E-P3 is a good upgrade from an E-PL1

Guy Parsons wrote:

Humansvillian wrote:

What, in the world, is a digital teleconverter?

Usually means the 2x digital teleconverter common on Oly. It takes the middle 1/4 of pixels (say the middle 4MP of a 16MP sensor) and interpolates that up to the regular full resolution.

A cheap way to get double the focal length if only need it for screen display or small prints.

Do I want to "Keep Warm Colors"?

It was designed to keep that warm look under incandescent lamps, but generally seems to make everything too warm, Best set to off.

Maybe I need to learn to shoot RAW so I won't be such a newbie, too.

Have no fear of shooting raw+jpeg and storing the raw files for some later time when you have the time and patience and knowledge to play with them. Budget for the extra storage capacity needed, and extra backup storage as well.

And it's nice to have a real, working movie camera that really does autofocus when you use it.

This P3 ought to keep me busy awhile, before I try to upgrade.

Play with that for as long as you can and see if it limits you in any way. Meanwhile more options will appear and prices keep falling on older gear.

Regards..... Guy

Thanks for the advice, Guy.

My new computer has a terabyte storage capacity, and I bought another external hard drive with a full terabyte backup.  And, I discovered Shutterfly, and I think my legacy photo storage problems are solved, for the minute.

The next time I shoot something other than defenseless courthouses and public landmarks I think I'll try RAW+JEPG Normal. Maybe tomorrow at the skeet shoot I'll give RAW another try.  Then, sooner or later.  I'll want to upgrade the software from the free Olympus stuff to something better, and that might be even more fun.

One thing is certain.  The only reason I liked the PL-1 so much was that I never had my hands on a P-3.  It is by far a better gadget, but it should be, for double the price back when both were new.

That doesn't mean the PL1 was a bad camera.  It seems to handle better,  and I think the PL1  looks less menacing than the P3.

The joy of a rangefinder camera is that people don't see you with your camera to your face sighting down a viewfinder at them.  A flip up screen would be a good thing, for street photography or other candid shots of people.

Thanks again to everyone for their help.

Now I get to learn how to operate my new toy.

But, generally speaking,  you won't need a guide book to figure out how to use a Panasonic body. Course everyone is different but seems for most,  Panasonic cameras are intuitive without much need to ever go into the manual let alone a separate guide book. Just something you may want to keep in mind.

Humansvillian wrote:

I'm used to the screen on my PL-1 and this new P3 is like driving a new Cadillac compared to a trusty old Chevy. The touch focus is a great feature, and the two dials make the Program Shift and the Aperture and Shutter and Manual modes much easier to make inputs. There's even a Function 2 button that toggles on the EV mode, or can be assigned other functions. And this camera just oozes quality and has sort of a high dollar glow to it when you sit back and look at it. What a toy. The P5 looks like about the same rig only improved and made better. It would be tempting to try one.

But the OMD M10II looks like a little DSLR and has a viewfinder and a flash on top and has lots more goodies and gizmos than the P5.

This is America. We don't have any camera control laws,,,,yet.

The only solution is to buy both.:-)

But all in due time. I'm still learning this P3.

What, in the world, is a digital teleconverter?

Do I want to "Keep Warm Colors"?

Maybe I need to learn to shoot RAW so I won't be such a newbie, too.

And it's nice to have a real, working movie camera that really does autofocus when you use it.

This P3 ought to keep me busy awhile, before I try to upgrade.

Thanks for all your help.

Before upgrading to a newer body, think about investing in new lenses instead. Lenses keep their value relatively well as opposed to bodies and also fast f/2.8 zoom lens allow you to shoot at 1 to 2 stops faster shutter speeds compared to a kit zoom. When I had my E-PL1, I went that route and was able to shoot at the lowest ISO to maintain good IQ. In fact, at photo meetup groups, I was able to not only beat full frame and APS cameras because most of the participants were using very slow kit zooms that their best full frame and APS cameras were not the limiting factor to getting great IQ. It was their lenses. The Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 Pro or the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 are both great medium focal length zooms that will showcase what your E-P3 can do. My Olympus E-5 is similar to your E-P3 in terms of IQ and the only reason I still shoot it is because I have a fast zoom lens that keeps shooting ISO low, thus maintaining good DR and noise. And of course, when the time comes for you to upgrade, you will be able to use the lens on a new body.

Hope this helps..

David wrote:

Humansvillian wrote:

I'm used to the screen on my PL-1 and this new P3 is like driving a new Cadillac compared to a trusty old Chevy. The touch focus is a great feature, and the two dials make the Program Shift and the Aperture and Shutter and Manual modes much easier to make inputs. There's even a Function 2 button that toggles on the EV mode, or can be assigned other functions. And this camera just oozes quality and has sort of a high dollar glow to it when you sit back and look at it. What a toy. The P5 looks like about the same rig only improved and made better. It would be tempting to try one.

But the OMD M10II looks like a little DSLR and has a viewfinder and a flash on top and has lots more goodies and gizmos than the P5.

This is America. We don't have any camera control laws,,,,yet.

The only solution is to buy both.:-)

But all in due time. I'm still learning this P3.

What, in the world, is a digital teleconverter?

Do I want to "Keep Warm Colors"?

Maybe I need to learn to shoot RAW so I won't be such a newbie, too.

And it's nice to have a real, working movie camera that really does autofocus when you use it.

This P3 ought to keep me busy awhile, before I try to upgrade.

Thanks for all your help.

Before upgrading to a newer body, think about investing in new lenses instead. Lenses keep their value relatively well as opposed to bodies and also fast f/2.8 zoom lens allow you to shoot at 1 to 2 stops faster shutter speeds compared to a kit zoom. When I had my E-PL1, I went that route and was able to shoot at the lowest ISO to maintain good IQ. In fact, at photo meetup groups, I was able to not only beat full frame and APS cameras because most of the participants were using very slow kit zooms that their best full frame and APS cameras were not the limiting factor to getting great IQ. It was their lenses. The Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 Pro or the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 are both great medium focal length zooms that will showcase what your E-P3 can do. My Olympus E-5 is similar to your E-P3 in terms of IQ and the only reason I still shoot it is because I have a fast zoom lens that keeps shooting ISO low, thus maintaining good DR and noise. And of course, when the time comes for you to upgrade, you will be able to use the lens on a new body.

Hope this helps..

I was thinking about the same thing, and in fact was searching for the Oly Fast 45 portrait lens when I stumbled on the P-3.

I have a 2.8 Oly pancake 17mm and a Panny 1.7 25mm.  I love them. I want more of them.

My new P-3 was only a body, so for a kit lens, I think the choice is between the Oly medium fast tele and the Panny medium fast tele pro lenses.  I think they both cost about $600.  The Panny will have built in IS. The Oly has a bit more focal range.

And my three extra lenses, the 17, 25, and 40-150, none have IS in the lens, so I'm likely to stay with Olympus bodies, although the new Pannies I understand have body stabilized IS.

Another consideration is this.  I attend a lot of family reunions and community meetings that are inside, and I'm always the only person in the room with something other than a smartphone camera.  Every F stop of light is precious, to shoot without flash. All the photos are reduced to send over email or IM to my friends.

I've heard good things about the Panny 20mm pancake.

Should I get that, or an Oly 45mm, or use that money to save up to get the medium Oly or Panny telephoto?

A new camera body can wait.

But I want mo' betta' fasta' lensas'!.:)

Humansvillian wrote:

David wrote:

Humansvillian wrote:

I'm used to the screen on my PL-1 and this new P3 is like driving a new Cadillac compared to a trusty old Chevy. The touch focus is a great feature, and the two dials make the Program Shift and the Aperture and Shutter and Manual modes much easier to make inputs. There's even a Function 2 button that toggles on the EV mode, or can be assigned other functions. And this camera just oozes quality and has sort of a high dollar glow to it when you sit back and look at it. What a toy. The P5 looks like about the same rig only improved and made better. It would be tempting to try one.

But the OMD M10II looks like a little DSLR and has a viewfinder and a flash on top and has lots more goodies and gizmos than the P5.

This is America. We don't have any camera control laws,,,,yet.

The only solution is to buy both.:-)

But all in due time. I'm still learning this P3.

What, in the world, is a digital teleconverter?

Do I want to "Keep Warm Colors"?

Maybe I need to learn to shoot RAW so I won't be such a newbie, too.

And it's nice to have a real, working movie camera that really does autofocus when you use it.

This P3 ought to keep me busy awhile, before I try to upgrade.

Thanks for all your help.

Before upgrading to a newer body, think about investing in new lenses instead. Lenses keep their value relatively well as opposed to bodies and also fast f/2.8 zoom lens allow you to shoot at 1 to 2 stops faster shutter speeds compared to a kit zoom. When I had my E-PL1, I went that route and was able to shoot at the lowest ISO to maintain good IQ. In fact, at photo meetup groups, I was able to not only beat full frame and APS cameras because most of the participants were using very slow kit zooms that their best full frame and APS cameras were not the limiting factor to getting great IQ. It was their lenses. The Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 Pro or the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 are both great medium focal length zooms that will showcase what your E-P3 can do. My Olympus E-5 is similar to your E-P3 in terms of IQ and the only reason I still shoot it is because I have a fast zoom lens that keeps shooting ISO low, thus maintaining good DR and noise. And of course, when the time comes for you to upgrade, you will be able to use the lens on a new body.

Hope this helps..

I was thinking about the same thing, and in fact was searching for the Oly Fast 45 portrait lens when I stumbled on the P-3.

I have a 2.8 Oly pancake 17mm and a Panny 1.7 25mm. I love them. I want more of them.

My new P-3 was only a body, so for a kit lens, I think the choice is between the Oly medium fast tele and the Panny medium fast tele pro lenses. I think they both cost about $600. The Panny will have built in IS. The Oly has a bit more focal range.

And my three extra lenses, the 17, 25, and 40-150, none have IS in the lens, so I'm likely to stay with Olympus bodies, although the new Pannies I understand have body stabilized IS.

Another consideration is this. I attend a lot of family reunions and community meetings that are inside, and I'm always the only person in the room with something other than a smartphone camera. Every F stop of light is precious, to shoot without flash. All the photos are reduced to send over email or IM to my friends.

I've heard good things about the Panny 20mm pancake.

Should I get that, or an Oly 45mm, or use that money to save up to get the medium Oly or Panny telephoto?

A new camera body can wait.

But I want mo' betta' fasta' lensas'!.:)

I love primes and if you look at my gear list, I own quite a number of them albeit mostly Panasonic and I shoot with them quite often in very low light where every F-stop counts.  And that was how I prolonged my E-PL1's life a little longer until I managed to get the E-P5 deal.

17mm, 25mm and 45mm forms the holy trinity of primes, so the Oly 45mm 1.8 is a good choice.

You already have a 25mm 1.7 prime, so 20mm pancake in my opinion would be a close duplicate.  The 45mm 1.8 would be a nicer choice.  If you want EXOTIC, the Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 is very nice and sweet.

speaking stricltly as a EPL1 and an EP3 owner (still own them both, but i no longer use them), the EP3 offers better single AF performance, better controls, better build quality and an actual touch screen. You gain little or nothing in IQ and speed. EP3 is essentially a refined EPL1 with a (then) higher price tag

The successive 16mp generation offers more significant upgrades in all areas, save for build quality (not the EP5) and built in flash (not the EP5).

bluevellet wrote:

speaking stricltly as a EPL1 and an EP3 owner (still own them both, but i no longer use them), the EP3 offers better single AF performance, better controls, better build quality and an actual touch screen. You gain little or nothing in IQ and speed. EP3 is essentially a refined EPL1 with a (then) higher price tag

The successive 16mp generation offers more significant upgrades in all areas, save for build quality (not the EP5) and built in flash (not the EP5).

I have another question about image quality.

To simplify, I understand that the IQ of the 12mp sensor was great, and the IQ of the 16mp sensor was fantastic, and the IQ of the 20mp sensor should just be super fantastic.

But so far in my progression in the photography hobby, my use of digital images has been taking JPEGs and lightly editing them on simple free programs such as OLY 3, then posting them on Facebook or sending them by IM or email to friends, and occasionally printing one on my $100 bubble jet Pixma 922 printer.

I know that the new sensors have more dynamic range, more pixels, and are just all around better.

But for my uses, how much difference in usable IQ would there be between my PL1 and an OMD-M10II and the latest Pen F or OMD-M1II?

I'm all for better toys to play with, but where is the point of diminishing returns?

I gave my daughter an 8mp Canon EOS-350D with a kit lens  last May and she's actually making money with the thing taking photos for clients, who never complain about the IQ of the pictures.

Is there a point where gains in sensor technology start to diminish in "real world" use for non professionals?  If so, where is it?

Humansvillian wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

speaking stricltly as a EPL1 and an EP3 owner (still own them both, but i no longer use them), the EP3 offers better single AF performance, better controls, better build quality and an actual touch screen. You gain little or nothing in IQ and speed. EP3 is essentially a refined EPL1 with a (then) higher price tag

The successive 16mp generation offers more significant upgrades in all areas, save for build quality (not the EP5) and built in flash (not the EP5).

I have another question about image quality.

To simplify, I understand that the IQ of the 12mp sensor was great, and the IQ of the 16mp sensor was fantastic, and the IQ of the 20mp sensor should just be super fantastic.

But so far in my progression in the photography hobby, my use of digital images has been taking JPEGs and lightly editing them on simple free programs such as OLY 3, then posting them on Facebook or sending them by IM or email to friends, and occasionally printing one on my $100 bubble jet Pixma 922 printer.

I know that the new sensors have more dynamic range, more pixels, and are just all around better.

But for my uses, how much difference in usable IQ would there be between my PL1 and an OMD-M10II and the latest Pen F or OMD-M1II?

I'm all for better toys to play with, but where is the point of diminishing returns?

I gave my daughter an 8mp Canon EOS-350D with a kit lens last May and she's actually making money with the thing taking photos for clients, who never complain about the IQ of the pictures.

Is there a point where gains in sensor technology start to diminish in "real world" use for non professionals? If so, where is it?

You need to be aware that when people look at photos on Facebook or IM or email to friends, they are limited to the display they are looking at. For the most part, the display is at best 2MP. If it's 4K, then it's 8MP. In regards to dynamic range of the display, most display can show at best about 8 stops of dynamic range. The better ones is about 10 stops. The best expensive ones -- more than 10 stops.

Now.. What can your E-P3 do? At best about 10 stops of dynamic range at base ISO and you have 12MP. If you shoot at base ISO and with careful processing, you will get 12MP with 10stops of dynamic range, but because you are posting them on Facebook or IM, then the 12MP will get down sample to 2MP or 8MP (4K), thus making the images less noisy and with more acutance. You still need to rely on your friends and relatives to have the best monitor or display, but seriously, everyone these days view photos on the phone so how much can they tell whether you have a lot of dynamic range or not.

Serious photographers can because they already have great Retina displays or 4K or 5K displays to begin with, but sometimes we tend to imply that the whole world also own great displays and unfortunately, this is not true.

That's why your daughter with the 8MP Canon don't have clients complaining about IQ because with 8MP, you can still display the photos fine up to 4K. No problem with 2K that you have on most phones and for printing big, there is a software called Genuine Fractals that can enlarge low MP photos and print them big no problem. And most people demand prints up to 13x19 for which 8MP is enough to deliver.

I think some people tend believe that everyone is going for big prints -- 24x36 or 60x40" and print like in the hundreds and think each 24x36" or 60x40" cost like a dollar to print. And that we then need higher MP cameras with lots of DR and low noise so we can print them that big. In real life, very few people print @ 24x36" or 60x40" like most people do with 4x6" or 8x10" prints or up to 16x20" in which the E-P3 can handle very well. So why invest in so much gear when the perceived need is not yet realized?

453C wrote:

David wrote:

Humansvillian wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

speaking stricltly as a EPL1 and an EP3 owner (still own them both, but i no longer use them), the EP3 offers better single AF performance, better controls, better build quality and an actual touch screen. You gain little or nothing in IQ and speed. EP3 is essentially a refined EPL1 with a (then) higher price tag

The successive 16mp generation offers more significant upgrades in all areas, save for build quality (not the EP5) and built in flash (not the EP5).

I have another question about image quality.

To simplify, I understand that the IQ of the 12mp sensor was great, and the IQ of the 16mp sensor was fantastic, and the IQ of the 20mp sensor should just be super fantastic.

But so far in my progression in the photography hobby, my use of digital images has been taking JPEGs and lightly editing them on simple free programs such as OLY 3, then posting them on Facebook or sending them by IM or email to friends, and occasionally printing one on my $100 bubble jet Pixma 922 printer.

I know that the new sensors have more dynamic range, more pixels, and are just all around better.

But for my uses, how much difference in usable IQ would there be between my PL1 and an OMD-M10II and the latest Pen F or OMD-M1II?

I'm all for better toys to play with, but where is the point of diminishing returns?

I gave my daughter an 8mp Canon EOS-350D with a kit lens last May and she's actually making money with the thing taking photos for clients, who never complain about the IQ of the pictures.

Is there a point where gains in sensor technology start to diminish in "real world" use for non professionals? If so, where is it?

You need to be aware that when people look at photos on Facebook or IM or email to friends, they are limited to the display they are looking at. For the most part, the display is at best 2MP. If it's 4K, then it's 8MP. In regards to dynamic range of the display, most display can show at best about 8 stops of dynamic range. The better ones is about 10 stops. The best expensive ones -- more than 10 stops.

Now.. What can your E-P3 do? At best about 10 stops of dynamic range at base ISO and you have 12MP. If you shoot at base ISO and with careful processing, you will get 12MP with 10stops of dynamic range, but because you are posting them on Facebook or IM, then the 12MP will get down sample to 2MP or 8MP (4K), thus making the images less noisy and with more acutance. You still need to rely on your friends and relatives to have the best monitor or display, but seriously, everyone these days view photos on the phone so how much can they tell whether you have a lot of dynamic range or not.

Serious photographers can because they already have great Retina displays or 4K or 5K displays to begin with, but sometimes we tend to imply that the whole world also own great displays and unfortunately, this is not true.

That's why your daughter with the 8MP Canon don't have clients complaining about IQ because with 8MP, you can still display the photos fine up to 4K. No problem with 2K that you have on most phones and for printing big, there is a software called Genuine Fractals that can enlarge low MP photos and print them big no problem. And most people demand prints up to 13x19 for which 8MP is enough to deliver.

I think some people tend believe that everyone is going for big prints -- 24x36 or 60x40" and print like in the hundreds and think each 24x36" or 60x40" cost like a dollar to print. And that we then need higher MP cameras with lots of DR and low noise so we can print them that big. In real life, very few people print @ 24x36" or 60x40" like most people do with 4x6" or 8x10" prints or up to 16x20" in which the E-P3 can handle very well. So why invest in so much gear when the perceived need is not yet realized?

All true, but the counter to that is to look at prints from decades ago and project that differential decades into the future. Whatever we do today may look quaint in the future, but I don't mind doing my best right now on the off chance that a distant relative might enjoy seeing what life was like way back in the '10s.

Video IQ offers an even more dramatic difference than stills, in this regard.

That's very true, so I usually wait for the next body cycle to come up and then buy the last generation body at a significant discount which I did for both E-5 and E-P5 and have valid reasons behind the purchase.  It's only a 3 year wait or perhaps somewhat less, but it's getting much harder for me to justify buying another better body because of the laws of diminishing returns.  My E-P5 does everything so well in many things and the E-5 is still capable of producing great prints and it's all weather that I only see myself buying a 20MP model if either both of my cameras broke.

453C wrote:

David wrote:

Humansvillian wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

speaking stricltly as a EPL1 and an EP3 owner (still own them both, but i no longer use them), the EP3 offers better single AF performance, better controls, better build quality and an actual touch screen. You gain little or nothing in IQ and speed. EP3 is essentially a refined EPL1 with a (then) higher price tag

The successive 16mp generation offers more significant upgrades in all areas, save for build quality (not the EP5) and built in flash (not the EP5).

I have another question about image quality.

To simplify, I understand that the IQ of the 12mp sensor was great, and the IQ of the 16mp sensor was fantastic, and the IQ of the 20mp sensor should just be super fantastic.

But so far in my progression in the photography hobby, my use of digital images has been taking JPEGs and lightly editing them on simple free programs such as OLY 3, then posting them on Facebook or sending them by IM or email to friends, and occasionally printing one on my $100 bubble jet Pixma 922 printer.

I know that the new sensors have more dynamic range, more pixels, and are just all around better.

But for my uses, how much difference in usable IQ would there be between my PL1 and an OMD-M10II and the latest Pen F or OMD-M1II?

I'm all for better toys to play with, but where is the point of diminishing returns?

I gave my daughter an 8mp Canon EOS-350D with a kit lens last May and she's actually making money with the thing taking photos for clients, who never complain about the IQ of the pictures.

Is there a point where gains in sensor technology start to diminish in "real world" use for non professionals? If so, where is it?

You need to be aware that when people look at photos on Facebook or IM or email to friends, they are limited to the display they are looking at. For the most part, the display is at best 2MP. If it's 4K, then it's 8MP. In regards to dynamic range of the display, most display can show at best about 8 stops of dynamic range. The better ones is about 10 stops. The best expensive ones -- more than 10 stops.

Now.. What can your E-P3 do? At best about 10 stops of dynamic range at base ISO and you have 12MP. If you shoot at base ISO and with careful processing, you will get 12MP with 10stops of dynamic range, but because you are posting them on Facebook or IM, then the 12MP will get down sample to 2MP or 8MP (4K), thus making the images less noisy and with more acutance. You still need to rely on your friends and relatives to have the best monitor or display, but seriously, everyone these days view photos on the phone so how much can they tell whether you have a lot of dynamic range or not.

Serious photographers can because they already have great Retina displays or 4K or 5K displays to begin with, but sometimes we tend to imply that the whole world also own great displays and unfortunately, this is not true.

That's why your daughter with the 8MP Canon don't have clients complaining about IQ because with 8MP, you can still display the photos fine up to 4K. No problem with 2K that you have on most phones and for printing big, there is a software called Genuine Fractals that can enlarge low MP photos and print them big no problem. And most people demand prints up to 13x19 for which 8MP is enough to deliver.

I think some people tend believe that everyone is going for big prints -- 24x36 or 60x40" and print like in the hundreds and think each 24x36" or 60x40" cost like a dollar to print. And that we then need higher MP cameras with lots of DR and low noise so we can print them that big. In real life, very few people print @ 24x36" or 60x40" like most people do with 4x6" or 8x10" prints or up to 16x20" in which the E-P3 can handle very well. So why invest in so much gear when the perceived need is not yet realized?

All true, but the counter to that is to look at prints from decades ago and project that differential decades into the future. Whatever we do today may look quaint in the future, but I don't mind doing my best right now on the off chance that a distant relative might enjoy seeing what life was like way back in the '10s.

Video IQ offers an even more dramatic difference than stills, in this regard.

I love this forum because I get to borrow the brains of people a lot smarter than I am about photography.

I'm sitting here playing with my P-3 and it's just a fantastic gadget. Actually, it doesn't actually have that many more hidden toys in the gear menu than my PL1, but the OLED touch screen makes them more interesting to play with.  I wish I could get the grid to come on at the same time as the "blinkies", but I've not figured that out yet.

Let's pity the camera makers for a second.

My latest smart phone cost something like $800 last year and it has a pretty decent camera already built in.  My new laptop cost $200 on the open box special at Best Buy,  My used Galaxy Tab 4 cost $100 and so did my Pixma 922 printer.

My Facebook friends think my Pen PL1 photos are fantastic, and compared to a bad cell phone picture,,,,they are.

So here are the MFT makers, and they sell a specialized  little camera that they hope will catch some brand new customers that are upgrading from their smart phones and their ten year old digital point and shoots they haven't used since they got their fist Iphone.

The sad, bitter truth is that the first MFT cameras they made in 2009 provide better IQ than virtually  all the smart phones, cheap laptops, and consumer tablets the pictures get viewed on, and the cheap bubble jet printers they get printed on.  Occasionally some kid like my daughter takes a few photos and has Wal Mart print out some photos for a delighted, unsophisticated customer.

No wonder that Oly and Panny  hide all the menus and set the cameras to default settings that only look good on computer monitors, smart phones, and tablets.  Their occasional brand new customer upgrading from their phones, tablets, and point and shoots wants to set their fancy new camera on Auto and get to work making pictures and posting them to Facebook and sending them to friends.

For the more serious amateur and the pros, the MFT cameras have to have the latest and best sensors and features and whiz bangs, in weather sealed bodies, and all that.  They can easily set their new camera to suit them and they secretly enjoy doing it, knowing they have used all their knowledge to customize their camera.

But what this world really needs is a brand new Pen PL1SX styled exactly like the original, with a larger screen, WiFi, focus light,  and a 16mp sensor, and otherwise identical to the original PL1,  that costs $400 with a kit zoom out the door at the big box shops.

Once a customer gets hooked on MFT, it's a progressive addiction.

But first they have to take the bait, you know?