or VF-2 because you need that viewpoint?
And the notion that pros and advanced amateur stills photogs have no use for an articulated or titling screen -- well, think again. They are always on the look out for a different PoV, and such a screen is a great help. So Nikon and Canon don't necessarily go the articulated screen route with their pro cameras. I'm here to tell you that I've just about been scorched by the looks of envy from the pros I have shot beside when shooting with my articulated screen on the KM A200 and more recently, Panny G1 (I do some freelance text and picture feature work for print and the web from time to time).
But again, the notion of the downmarket camera having a desirable feature the top of the line doesn't have ... well, it's odd.
BUT apart from the lack of built-in flash, I looks as though I might be fitted. I have the Zuiko 17mm f2.8 lens and VF-1 waiting. I'm thinking the E-PM1 will be thebody for me and I'll have a nice "walk around" camera that is super quick on the draw.
Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-does-standard-of-living-mean-in.html
And the notion that pros and advanced amateur stills photogs have no use for an articulated or titling screen -- well, think again. They are always on the look out for a different PoV, and such a screen is a great help. So Nikon and Canon don't necessarily go the articulated screen route with their pro cameras. I'm here to tell you that I've just about been scorched by the looks of envy from the pros I have shot beside when shooting with my articulated screen on the KM A200 and more recently, Panny G1 (I do some freelance text and picture feature work for print and the web from time to time).
But again, the notion of the downmarket camera having a desirable feature the top of the line doesn't have ... well, it's odd.
BUT apart from the lack of built-in flash, I looks as though I might be fitted. I have the Zuiko 17mm f2.8 lens and VF-1 waiting. I'm thinking the E-PM1 will be thebody for me and I'll have a nice "walk around" camera that is super quick on the draw.
Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-does-standard-of-living-mean-in.html
My goodness, to what judgement have we arrived? G1 bulky and heavy? Come on. It is still one of the lightest and smallest system cameras. Bodies like EP-mini and even a E-PL3 won't really fit in nthat category, because lenses such as the 100-300mm wouldn't be a very good fit to this small size bodies. Additionally, OIS is superior for long focal range as the finder image is stabilized.
In my opinion, cameras such as the G1 or GH2 are perfectly suited for daily, walk-around use. The size and weigth of those aren't "failings", there are just not made to be ultra-pocketable. Pocketability and the virtues of true, versatile system cameras are to some extent contradicting requirements.
With regard to the E-P3, it would have been no engineering rocket science to put both, the tilt screen and the flash into the body. No idea why Olympus has not done so. Cost is not argument as Panasonic shows with the G3.
--
Thomas
If you put the flange to the side and have the screen being able to rotate, you have much more flexiblity in screen positions. I have came across several situations, where the tilting up or down wasn't enough (around a corner shots, some macro situations).
I guess we will see the total flexible screen à la E-5 or GH2 not before the rumored "pro" body in an Olympus camera.
--
Thomas
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran Member
. . . This sounds like an incremental difference in useability to me, especially when using a tripod which is a slower more deliberate style of photography. I would also like to see how this tilted down screen would enable me to shoot something or someone from a within a crowd of people which I can't do very well now with a fixed screen and EVF. I'm thinking that an unextended light weight monopod might enable some interesting perspectives in situations like that.
. . . Yes, if they do finally satisfy you and some others with a perfect solution it'll be with this upcoming flagship PEN. I think I see an Olympus in your future Thomas.
BTW . . You leaving for that trip pretty soon?
The rotating flexibility mostly comes into play, when working free hand (other than for self portraits, not really a favorite of mine ;-) ). The situation I refer to is when you can't extend your body to a position, from where you could shoot. Sure it is not a large advantage, but why not making the better design from the beginning?
This is similar to other questionable design decisions, the companies made recently, such as ommitting the click wheel at the GF3 and abandonding the eye sensor at the G3. These are all unnecessary surprises. The manufactures lack consistency for the sake of questionable cost savings or perhaps the design departments are too deliberate changing proven features.
Panasonic so far was remarkably consistent with their operation controls accross the product lines. That makes it easy to use bodies from the same brand and more difficult to mix brands. A GH2 owner feels home at the GF2 but not at the GF3 and even less on an Olympus body.
Of course, if they the body meets my usability criteria. The next interesting race will be the GF1 successor (which could have a Lumix L1 design) vs. the upper Olympus model (I explicitly don't say PEN here). As I have said before, that if the smaller Olympus DSLRs did not have such bad view finders, I would have been already in the Olympus camp. If Olympus would make (besides the PENs) a body with similar usability aspects than a GH camera, I might get it.. . . Yes, if they do finally satisfy you and some others with a perfect solution it'll be with this upcoming flagship PEN. I think I see an Olympus in your future Thomas.
Next week.
--
Thomas
If you took the EPL3 and EP3 and combined them you could make a pretty decent camera. Use the tiltable screen of the EPL3 but make it a 4:3 format (I personally would take tiltable LCD over fixed OLED). Use the overall body shape of the EPL2 as that is probably the most ergonomic camera from Olympus and keep the EP3 built in flash. Now you have camera I would buy.
The EP3 is the best of the bunch, but overpriced for what it is. The bodies on the EPL3 and mini must be designed for small alien hands to operate.
It is a shame the EPL3 comes so close, but they chose a wierd aspect screen to keep it small and forgot to put a flash and decent grip on it.
--
Jonathan
The EP3 is the best of the bunch, but overpriced for what it is. The bodies on the EPL3 and mini must be designed for small alien hands to operate.
It is a shame the EPL3 comes so close, but they chose a wierd aspect screen to keep it small and forgot to put a flash and decent grip on it.
--
Jonathan
DjarumBlack
Senior Member
Talk about making presumptions. Seriously, I own teh e-p1 and with its collapsable lens is much more portable than the G1. The G1 is a nice camera, but I couldn't put it in a jacket pocket. My girlfriend couldn't use it because it was too big. The E-p1 satisfied my requirements. Because you don't see the benefits doesn't mean others don't.
And regardin the flash and tiltable screen, you work for one of these companys? You know this for fact ? Please. You are only guessing. You have no idea what it takes to design, implement, and market a camera. I don't either, admittadly. Stop your belly complaining. You have stock in Olympus? Why are you so worried about what they do and don't do?
(...)
--
Thomas
Why is it necessary that every m4/3 camera must be carryable in a jacket pocket (by the way a G1/GH2 is carryable in that kind of pockets.). You attest camera concepts bulkiness, which they really don't have. They are large view finder cameras, which never shrinked to that size before. If you need a versatile camera system, pocketability is pointless, because a complete system can't be pocketable. Why should somebody sacrifice usability with a small body, when the system won't fit in a pocket anyway. For special occasions you can always add a small body (GF3, PEN mini) to your portfolio.
Sure, I see the benefits of pocketability, but I won't choose such a small camera as my main system camera. You call body concepts like the G1 failings because of their "bulk", that is the problem. They aren't failings, but serve certain purposes, amongst which are portability and to some extent even pocketability (with a pancake). And there is much more these bodies do a lot better than their small siblings. m4/3 is about diversity.
Sure, I have no idea. But if one manufacturer of the same standard is able to integrate both features in their top model, I think it is an evidence of incapacity, if the other can't do it. That is probably not the case, but it remains a very inconclusive decision by those, who define the feature set of a camera body, and gives the competition unnecessary advantages.
--
Thomas
Lots of NEX street shooters talk about it being great for shooting from the hip - stills, that is.
Andy, my background and wishlist are extremely similar and, I agree. The blackout times and focus speed were something that have been pointed out between the E-PL1 and GF1 for example, but that GF1 is now very old, and for me too loud. It looks like the E-P3 has now gone past those speeds, in a similar sized package, with the manual controls, and a better sensor.
I'll be sticking with my XZ-1 for a while, but if I was buying a camera in the next couple of months, it would finally be one of these new PENs.
All I'd like to see now (why is no-one ever satisfied, including me) is an improved 17mm pancake. Maybe f/2.4, and quality closer to the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. If the 17mm was better, I think I could force myself to find the cash to get a PEN now.
DjarumBlack
Senior Member
They aren't. Never said they had to. More assumptions by you. I cannot fit a GH1/GH2 in my jacket pockets with a kit lens like I can my PEN. They barely fit with a pancake. And yes, they are bulky with the large grip and EVF protrusion. This is my opinion. If you don't feel they are bulky, you have every option to buy one. I also don't have the money to keep both a larger SLR style and smaller size camera around. I also don't see the reason.
Incorrect quoting. I never said they were failings. Hen3ry did. I just quoted to your quote to his. I see nothing with those cameras and think they are fine options. Your problem is that you assume that Olympus just has to make a specific camera to meet your requirements. Every other thread you belly ache about this and that from Olympus when Panasonic makes choices for you.
You don't see me every other thread complaining about no real GF1 replacement.
Not really. Is the GH2's screen an OLED screen? No. Could the E-P3 have a tiltable touch screen with flash? Possibly, but the camera might be more expensive(some may or may not pay). Its all a guessing game. All the complaining in the world won't fix Olympus marketing/design issues.
Peter Nelson
Veteran Member
I don't understand it when a few people (not only in this thread) seem to think the PEN series are not really pocketable. My E-P1 certainly is. I admit I wish I had the E-P2 with VF-2. In this way the E-P2 is still pocketable without the VF-2. Keep the VF-2 in another pocket for chalanging loght situations or to aid manual focusing if you need the aid. I do not.
If Olympus could build in an EVF and keep the size exactly the same then that would be my prefered camera. Then my pockets could carry a different lens in each pocket.
The Oskar Barnak Leica Screw Mount 35mm film camera is very clearly the model for the PEN series. The original Barnak cameras made do with a shoe for an optional optical viewfinder or even a rangefinder. Leica later added a built in 50mm optical viewfinder and even later added the 50/90mm finder in a screw mount camera. Then let's not forget the Leica M series that had optical viewfinder with frame lines rangingfrom 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135mm lenses all depending on which model M.
Fuji X100 shows us that we can have both an optical finder and a EVF. Now I'm awaiting this feature from Olympus because they are ILC cameras and are pocketable.
Oskar Barnack created the 35mm film camera because he wanted portability just like me. His cameras are almost identical in size to the PEN bodies. Olympus is following his lead. I already think my E-P1 is an excellent pocketable camera with very good IQ. I would welcome a little improvement in noise levels for shooting indoors without flash. But for outdoors the E-P1 is already THERE.
I am considering another PEN for the sole reason of adding the VF-2.
I'd like to address the tilt screen comments. I'm an older guy and I do not always use a tripod. I like taking pictures of flowers because to me they are very beautifull. Having a tiltable rear LCD is usefull. My Pana G1 has this feature but the camera is not pocketable. I will not and can not hang anything around my neck because of neck problems. I am done walkong around with a camera in one hand all day long. So...pocketability for me is a top priority for an mirroless ILC. IQ of u4/3 is understood to be good enough that's why I do not prefere p&s pocket cameras.
Last thought perhaps the Oled Rear LCD on the E-P3 is good enough to preclude the requirement of using the VF-2 or a tilt screen. I'll be reading and learning if this is so.
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
If Olympus could build in an EVF and keep the size exactly the same then that would be my prefered camera. Then my pockets could carry a different lens in each pocket.
The Oskar Barnak Leica Screw Mount 35mm film camera is very clearly the model for the PEN series. The original Barnak cameras made do with a shoe for an optional optical viewfinder or even a rangefinder. Leica later added a built in 50mm optical viewfinder and even later added the 50/90mm finder in a screw mount camera. Then let's not forget the Leica M series that had optical viewfinder with frame lines rangingfrom 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135mm lenses all depending on which model M.
Fuji X100 shows us that we can have both an optical finder and a EVF. Now I'm awaiting this feature from Olympus because they are ILC cameras and are pocketable.
Oskar Barnack created the 35mm film camera because he wanted portability just like me. His cameras are almost identical in size to the PEN bodies. Olympus is following his lead. I already think my E-P1 is an excellent pocketable camera with very good IQ. I would welcome a little improvement in noise levels for shooting indoors without flash. But for outdoors the E-P1 is already THERE.
I am considering another PEN for the sole reason of adding the VF-2.
I'd like to address the tilt screen comments. I'm an older guy and I do not always use a tripod. I like taking pictures of flowers because to me they are very beautifull. Having a tiltable rear LCD is usefull. My Pana G1 has this feature but the camera is not pocketable. I will not and can not hang anything around my neck because of neck problems. I am done walkong around with a camera in one hand all day long. So...pocketability for me is a top priority for an mirroless ILC. IQ of u4/3 is understood to be good enough that's why I do not prefere p&s pocket cameras.
Last thought perhaps the Oled Rear LCD on the E-P3 is good enough to preclude the requirement of using the VF-2 or a tilt screen. I'll be reading and learning if this is so.
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
I find very interesting this comparison with Barnack's early models. I myself compared it to the Bessa.
I just wanted to add that the OLED touch sensitive screen is the single feature that I found worth having. Together with FAST AF andd the 12/2 Robin Wong illustrated how incredibly effective it can be in street shooting.
To shoot off center subjects for instance, without pointing the camera dead at them.
OLED I saw the Sammy one, and there's a world of difference. Perhaps the reason why Oly didn't make it movable is because of the above feature.
If you touch the screen to focus/shoot a fixed screen is more stable.
That combo, E-P3 + 12mm is a dream one. Unfortunately it will be a long time before I can afford it. Perhaps if a Pro comes it will drop in price in a year or so.
I assume however that to include the VF-2 which is bigger, the Pro must have a bigger FF. The X100 VF s no example because, I am told, it's only 50% vision of the VF-2.
Is the customer base of µ4/3 ready to get a bigger camera? We would get dangerously close to dSLR territory. Probably the answer is at Epson: if they can further miniaturise their EVF, without losing resolution.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
I just wanted to add that the OLED touch sensitive screen is the single feature that I found worth having. Together with FAST AF andd the 12/2 Robin Wong illustrated how incredibly effective it can be in street shooting.
To shoot off center subjects for instance, without pointing the camera dead at them.
OLED I saw the Sammy one, and there's a world of difference. Perhaps the reason why Oly didn't make it movable is because of the above feature.
If you touch the screen to focus/shoot a fixed screen is more stable.
That combo, E-P3 + 12mm is a dream one. Unfortunately it will be a long time before I can afford it. Perhaps if a Pro comes it will drop in price in a year or so.
I assume however that to include the VF-2 which is bigger, the Pro must have a bigger FF. The X100 VF s no example because, I am told, it's only 50% vision of the VF-2.
Is the customer base of µ4/3 ready to get a bigger camera? We would get dangerously close to dSLR territory. Probably the answer is at Epson: if they can further miniaturise their EVF, without losing resolution.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum