[Macworld]

Post your comments for Olympus announces E-P2 digital camera here

[booishboos]

"The E-P1 comes in two bundles..." Should that be E-P2?

[clintox]

The big news here is the release of M4/3 versions of 4/3 lenses. Olympus lenses are top notch. On the 4/3 front, in wide angle, there is the amazing 7-14 ultra-wide zoom (fabulous results, but big, heavy, expensive), but the recently released 9-18 delivers very good results, yet is small, light, and (comparatively) inexpensive (yes, I have used both). To see this released in M4/3 is good news for the new format. If Olympus and Leica progressively release their great 4/3 lenses in M4/3, any photographer investing in this format will have a fabulous choice of true "made for digital" lenses. Those of us invested in 4/3 can, of course, use our existing lenses (with an adapter) on M4/3 cameras, and that includes the really great offerings from Panasonic, not just the Olympus bodies.

[vfx2k4]

Dang they are winning the fugly design contest hands down. They know that how a camera looks is not completely insignificant to folks who make images- right?

[gaefstan]

I was interested until I checked the specs for their video. AVI format limited to 2GB files (7 mins HD or 14 SD). Ah well.

@vfx2k4
Photographers buy their cameras based on specs/capabilities and how they handle in the field, not looks.

[People_Eater]

vfx2k4, on 05 November 2009 - 08:47 PM, said:

Dang they are winning the fugly design contest hands down. They know that how a camera looks is not completely insignificant to folks who make images- right?

I actually like the way it looks - old-fashioned, but not pretentious.

Anyway this does seem like a good system. It's a pity the lenses are so slow though - one of the advantages of a smaller sensor is that you can get wider apertures with less heavy and expensive glass. But at f3.5-5.6 for the zooms, and f2.8 for the primes? It really should be f1.4 for the primes, and f2.8 for the zooms.

[iax]

"It's a pity the lenses are so slow though - one of the advantages of a smaller sensor is that you can get wider apertures with less heavy and expensive glass. But at f3.5-5.6 for the zooms, and f2.8 for the primes? It really should be f1.4 for the primes, and f2.8 for the zooms."
[/quote]

Then it would probably be as big&heavy&ugly as an SLR (and it's already more expensive the way it is now) with LESS functionality than one. This system would need to be a damn good one to justify all the trouble. Electronic viewfinder? that's crap, just another "live view" dubbed system which are no live view at all.

" I was interested until I checked the specs for their video. AVI format limited to 2GB files (7 mins HD or 14 SD). Ah well."

Movies? Ever heard of camcorders? A camera is supposed to do still pictures quick and easy. Not get bogged down with stupid menus of crap features I don't need. If you need a multifunctional device (including a computer) you want an iphone or an ipod.

This post has been edited by iax: 05 November 2009 - 10:39 PM

[People_Eater]

iax, on 05 November 2009 - 11:36 PM, said:

Then it would probably be as big&heavy&ugly as an SLR (and it's already more expensive the way it is now) with LESS functionality than one.

No, it wouldn't. Did you miss the part where the sensor is about half the size of an full-size SLR sensor? The makes a huge difference to the size of a lens. Heck, I've got f1.4 lenses for a full-frame 35mm SLR, and they aren't big, heavy and ugly."

The other thing is that it lacks a mirror box and pentaprism than an SLR has to have. That's what takes up the most space in an SLR. And with wide angle lenses, they have to be bigger and bulkier on an SLR, because they need to have a more complex optical design so they don't protrude back into the camera body and hit the mirror. This not only makes them bigger, but reduces optical performance.

Non-SLR cameras excel with ultra-wide angle lenses, because you can use simple and efficient optical designs with better sharpness and less distortion - all for less money. And when you're shooting wide, not having a great viewfinder is not a big deal - in a lot of cases, you don't even need to use the viewfinder at all!

[alansky]

"Photographers buy their cameras based on specs/capabilities and how they handle in the field, not looks." —@vfx2k4


Your statement may be true for some photograhers, but there is no question that aesthetics plays a part in the buying decisions of many dedicated photograhers.

[People_Eater]

alansky, on 06 November 2009 - 01:11 AM, said:

Your statement may be true for some photograhers, but there is no question that aesthetics plays a part in the buying decisions of many dedicated photograhers.

Well, in some cases the decision goes in the opposite way than you would expect. Like photojournalists and candid photographers who don't want something flashy and professional-looking because it draws attention to them.

Anyway, I don't think a serious photographer should be putting much weight on the aesthetics of the device. Ergonomics and efficiency are far more important. Why would aesthetics be important at all, unless they were somehow an indication of the quality of manufacturing?

[bousozoku]

vfx2k4, on 05 November 2009 - 07:47 PM, said:

Dang they are winning the fugly design contest hands down. They know that how a camera looks is not completely insignificant to folks who make images- right?

Ever use a Leica rangefinder? Plenty of professionals have.

Most professionals care about how the camera works, not how it follows the styling crowd.

[gaefstan]

@iax ("If you need a multifunctional device (including a computer) you want an iphone or an ipod.")

Thanks for setting me straight there. Although I think you're wrong. No, you are wrong. Your requirements aren't mine and using an iPod to record video for my self is inadequate while carrying a camera and a camcorder is right out. So thanks for the input but next time try to look at others needs rather than just your own.