The Olympus E-P2 is here

Internaut

More of an incremental enhancement to the E-P1 rather than the pro spec model some were hoping for (little chance of that as there are no Olympus pro spec lenses on the road map for Micro 4/3):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09110501olympusep2.asp

The EVF attachment looks nice. Hopefully they've improved the AF too.

ziggy53

It's encouraging that Olympus seems to be throwing some major R&D into the new format, but it does seem like there is room for improvement in the coming years.

Qarik

Internaut wrote:

More of an incremental enhancement to the E-P1 rather than the pro spec model some were hoping for (little chance of that as there are no Olympus pro spec lenses on the road map for Micro 4/3):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09110501olympusep2.asp

The EVF attachment looks nice. Hopefully they've improved the AF too.

hopefully they fixed the dreadful focusing

craig_d

I don't see anything here that makes me want an E-P2 instead of a Panasonic GF1 as a good-quality pocket camera.

Nikolai

I like the articulated EVF idea!

Internaut

Qarik wrote:

hopefully they fixed the dreadful focusing

Seems to be a lot to hope for..... Panasonic seem to be sitting pretty on some impressive IP in this area. Personally, I find myself torn. The JPEGs from the current Olympus models are superb and save a bit of work in post processing while with the Panasonics, it pays to shoot raw (and if you're skilled at post processing, there's a lot to like about Panasonic's raw files).

ziggy53

I believe that the Olympus models also have IS in the camera (sensor shift) while the Panasonic models rely on optical stabilization in the lens (if it has OIS).

craig_d

Internaut wrote:

with the Panasonics, it pays to shoot raw (and if you're skilled at post processing, there's a lot to like about Panasonic's raw files).

I would like to agree, but as I understand it (I don't have a GF1 yet), the Panasonic and Olympus micro-4/3 pancake lenses both have awful amounts of barrel distortion. This gets fixed up for in-camera JPEGs, but not for raw files. You can correct the distortion on your computer, of course, but any geometrical corrections of this sort, whether in-camera or PP, will reduce sharpness. This makes me wonder whether I'd rather have a Leica X1, which is double or so the price and has a fixed lens, but seems not to have significant lens distortion from the images I've seen so far (unless, of course, they were fixed up too -- I don't know if dpreview's X1 samples were in-camera JPEGs).

craig_d

ziggy53 wrote:

I believe that the Olympus models also have IS in the camera (sensor shift) while the Panasonic models rely on optical stabilization in the lens (if it has OIS).

Yes, that's correct. The Olympus' in-body IS is the major reason I might consider an E-P2 over a GF1 if they've been able to fix the E-P1's AF problems.

With SLRs it is often said that one advantage of IS in the lens is that you get a stabilized image in the viewfinder (which you don't if IS is in-body), but with a mirrorless live-view camera like these micro-4/3 models, I assume that in-body IS would show a stabilized image on the LCD.

run_kmc

The distortion is a function of the lens, not so much the camera.

Put a full size lens on that doesn't have that kind of distortion, and problem solved. Of course, if the whole point of getting an EP-2 is size and portability...

craig_d

run_kmc wrote:

The distortion is a function of the lens, not so much the camera.

Put a full size lens on that doesn't have that kind of distortion, and problem solved. Of course, if the whole point of getting an EP-2 is size and portability...

Right, the m4/3 cameras become immensely less attractive to me without pancake lenses, and if the only available m4/3 pancake lenses are plagued by distortion that can only be corrected by making the images less sharp, then the whole idea becomes rather problematic. I suppose one could always buy a Leica M adapter, buy a nice Leica lens vastly superior to anything Panasonic or Olympus are ever likely to offer (at a cost vastly greater than that of the camera itself) and learn to love manual focus... but at that point, why not just save up for a Leica M9?

Nikolai

OTOH, I don't think anybody seriously considering this to be their ONLY camera.
And in the end, if it's the image worth taking, why not take it with the best camera and the best lens you have, rather some something very cool, but whose quality and convenience is utterly questionable?

craig_d

Nikolai wrote:

And in the end, if it's the image worth taking, why not take it with the best camera and the best lens you have, rather some something very cool, but whose quality and convenience is utterly questionable?

For me, the point of having a m4/3 camera would be to have something that

(1) fits into a pocket and is always handy for quick opportunity shots, and

(2) is more discreet than a big DSLR -- people really do seem less likely to notice you're taking a picture if you use a small camera, especially if you aren't holding it up to your eye.

A m4/3 camera with a pancake lens seems like the best low-cost option for this. It's a compromise, sure, but not nearly as bad a compromise as a P&S with a tiny sensor -- at least, if you can get a standard-length or slightly wider m4/3 pancake lens that isn't halfway to being a fisheye, which currently seems to be a problem.

Internaut

craig_d wrote:

I would like to agree, but as I understand it (I don't have a GF1 yet), the Panasonic and Olympus micro-4/3 pancake lenses both have awful amounts of barrel distortion. This gets fixed up for in-camera JPEGs, but not for raw files. You can correct the distortion on your computer, of course, but any geometrical corrections of this sort, whether in-camera or PP, will reduce sharpness. This makes me wonder whether I'd rather have a Leica X1, which is double or so the price and has a fixed lens, but seems not to have significant lens distortion from the images I've seen so far (unless, of course, they were fixed up too -- I don't know if dpreview's X1 samples were in-camera JPEGs).

Correct.... Both Olympus and Panasonic have gone down the path of compromise between allowing a manageable degree of distortion in the lens design and correction in camera. I don't know about Olympus but Panasonic provides sufficient information for providers of raw converters to either correct the distortion silently (hated by some purists) or at least give the user of the raw converter the option of doing so.

As for Leica, they are true purists and I understand they will not allow their name to go on any lens which isn't fully corrected via optical design. Of course, this means a magical lens designed by dwarfs under a German Mountain* and costing 2-3 times as much as your none magical lens**

* I do wish I could remember who it was that came up with the "dwarfs under a German mountain" expression for Leica lenses - don't quote me on that as it's not my quote!

** And neither I nor the original quoter mean to take anything away from Leica who are without a doubt the best of the best at the purist game.

Nikolai

craig_d wrote:

For me, the point of having a m4/3 camera would be to have something that

(1) fits into a pocket and is always handy for quick opportunity shots, and

(2) is more discreet than a big DSLR -- people really do seem less likely to notice you're taking a picture if you use a small camera, especially if you aren't holding it up to your eye.

A m4/3 camera with a pancake lens seems like the best low-cost option for this. It's a compromise, sure, but not nearly as bad a compromise as a P&S with a tiny sensor -- at least, if you can get a standard-length or slightly wider m4/3 pancake lens that isn't halfway to being a fisheye, which currently seems to be a problem.

Pancake - maybe, yet the reports are the image quality is mediocre, so good P&S (e.g. Canon G10) can beat it easily or at least be on par.
As soon as you try to slap on a (new) telephoto, you can forget about "fitting it into your pocket". With P&S you don't have this problems.

The best way to be inconspicious is to use 400..600mm and shoot from a half a mile away. Or simply use WA while being right next to them, since most people don't realize how *wide* those WA lenses actually are.

NikonsandVstroms

Nikolai wrote:

Pancake - maybe, yet the reports are the image quality is mediocre, so good P&S (e.g. Canon G10) can beat it easily or at least be on par.
As soon as you try to slap on a (new) telephoto, you can forget about "fitting it into your pocket". With P&S you don't have this problems.

The best way to be inconspicious is to use 400..600mm and shoot from a half a mile away. Or simply use WA while being right next to them, since most people don't realize how *wide* those WA lenses actually are.

I got to disagree with you on a few things, first of all I have used a G10 and even the previous generation Panasonic sensor is much nicer, it goes beyond just the resolution to dynamic range and ISO performance, try a G10 at ISO1600 which is decent on the EP-1 and ISO800 is fine.

And in the end, if it's the image worth taking, why not take it with the best camera and the best lens you have, rather some something very cool, but whose quality and convenience is utterly questionable?

My E-420 is lacking against both the S5 and D700 yet I bring it out sometimes more than the other because with 4 lenses it can fit in a small bag, while for either of the Nikon mounts I am using a full backpack.

Personally I would love a m4/3 but as of right now the size advantage isn't that much over the smallest 4/3 and at that price I would not be gaining much (for the IS/12MP sensor I could buy a E-600/620 body for less) but if I didn't have a 4/3 system currently the EP-1 and now EP-2 would be looking pretty good.

rutt

I am loving my GF1 with 20mm f/1.7 for street candids. People don't react to it the way they do to a big camera with a big lens. And, unlike a G10 (say), it can have a shallow DOF.



Would I like a Leica X1 more? I don't think so, because I want a sensor large enough to do this. Would I like a M9 more? Sure! But I can have more than 7 of these for the price.

Look, I'm thinking of this as the HCB camera of our day. When he chose 35mm, it entailed a boatload of compromises vs a Speed Graphics or something. Look at his 1932 images and you'll see that he was shooting through a coke bottle lens. But it got him places that he could never have gone with a bigger camera.

craig_d

Nice picture! I like her expression and the colors of her outfit. Was this an in-camera JPEG? It looks pretty good (at this reduced size).

Re the Leica X1, I'm not sure what you mean about wanting "a sensor large enough to do this" -- the X1 is APS-C, so it's even larger than the GF1's 4/3 sensor. With regard specifically to getting shallow DOF, the Panasonic will probably win out, not because of sensor size but because of focal length and aperture. The GF1's 20mm f/1.7 at crop factor 2x (equivalent to full-frame 40mm) should, I think, get shallower DOF for the same framing than the X1's 24mm f/2.8 at crop factor 1.5x (equivalent to full-frame 36mm), both because of the smaller aperture and because you'll have to shoot from farther away to achieve the same framing. And since the X1 has a fixed lens, you're stuck with it, whereas any of the m4/3 companies could at any time decide to put out a great f/1.4 pancake lens that would work on the GF1.

I see these small cameras much as you do -- the modern Cartier-Bresson camera for those of us on a budget, who can't afford $11k for a Leica M9 plus a good lens for it.

NikonsandVstroms

craig_d wrote:

Nice picture! I like her expression and the colors of her outfit. Was this an in-camera JPEG? It looks pretty good (at this reduced size).

Re the Leica X1, I'm not sure what you mean about wanting "a sensor large enough to do this" -- the X1 is APS-C, so it's even larger than the GF1's 4/3 sensor. With regard specifically to getting shallow DOF, the Panasonic will probably win out, not because of sensor size but because of focal length and aperture. The GF1's 20mm f/1.7 at crop factor 2x (equivalent to full-frame 40mm) should, I think, get shallower DOF for the same framing than the X1's 24mm f/2.8 at crop factor 1.5x (equivalent to full-frame 36mm), both because of the smaller aperture and because you'll have to shoot from farther away to achieve the same framing. And since the X1 has a fixed lens, you're stuck with it, whereas any of the m4/3 companies could at any time decide to put out a great f/1.4 pancake lens that would work on the GF1.

I see these small cameras much as you do -- the modern Cartier-Bresson camera for those of us on a budget, who can't afford $11k for a Leica M9 plus a good lens for it.

That is how the market is now because everyone is paying for R&D costs, in 2 years these could be much cheaper, imagine a camera like this for 300 dollars (the parts themselves are cheaper than a DSLR and they are going for 400 now. So once the new technology buzz runs out and consumer models come out this could be a great revolution for us who miss small cameras. That 9-18 looks perfect for me, I love my current E-420 with the 4/3 9-18, now Fuji just needs to come through with the rumored m4/3 body

Pindy

craig_d wrote:

and learn to love manual focus... but at that point, why not just save up for a Leica M9?

I'm $10.00 into my savings for an M9. Well on my way! As much as I love the excellent automation on the D700, it can be liberating to move an aperture ring, a shutter speed dial and then focus the lens yourself, in a viewfinder meant to let you do that. Might try a Nikon focus screen change as well.

rutt

craig_d wrote:

Nice picture! I like her expression and the colors of her outfit. Was this an in-camera JPEG? It looks pretty good (at this reduced size).

Not in-camera JPEG. I started with raw and used the Dan Margulis LAB portrait workflow. But I only use in-camera JPEGs for proof sheets, so this is apples to apples with my 5DII shots.

craig_d wrote:

Re the Leica X1, I'm not sure what you mean about wanting "a sensor large enough to do this" -- the X1 is APS-C, so it's even larger than the GF1's 4/3 sensor.

Had my facts wrong. Thanks. Leica X1 might be worth a try. But I'm liking this camera. It's a good thing that it doesn't say Leica on it. I'm sure the sensors come off the same fab and that Leica contributed to the design of the pancake lens.

craig_d wrote:

I see these small cameras much as you do -- the modern Cartier-Bresson camera for those of us on a budget, who can't afford $11k for a Leica M9 plus a good lens for it.

HCB said, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept". I think he was refering to the decision to use a small, cheap, portable camera as opposed to the larger cameras used by all the great photographers before him.

NikonsandVstroms

rutt wrote:

Not in-camera JPEG. I started with raw and used the Dan Margulis LAB portrait workflow. But I only use in-camera JPEGs for proof sheets, so this is apples to apples with my 5DII shots.

Had my facts wrong. Thanks. Leica X1 might be worth a try. But I'm liking this camera. It's a good thing that it doesn't say Leica on it. I'm sure the sensors come off the same fab and that Leica contributed to the design of the pancake lens.

HCB said, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept". I think he was refering to the decision to use a small, cheap, portable camera as opposed to the larger cameras used by all the great photographers before him.

I'm not sure about the pancake but as for the sensor Panasonic currently doesn't make any APS-C sized ones, so it wouldn't shock me if this came from say Kodak or another manufacturer.

Right now Panasonic really makes 2 larger sensors, the GH1's and the G1/Gf1/EP-1/EP-2/E-30/E-600/E-620's (they are getting their moneys worth with that design).