Olympus E-PL1 coming soon - what do you think?

[Marana]

The smallest micro 4/3 camera out now. Unlike the Pen 1 & 2, it actually has a flash. I am madly thinking of buying one. What do you think of it? Did you notice it has "I-Enhance" mode which boosts yellows and oranges? Sounds like it's trying to be a Ricoh! :^)

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1501

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusepl1/

 

[odklizec]

Yes, E-PL1 is very tempting. It represent something I really miss in current GXR feature set. An option to use old manual lenses with small mirror-less camera equipped with EVF. In the past, I owned E400 and the first thing I did was to sell the kit lenses and use it only with old good manual Zuikos. I really loved the colors and special mood produced by the old lenses in combination with new digital image technology. I believe it's only a question of time when Ricoh introduce APSC module with some kind of lens mount, most probably for manual lenses. But in a meanwhile, E-PL1 looks like a very good temporary solution Not nearly as attractive looking and feature rich as GXR, but definitely cheap and nearly pocketable alternative. I guess it would be very nice performer in a combination with old Zuikos.

 

[socket]

Obviously, the m4/3 cameras have better picture quality than the small sensor Ricohs, but my original reason for buying a Ricoh was ease of use and this is a major criteria for me.

From what I've read Olympus cameras aren't the greatest when it comes to menu design (although I'm sure it's what you are used to) and the EP-1 was criticized badly for slow AF. I'm not sure if the AF has been fixed, but that puts me off them. (The AF problems may have been corrected in the latest FW updates.)

I'm also not a fan of the look of the EP-1, although the E-PL1 looks a bit better. I'm more likely to go for a Panasonic, if they came out with an equivalent model, because I like their styling better and because of their very fast AF.

So as shallow as it may sound, I choose a camaras based on ease of use and looks.

Picture quality is secondary, although I am assuming that IQ differences are minimal. (Maybe that's a mistaken assumption.)

I am interested in the E-PL1, but I think it makes more sense for me to stick with Ricoh.

One thing that does bother me about the m4/3 cameras is that the sensor is exposed when changing lens. I recently saw a tethered EP-1 demo model at a big electronics retailer over here. It did not have the lens on it and the sensor was clearly visible. I pity the poor slob who will end up buying it on clearance!

 

[thelps]

So as shallow as it may sound, I choose a camaras based on ease of use and looks.

Picture quality is secondary, although I am assuming that IQ differences are minimal. (Maybe that's a mistaken assumption.)

I'm not so sure its shallow at all, I actually am very similar in thinking - the camera has to appeal, in design, size and appearance - this encourages you to use it. While the Olympuses 4/3 are ok, IMO the Panasonic 4/3 is better to me, more utilitarian design, cleaner lines, the controls look more outstanding and obvious. The Olympus are still great cameras I'm sure and I've seen many nice images, but I personally prefer what I have seen from Pana!

The GRD and GX series appeal heaps to me in design, size and appearance - hence why I am here, and I find the IQ ranges from acceptable to excellent - I generally blame myself if the IQ is not up to par.

 

[Detail Man]

The sample images at :
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusepl1/page5.asp
look interesting. Nice colors.

Two things to make very sure that Olympus is not implementing on this particular model:

I once briefly inherited (and soon sold) an Olympus C740 UZ. Incredibly, here is how they implemented their Manual Exposure Compensation (EC) in all modes )Program, Aperture, Shutter, and Manual). The EC (when adjusted in either a positive or a negative direction) had absolutely no effect upon (either) Shutter Speed (or) F-Number!. It acted as some kind of "digital gain multiplier" of the image data as already collected by the camera ("after the fact"), happily amplifying the image-sensor noise with impunity when the EC was set to positive numeric values. Reducing the value of the EC (adjusting it to a negative numeric value) did nothing whatsoever to increase the Shutter Speed (in P, A, or M modes)... under any conditions. I cannot imagine a more worthless and frustrating way in which a manufacturer could have implemented EC ... :cry:

Though this particular new model does not have much Zoom capability, the "UZ" in "C740 UZ" stood for "Ultra Zoom" (x10 in this case). The camera's F-Number was (completely outside of the user's control) automatically reduced as a function of the Zoom Factor selected (with the philosophy, no doubt, of trying to keep the Depth of Field from being decimated by the increasing focal length of the zoom-lens). The net result of this automatic "stopping-down" of the lens-system was a severe (and uncontrollable) reduction of the amount of light that reached the image-sensor - with no way to make-up for this decrease in Exposure value other than amplifying the image-sensor noise by having to increase the value of their incredibly lame "EC". The Manual Exposure Compensation did nothing whatsoever towards allowing the user to decrease the Shutter Speed (in P, A, or M modes) in order to try and make-up for the decreasing exposure-level ... !!!

As a further consequence of the above-described effect, the camera would often fail to be able to achieve auto-focus at all past (about) half-way into the Zoom Range (x5 out of a total of x10 Zoom Factor), unless the metered lighting levels were very, very high in value - and the resulting "mushiness" (presumably caused by diffraction effects of the "ultra-zoom" lens-system). The camera's lens-system was also well known (to reviewers as well as users) for exhibiting intolerable levels of chromatic aberrations past about "half-mast" in the camera's zoom-range.

It did not take an expert to realize that this particular "sweat-hog" was, indeed a "real dog" by any reasonable standards. Apparently, in their efforts to "protect users from themselves", the "Olympians" had (in their renowned "wisdom") forged fetters of laughable un-usability binding the limbs of their unsuspecting "to-be-Sisyphian" customers ... I was lucky enough to be able to sell it - but did not charge the poor customer very much for this P.O.S. ...

(In all it's dubious glory) at: http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-r ... eview.html

I hope that up on "Mount Olympus" the demi-gods in their engineering department eventually came to their senses about how they implement Manual Exposure Compensation ... Caveat Emptor!

 

[Detail Man]

It looks like this is how Olympus has (with the E-PL1) solved their problems surrounding changes in aperture - by tying the hands of their customers where it comes to choices ...
" ... the f4-5.6 9-18mm ($699.99) and f4.0-5.6 14-150mm ($599.99) lenses announced in November 2009--which Olympus claims provide faster, quieter autofocus than the older lenses, but have awfully narrow maximum apertures for the focal range ... "
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10444530-1.html

The minimum aperture of the in-camera lens-system is also somewhat limited - at F3.5 (14mm) - F5.6 (42mm), as well, guaranteed to keep that ISO Sensitivity (and image-sensor noise) or the Shutter Time in the higher ranges to compensate the exposure-level when shooting:
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product ... epl1/spec/
The 2.7 Inch diagonal LCD with only 230,000 "dots" is a disappointing choice on the part of Olympus, as well.

But criticisms are a delicate matter, and I should (more appropriately) get back to the business of "cussing and sweating" over the limitations of my Panasonic cameras, which keep me busy enough as it is ...

 

[socket]

...I should (more appropriately) get back to the business of "cussing and sweating" over the limitations of my Panasonic cameras, which keep me busy enough as it is ...

Does this mean you'd recommend the GF-1?

 

[Marana]

Wow, I tried one today, and knew immediately that I didn't like it. I've never disliked a camera faster! Let's see, you have two places on the backside of the camera on which to place your thumb/grip. One is the "one shot" video button, which turns on the video camera no matter which mode you're in. So, in trying to avoid being in video mode unexpectedly, I repositioned to the other grip. Your hand ends up mashing almost all of the OK-up-down-left-right buttons at the same time. These same metal buttons heat up greatly while in use, making you wonder what's wrong with the camera. The lens cap is more like a fish scale, extremely tiny and delicate putting it on and off. The SD card is almost impossible to get out, due to being too close to the battery cover door once it's ejected.

White balance is extremely poor (I'm spoiled with Ricoh's white balance,) and unable to be changed in many scene modes or "i-auto." The amount of light reaching the sensor seems minimal, and most importantly to me, the indoor shots were abysmal. You have a choice of either blur, or noise. I really thought the larger 4/3 sensor would make a big difference, but it's actually worse than a point and shoot that you're familiar with. I think I have trigger-finger now on new camera purchases!

 

[Detail Man]

...I should (more appropriately) get back to the business of "cussing and sweating" over the limitations of my Panasonic cameras, which keep me busy enough as it is ...

Does this mean you'd recommend the GF-1?

Have never used (or even read very much about) the GF-1 or the GH-1. Being a person of limited means who has (for better or worse) sunk my cash into a DMC-LX3 and DxO Optics Pro 6 (to the tune of about $600 USD, all told), and who does not want to have to get into the add-on lens business (for reasons of finances, as well as the dust, dirt, and damage liabilities in the oft-muddy bogs by the side of the creek where I like to shoot), I have not taken more than a cursory look at the Panasonic "Gx" models, and the revues about them, etc.

My only possible "insight" is to note that DxO Optics Pro 6 has added a support Module for the GH-1 (but, unfortunately appear to not have chosen to support the GF-1). For those to whom "raw" matters, the Silkypix DS 3.x SE that comes along in the retail-box with these Panasonics may (perhaps) not satisfy, which (in turn) necessitates the additional purchase of "raw" processing tools along with the purchase of external lenses. At $169 USD for the DxO Optics Pro Standard Edition, I think that one would gain a lot of ("raw", as well as TIF and JPG) 16-bit arithmetic processing capability (with comprehensive and outstanding automatic/manual optical correction capabilities for both JPG as well as the RW2 image-files). That is not a lot of money to have to pay (when compared to the price-tags of other options in the market of "raw" processors) to make a GH-1 into quite a "mean machine", indeed ...

$169 USD is certainly is less than one is apt to end up spending on external lenses for the Panasonic "Gx" cameras ... though (on the other hand), it is certainly better to use quality hardware up-front (if it can be fit into/onto a compact package) than to be forced to remedy it's limitations later in software. We seem to be entering an "age" where both approaches can (and will likely) be more often applied simultaneously in search of better composite performance that is contained within smaller and more compact packaging. Let's hope that (in return for the higher price tags) more wisdom is applied than we have seen demonstrated by major camera manufacturers in the senseless "multi-Mpixel-wars" occurring over the last few years in P&S compacts ...

 

[Detail Man]

Re: Average White Balance Modes with Panasonics

... White balance is extremely poor (I'm spoiled with Ricoh's white balance) ...

(At least in the case of all of my Panasonic cameras), I have (over the last nearly four years time spent using 5 different models), concluded that "Average White Balance" algorithms are a cruel joke perpetrated upon the consumer by the camera manufacturers (in all but fairy high light-level outdoor shots where there happens to exist a sufficient amount of Red, Green, and Blue subject matter that the algorithms can function without skewing their computed determination of reference color temperature way too far in the direction of the often missing Blue, or sometimes Red components existing within the image-frame). Perhaps Ricoh cameras implement better quality estimations of reference average color-temperature than do Panasonics?

In nearly all outdoor shooting environments and conditions, I find that just setting the "Clear Sky" preset WB yields far better (and entirely consistent) results. Around dusk when the light (other than the setting sun's direct light itself) appears more Bluish, that it what I am looking for, anyway. (When using a "Clear Sky" WB preset), for anyone who post-processes their recorded shots - the color balancing is quite do-able with JPG's (especially when balancing by selectively stretching/shrinking the individual R,G,B color-channels in a Histogram control palette such as the one provided in PaintShop Pro). In the case of post-processing "raw" image-files, it is not at all a problem to deal with after the fact.

Before pretty much ditching "AWB" altogether quite a while ago, I used to spend many long painful hours in loss-less JPG post-processing using PaintShop Pro trying to recover from the misguided excesses that the AWB modes had imbued into the relative color balance of my JPGs ... :cry: ... painstakingly slaving away to work towards recovering precious and irreplaceable shots ... :x

For outdoor (and especially for any indoor lighting environments), setting the "Custom WB" preset with nothing more sophisticated than a white sheet of typing/copy paper is (is my experience) by far more useful and effective than trying to apply any Auto or Preset WB modes.

For those who want to do better still, I highly recommend a particular "gray-card" that is spectrally neutral, as well as having 33% reflectivity (rather just about all the others, which have an 18% reflectivity that is more appropriate for film cameras, and not for digital cameras). It works very, very, well for indoor lighting adjustments. For more information, see
http://www.rmimaging.com/information/gray_or_white.html
http://www.rmimaging.com/information/dgc_faq.html
and
http://store.rmimaging.com/digitalgraycard-100.aspx
http://store.rmimaging.com/digitalgraycard-150.aspx

 

[Marana]

Hmmm... this is interesting. I checked out the links you provided for AWB info. It makes sense that if the white balance card is white, blown highlights would ruin the reference values for setting AWB. I've been playing around quite a while now with various tones and shades of light blue fabric and paper, trying to make a non-Ricoh camera copy the Ricoh "look." Haven't succeeded yet, but the closest fabric I have to doing it is a very pale (almost white) aqua. With all the money spent on various white balance aids, maybe I should just try one of these gray cards and be done with it!

 

[Detail Man]

Hmmm... this is interesting. I checked out the links you provided for AWB info. It makes sense that if the white balance card is white, blown highlights would ruin the reference values for setting AWB. I've been playing around quite a while now with various tones and shades of light blue fabric and paper, trying to make a non-Ricoh camera copy the Ricoh "look." Haven't succeeded yet, but the closest fabric I have to doing it is a very pale (almost white) aqua. With all the money spent on various white balance aids, maybe I should just try one of these gray cards and be done with it!

I have used things like white typing paper and white paper bags with success. The issues with using white surfaces are probably more about their overly-reflective properties (of the surrounding light sources that illuminate them) than about reflecting more light than a "custom white balance" set-mode can handle on most digicams in most situations. It is true that the (almost exclusive) 18% reflectance of standard "gray-cards" on the market absorbs too much light (thus reflecting too little light to the camera's Auto WB setting circuitry). The reflectance of Robin Meyer's gray-cards is 30%-35% (about 33.33%), which is nearly double the reflectance of the standard gray-cards (which were developed for, and are intended for, film-camera calibration). Highly recommended! I bought the smaller Robin Meyers gray-card (which is about 4x6 inches in size, and cost me about $15 USD). It fits nicely into one of those clear plastic protector sizes (which keeps the surface of the gray-card protected and clean in between uses).

The most important aspects are that the reference surface is color-neutral (reflects all wavelengths of the surrounding light sources equally without favoring any particular wavelengths), and is diffuse in it's reflection characteristics (does not reflect point light-sources, but diffuses the light that it reflects). A blue-ish hue on the surface will not uniformly reflect the visible wavelengths of light.

The effect of Ricoh's "multi-point" white balance (which actually chooses a different color temperature reference depending on the luminance level of the area of the image. and based on look-up tables that Ricoh has developed for "typical" shooting situations), is not something that one can synthesize. On the other hand, it is not necessarily a feature that must exist for good results. I have gotten excellent results with setting the "Custom WB" of the DMC-LX3 for indoor lighting using my Robin Meyers gray-card. The most important element is that the light reflecting off the gray-card is representative of the light is illuminating the subject to be photographed. Nevertheless, just getting "close" to that color-temperature goes a very long way towards obtaining much better results than (probably any) "automatic" white-balance approaches ...