My hands-on E-P1 preview: LCD resolution

[Robert Swier]

The LCD screen on the E-P1 is on the low end for resolution. I'm sure this has been mentioned before. During my hand-on preview at Olympus today in Osaka, I noticed it immediately. I was looking at the menu screen and I remember thinking that the scroll bar on the side looked a little pixelated. I thought it was weird, and it wasn't until I checked the specs again just now that I realized why it looked that way.

The E-P1 has a 3-inch screen with 230,000 pixels. Compare that to the 3-inch screen on the Canon G-10, which has twice that resolution (461,000 pixels), or to the 3-inch screen on the 5D Mark II, which has quadruple the resolution (920,000 pixels).

Lots of cameras have 230,000 pixel screens, but they tend to be smaller than 3-inches. (The E-3 is 2.5 inches and 230,000 pixels.) So the size of the pixels on the E-P1's screen are pretty large. (Although I should point out that the Canon 40D has a 3-inch, 230,000 pixel screen, and probably no one complains about it.)

I'm not sure how Olympus could have motivated using the lower resolution screen, except that maybe they were trying to keep costs down or that maybe it uses less power (which could be an advantage for an always-on live-view camera with a small battery and a big sensor.)

It's a little disappointing, but I guess it's not really a deal-breaker.

 

[Hokuto]

If Oly wants to swim with the big fish, I think they need to either get closer to Panasonic, or hire some better engineers in the LCD department; they've already admitted that they hadn't perfected an evf in time for the EP-1, and if the liveview screen is really subpar, it's gonna hurt. Couldn't they rent the technology from somebody?

--
'And only the stump, or fishy part of him remained'

http://www2.gol.com/users/nhavens
A Contemplative Companion to Fujino Township

 

[nick_webster]

I'm guessing that a lower resolution screen will require less processing power to give an acceptable refresh rate,

Nick

PS I'll get to have a play with one next Thursday

 

[Robert Swier]

I think they probably do buy the LCD screens from another company. There is really no reason for Olympus to get into the LCD screen business. Even if they were making their own screens, they would still have to buy the liquid crystal mixture from somebody else. So why not buy the whole display?

(Does anyone here know for sure what they do?)

I still think it must have been an issue with cost, power-usage, and/or (as was just suggested), the need for a fast refresh-rate with reasonable processing demands.

Couldn't they rent the technology from somebody?

 

[Franka T.L.]

Well I am sure it will be a issue alright, cause I had the E420 and its got 230K 2.7" screen. On liveview, the problem with a low resolution screen is that its almost impossible to finely tune focus to where you want the plane are unless you fiddle with the control and set the thing to Magnified view. Well its OK if you are shooting from a tripod, but fiddly if not troublesome when you are handholding the camera ( which is likely the case with E-P1 usage ) and even then, you also left with no way to judge the scene ( since your view is magnified already ) ...

As I put in the other thread, the lack of EVF in its own right when one simply view the E-P1 as a compact is tolerable, but if one really lwant the way Olympus been marketing the Micro 4/3 that is DSLR type control in small package, well the E-P1 leave a lot wanting in this area of photo capturing control, and the low resolution LCD just made the whole thing more a ridicule. If Olympus decide against EVF, then its simple logic that one should put a good enough LCD on the camera, which clearly they don't

And its more a satire when Olympus try to analogy the E-P1 against the Pen_F which certainly allow all aspect of its photo taking a fine control. The OVF / composition / focusing part very much so where the E-P1 fail to stand up to I would say.

In usage, I guess using AF might work fine. But sorry , a digital PEN-F the E-P1 it is not, more a intercheagable lens DC instead

--

• Franka -

 

[krishtr]

try using the camera outside? How good/bad is it? I remember reading some information about EP-1 which seemed to suggest that the brightness etc of the screen can be tweaked. I was just wondering if you had a chance to change these parameters and if they made a difference.

As everybody else here have already pointed out, if Oly decided to go with LCD only option, they should have atleast decided to use a high res screen. This definitely could put off a lot of potential buyers.
--
Krishnan
E510, 11-22, 50mm, 14-42, 40-150

 

[mring1]

--

I still think it's an issue of voltage demand. A 3 inch 460K screen takes more voltage. Yes, I know, a lot of P & S's have screens that large, and larger. But they don't have all the other electrical demands that this camera has working off what's - by necessity - a small battery.

Living in Arizona, it's almost impossible to find an lcd screen of any type that isn't washed out by the sun. So, for me, it's either live with the 230K screen or wait for the EP-2 and its (presumed) EVF. But that camera's going to cost $1K.

Cost/benefit trade off.

 

[Robert Swier]

The cameras I saw were chained to their indoor display, so I didn't get a chance to try one outside.

I have just learned that the LCD screen can be reduced to about 20% brightness (but not turned off). When I was at Olympus today, I was told that the screen couldn't be turned off (or almost off), even when using the finder. But the FAQ's on the Olympus and a report from a hands-on reviewer on myfourthirds.com say otherwise.

 

[sean000]

How was the autofocus speed in the sample you tried? The DPReview preview reports it to be slow in the prototype they played with, but that it wasn't yet the final firmware.

 

[Robert Swier]

I was there to drop off a lens for repair, and I wasn't expecting to see the E-P1, so I didn't have a set of questions in my mind to resolve once it was in my hands. I didn't look to evaluate it for focusing speed, but I can say that when taking a few test shots that involved autofocus and then exposure, it didn't stand out as being super slow. Most of the shots I took were with the 17mm lens, but I tried the others as well. I can say that in a well-lit indoor location, AF speed is probably not going to be a problem. I'm not sure about low-light though. The firmware was version 1.0.

How was the autofocus speed in the sample you tried? The DPReview
preview reports it to be slow in the prototype they played with, but
that it wasn't yet the final firmware.

 

[sean000]

Sounds like the AF speed won't be an issue under normal shooting conditions. Thank you for sharing your encounter with the EP-1.

 

[RRJackson]

I'm guessing that a lower resolution screen will require less
processing power to give an acceptable refresh rate,

Yeah, that was my thinking, as well. I'm pretty sure it's why Panasonic went with an 800x600 EVF on their m43 offerings. The relatively low resolution allowed for fast refresh rate without bogging down the camera. This stuff will all get better as time goes on, but right this second it's a pretty demanding set of processing needs for something the size of a paperback.

Nick

PS I'll get to have a play with one next Thursday

Cool!

 

[RRJackson]

I dunno. With all due respect to the Pen, and I really did like the Pen, it had a terrible, tiny, dim little viewfinder that was like looking through a keyhole. I'll take a 3" LCD over a Pen viewfinder any day.

And its more a satire when Olympus try to analogy the E-P1 against
the Pen_F which certainly allow all aspect of its photo taking a fine
control. The OVF / composition / focusing part very much so where the
E-P1 fail to stand up to I would say.

In usage, I guess using AF might work fine. But sorry , a digital
PEN-F the E-P1 it is not, more a intercheagable lens DC instead

 

[Rand47]

I agree. A camera that bases its "view for the photographer" on an LCD screen.... should have the highest resolution currently available. IF they are serious about market share.

I'll weigh in on the EP-1 in this thread.

I think the idea is cool. But it is yet again another example of Olympus going off in multiple directions "at once" and diluting their resources so that they remain a minor player with "almost there" products. Makes me sad.

Somewhere deep in the bowels of Oly-land there is someone who keeps alive the "old vision" of Olympus. While the Pen series was unique, cute, clever, etc., it was never used for much serious photography by anyone.

All I can see in the EP-1 is "here we go again" while the much needed new flagship 4/3 body still seems to be way over the horizon somewhere while the competition is beating Oly's brains out in both APC and FF cameras that are in the same price range as the E-3's launch price. Not to mention a few much needed prime lenses.

Don't get me wrong, I like the m4/3 concept, and think that Panasonic is really on to something in their implementation. Why anyone would buy an EP-1 over a G1 or GH1 is beyond me.

 

[RRJackson]

Would you rather have a high resolution screen with terrible latency issues or a lower resolution screen that responds quickly to changing conditions? Because I'm pretty sure you aren't going to get both right now. Last time I checked an AccuScene was still something like $20,000:

http://www.accuscene.com/products.html

I agree. A camera that bases its "view for the photographer" on an
LCD screen.... should have the highest resolution currently
available. IF they are serious about market share.

 

[photo_owl]

Npt sure why you needed an E-P1 in your hands for this revalation - it's the same screen as the 620 and has already been endlessly commented on.

Anyway, resolution just isn't a usability issue here - contrast, brightness, sunlight useability etc are the important ones; especially so when it's your viewfinder as well.

--

• enjoy your camera equipment -

 

[ohmydentist]

--
^ ^

Just Shoot !

 

[R Valentino]

Lots of cameras have 230,000 pixel screens, but they tend to be
smaller than 3-inches. (The E-3 is 2.5 inches and 230,000 pixels.) So
the size of the pixels on the E-P1's screen are pretty large.
(Although I should point out that the Canon 40D has a 3-inch, 230,000
pixel screen, and probably no one complains about it.)

It's not nearly high enough resolution to check for accurate focus. The "el cheapo" screen Oly is unfortunately using is pretty much a deal breaker IMO considering it's pretty much the only way to focus.

I could see using the low res screen if the camera were $499 or less. But at $799 to use such a lousy screen is unacceptable and a mystery as to why they did.

Gene

 

[stimmer]

Many of us have somehow scraped by for years with this resolution. It doesn't affect the end result and it doesn't impede work.

Nothing to see here folks.

 

[RRJackson]

I assume the GH1 is something like 800x600 while the EP-1 is more like 640x350. The interesting comparison would be latency between the two. I wonder if the GH1 is able to refresh those displays as fast as the EP-1.