DSLR's of today produces equal or better images compared to older days film SLR's. They have also become very bulky and heavy. The level of clumsiness (LOC) passed the acceptable (for me) when I got the D300: Excellent photos and ergonomy, but a lot to carry around. Lenses that utilises the full quality of the camera can weight 1 kg - and cost a lot too.
In the film days I had a Nikon SLR and a Contax G1, using the last for the most of time. So I have been waiting for a digital version of that kind of camera and now that has arrived, designed by Olympus.
After 500 E-P1 exposures, along with 100 exposures with the D300 I am very pleased with the results from the E-P1
Ergonomy:
The D300 has a high LOC, but is very easy to work with. The E-P1 is smaller, easy to work with, but not at the level of D300. The major difference is when you compode your image: The D300 has it's very good viewfinder - E-P1 has the LCD screen and the 17mm viewfinder. The later being quite good showing about 130% in a good Leica spirit: Being able to see what is outside the frame enables you to re-composition your image. The LCD is like all LCD's not very good in strong light. Here split visision is needed to compose well.
The E-P1 equipment weights 1/3 to 40% of the D300 - you will bring your camera more often and with less effort.
Performance:
D300 is faster in most areas - BUT. Use the 17 mm viewer, continous autofocus, shutter priority, auto ISO - and you can fast compose and expose. This is for journalistic/documentary purposes where the E-P1 is a lot better to use, not least because it is more quiet in more that one sense.
Image quality:
I was amazed to see the prints from the E-P1, especially considering that the lenses are not expensive nor sexy: 28 - 80 compared to my D300 16-85 as kit lenses. Olympus does very well in the microcontrast and colour rendering area. Images are a bit soft out of the camera, but less soft than the D300: Only applied about 25% of the sharpening needed with D300 images. Prints from the E-P1 are better than D300!
Looking at high ISO quality: about even at 1600ASA, higher up D300 takes the lead.
Novoflex does "from all" to micro 4/3 adapters and I have a retired Zeiss (Contax) 50/1,7. With it I bring out a lot more from the Live MOS chip: Excellent rendition of colors as always with Zeiss lenses. Sharpness is also excellent! This combination outperforms D300 with any lens I have.
Conclusion:
Every camera is a compromise. Olympus have been brave to develop this new type of digital camera. It fits my need very well and I now have to think through wether I need the D300 or not.
The Leica heritage and E-P1:
There are four reasons for the film Leica successes in photojournalism and art photography:
1. Easy (fast) to use
2. Sturdy
3. Excellent lenses (microcontast not least)
4. A viewfinder that shows also what is outside the frame. (re-compostion until the exposure is made)
The Leica M8 fails to carry the Leica heritage into the digital era due to inconsistent results and lack of reliability. The E-P1 is a cheap little camera that can be further developed: Performance need to be improved. Then we have the viewfinder issue..... I do not think, for reasons above, that an EVF will do the job. Rather ther need to be an zoom optical viewfinder (information-free). Putting the E-P1 side by side with my old M2 it looks like upscaling it to M2 size would make room for a proper viewfinder. The E-PL (L for Leica heritage ) would be bigger, heavier and about three times as expensive - a bargain for any pro! All that is needeed here is a Leica - Olympus joint venture!
Per Kylberg

Per - thanks very much - interesting analysis and comparison. I would expect that the E-P1 is easier to carry and hence provides more photo opportunities.

Mark

Before you bought the E-P1, did you do any comparisons with the Panasonic GH1 (another micro 4/3rds camera)?

Lisa

I have both the E-P1 and the G1, and they are very different cameras. The G1 is more capable as a still camera, IMHO, functioning like a very small, compact DSLR. It has fast autofocus, a viewfinder, and a twistable LCD. The E-P1 has a very slow autofocus - one reputable reviewer claims it is one of the slowest on the market. Is is *visibly* slow -- often hunting for more than a second.

The G1 is slightly larger than the E-P1, which has no viewfinder and a fixed LCD, but again in my opinion, the size differences are not functionally important. Both are small, but neither is small enough with a lens mounted to slip in a pants pocket (unless you have very big pockets, and don't mind walking around with a large bulge in them.) The best way to understand the size of these things is to look at them together -- I've not yet seen a photo comparison that doesn't cheat in one way or another. In my opinion, both can be considered ultra-light shoulder-strap cameras, smaller and lighter than M Leicas. They are both very packable. The lenses can be used interchangeably. The E-P1 is a better-looking camera, with a higher-quality feel to it. The E-P1 has inbody IS; the G1 has lens-based IS.

The E-P1 has video, if that's important to you (and if it is, then you may consider the E-P1 to be the more functional of the two.) The upcoming Panasonic GH-1 will also have video, but will also be more costly. For me, if video was important, I'd add a small video camera to my kit, rather than try to get by with a small combo camera like these; they are so small and light they are virtually uncontrollable, at least by me; everything jiggles.

There have been complaints about the E-P1's "low-res" LCD, compared to the G1's. The difference is visible, side-by-side, but the two cameras have to be side-by-side for me to see it, and if I hadn't been told about the difference, I doubt that I'd notice. The E-P1's LCD is larger than the G1's. I do use the G1's twistable feature, and like it a lot.

Because the lenses are interchangeable, I bought the E-P1 as a backup for my G1, rather than buying another G1. They make a nice combo, each having features that the other lacks.

JC

Yew Lisa, I did. I was disappointed with Panasonic being so conservative when designing the G1 - not using the advantage of NOT being DSLR - pure conservatism. The Panasonic is more bulky, but has better AF speed and rotating LCD. The Olympus concept fitted my needs best. The slow AF is no problem if use AF-C. I used it at Gothia Cup (Football Youth tournament) here in Göteborg and it worked OK.
According to Photography Blog the Olympus has the best image quality of any 4/3 camera - Panasonic included. Panasonic also has a problem with "old" 4/3 lens comapatibility: their adaptor work with only a few 4/3 lenses. Olympus has a solution with an adapter that works with all 4/3 lenses.
Per

I've already mentioned on the forum that I am very happy with the E-P1. Its a nice form factor and I find myself taking more, better pictures while being about everyday.

That said, I keep running into two problems:

FLASH:
- No PC connection. I know this isn't a "professional" camera, and you can get a hotshoe adapter (which I always find unreliable), but since it already has DSLR-ish image quality, Olympus might as well keep options open for its users. This is minor, but annoying for handheld flash.

- The whole reason I find myself complaining about the PC issue, is that the pricey proprietary flash doesn't swivel. Would it kill someone to give it a 90deg movement? If the Olympus FL-14 is only going to be sort of small and sort of strong (guide # 14'), then at least it could bounce and be sort of useful.

MANUAL FOCUS
-No way to manual focus by distance- either on lens or through the viewfinder.
One thing I really enjoyed seeing on the Sigma DP1/2 was the funny little focus scroll wheel- it allowed you to "set and shoot" on manual focus, relying on what you know about the DOF or hyperfocal distance of that lens/aperture.
As far as I can tell, there is no way to see the focal plane distance as a read-out on the LCD.

And as for the "start anywhere, know nothing" focus ring on the lenses... its gee whiz-technology leading to really bad, unusable design.

If anyone sees how to set the focal distance manually (as a number) on the E-P1, please chime in.

Thanks for the comments, JC & Per. I've been waiting and watching what's going on with micro 4/3rds cameras, thinking about getting one as an occasional alternative to my D300 (which I find somewhat too heavy, with the 18-200 VR lens, to carry for any significant length of time). It sounds like the E-P1 and the GH1 have different advantages and disadvantages; I'll ponder your comments and continue thinking about it for awhile. It's good to know that the lenses are interchangeable, too - it's the Panasonic 14-140 lens that got me seriously interested.

Lisa

As far as I can tell, Panasonic and Olympus borrowed the manually-assisted electronic focus from point-n-shoot cameras like the Panasonic FZ-50, which works exactly the same as the G1's "manual" focus.

Since this is really an electronic focus and not manual in the true sense, what worries me is, even if you get it set to a particular distance, it may not stay focused on that distance. I wouldn't bet on it, anyway.

There was quite a discussion a while back about the G1's focusing and softness with the 45-200 lens, and several reviews carefully avoided mentioning any performance issues with that lens. But Dpreview has now reviewed the GH1 and its 14-140 lens, and no surprise, it's "soft at the long end."

I was looking at the GH1 before getting the G1, but rejected it because of the forced lens choice that wasn't long enough. I was thinking that the 14-140 lens must have a value about twice as great as the 45-200 used by the G1, otherwise, Panasonic would be charging nearly twice as much for the GH1 body as they do for the G1 body. So if that 14-140 lens is as valuable as their price seems to indicate, I'd be worried about that softness on the long end. And 140 mm isn't nearly as long as 200 mm.

I agree. The problem for me is mostly mental - I forget where I am, and which direction I want to turn the ring. I also use Leica lenses on both cameras, with a Camera Quest adapter, and don't have the problem. Leica lenses, by the way, at least above 50mm, work very well; I've been told that there are some pixel-smearing problems with shorter lenses. I have trouble focusing the Leica 135 with an M8, but no such problem with either of the 4/3 bodies, and I *really* like the results with the 135 f3.4 (equiv 270) and a 50mm f1 Noctilux (equiv 100mm.)

Another note -- although the E-P1 is smaller than the G1, it probably uses more power, because the only method of focusing is the full-sized LCD. The problem is, in its effort to make the camera very small, Oly also cut the size of the battery. I haven't done any comprehensive review of battery life (I just recharge when I get home), but the G1 battery appears to be twice the size of the Oly and I'm almost certain (no tests, just usage) that the battery life is roughly comparable to size. The Oly manual contains a number of warnings about over-heating the camera, which suggests to me that in heavy use, the battery could be used up pretty quickly.

Today thre are rumors on Swedish internet that Leica/Panasonic will soon anounce an M-like micro 4/3 camera together with a series of HQ lenses. Maybe the great interest for Olympus make them make the anounement earlier than planned...... But of course this is only rumors.
Per

The M8 is too expensive, lenses are too expensive and it is flakey at best. The Oly EP1 has super slow autofocus and no viewfinder to manual focus quickly in a usable fashion. If this turns out to be true it will sell like hot cakes bar any horrible design flaws.

Other than that I'll wait until Epson's next camera and cross my fingers. It really shouldn't be this hard given how long digital has been around.

Hope I'm not stepping on toes, here, but we just got a review up on our site, comparing the E-P1/D5000/T1i. Some interesting test results, esp. at higher ISO.

Here's the link.

Here is a link with photo's for the Panasonic GF-1 digital 'rangefinder'. It will have an EVF and use Leica designed lenses.


Panasonic GF-1


There is one myth that should be put to bed about the Olympus E-P1. It does not have slow AF If you mount a Panasonic m4/3 lens on it the camera will focus just as fast as the Panasonic G1. So it is the lens that is slow to focus, not the camera. It may be a mute point if you only have Olympus lenses for it, but it is wrong to blame the inherent functions of the body for poor AF. Perhaps Olympus will recitfy this with a Firmare update, and perhaps they thought that making all Olympus lenses focus at a similar speed was a good idea, rather than allow the newer ones to focus faster, who knows?

Steve

What about AF speed?

Mark,
using the C-AF and half-pressed release button, the camera will focus all the time. Making the exposure is almost instantaneous - and you can shoot a couple of images at 3/sec. This is a work-around I learned with the film Contax G1 (also with slow AF :-)). It is of course a real battery-drainer though....
Per

I had a look at the H2Hreviews without beeing too impressed by their analyses. I recomend those who consider buying theDPR (Digital Photography Reveiw) E-P1 review that clearly points out positives and negatives for the E-P1.
Per

What is the issue with their analysis?

Has Epson announced that there will be another camera?

No.

The R-D1xG was announced in Feb 09, and shipped in April, if memory serves. There haven't been any recent announcements from Epson.

The E-P1 does seem to offer the most versatility going forward, unles you reallly want to wait for some overpriced Leica substitute. There are adapters for normal 4/3 lenses, of course, plus old Zuiko lenses, Panasonic is supposed to be releasing an adapter for Leica M and R lenses, and there are bound to be more. I don't own one but speaking to someone who does, I'm considering a purchase soon.

I do not agree that the Leica M8 fails. It might not be as reliable as earlier film bodies-but besides that if does a great job.
I am not sure if a e-p1 is more reliable or takes more abuse than a M8.
2 different cameras and having used both I much prefer the M8 and the optical rangefinder as long as I dont need a zoom lens or video or tele reach.

I totally agree. They are two completely different cameras, and I can't understand why they are constantly compared. Help me out on this. Is it just the absence of a prism that makes people make that connection?

I don't understand where all this M8 abuse comes from. I've never had a moments problem with mine and I have one of the first ones. Many people seem to pick up on one person's perspective or griping and extrapolate that to include every one which has been manufactured. It seems to me that if you don't have personal experience with a camera you've got no business slighting it.
Also this new camera has absolutely no track record. How can we assume its reliability?

Do you need to assume reliability, other than its ability to work for a year until the next model is released? Then sell it and get the next. It would take many years before you have lost the same amount of money in devaluation that an M8 would cost new, and each time you get a new camera with more of this and more of that. You don't have to look forward to years spent taking pictures at 10mp when the world has moved on, for instance. Its not a perfect fiscal point of view, but what priority is more important, the flexibility and features new technology gives you, or the knowledge that on a desert island you can knock nails into your raft with an M8 and still take a souvenir picture before casting off?

Steve

one thing I find the Internet does is explode any negative into unbelievable proportions which I seldom see on any positives,,?????

it is the old yarn where you tell one person a story and by the time it has reached the tenth person there is no resemblance to the original story,,

seems many want to embellish or add their two cents onto the story,, the old well if you think that is bad let me tell ya what happen to me,,

nowadays what ya see and hear about a product on the net is is most likely not what ya get,,

Derry

Sorry, but I think this list leaves out the most important point of all, and one that gets overlooked almost constantly in threads I've read. The Leica, and any rangefinder, gives you the ability to shoot at minimum aperture without viewing the frame at "wide-open" depth-of-field. Shooting at so-called "hyperfocal distance" is a style and look- a way of seeing, if you will, that is unique to rangefinder shooting- and most commonly Leica. It has made a huge contribution to the history of photography, and photojournalism in particular.

My favorite example is Costa Manos' work, American Color- OK, also because he's a friend of mine, but he's a Magnum photographer whose style evolved because he shot with a rangefinder, and could visualize the frame without the SLR full-aperture viewing- something I've always felt is a disadvantage of SLR cameras that never gets mentioned.

I've shot with a rangefinder from the very beginning, and though I did shoot with an SLR later on, my reaction to the "you see what the lens sees" line was, first, uh, no, you don't, and second, so what? LOL

I just put the final touches on my M8 review and this point kept coming back to me... there are numerous threads talking about "digital rangefinders" and the lack thereof- but nobody talks about this... interestingly, composing on an LCD that gives you a focus preview, like the E-P1, accomplishes the same thing, but by taking the SLR to the next level- by seeing what the sensor is actually going to see, we get the view of the lens as well as the actual depth of field. One reason I get so excited about the LCD as a viewing device- the best of a groundglass with none of the limitations.

>>> Shooting at so-called "hyperfocal distance" is ... unique to rangefinder shooting

Really? What am I doing then when I shoot that way with my SLR?

You're certainly shooting that way, but you are not viewing that way through the lens. We can argue semantics, but you can "take pictures" using hyperfocal distance with an SLR, but I'd argue that you can only "shoot", that is, compose and shoot that way with a rangefinder. Anyway, not really my point.

I'm curious ... I've never owned a rangefinder. What can you see through the viewfinder that I can't? I have a DOF preview at the touch of a button.

It's hard to describe, after you shoot with one for a few years, but it's not just about being able to see what's in focus when you hit the DOF preview. After all, when you do that you get a very dark image, hardly visible if you're shooting at hyperfocal- generally close to, if not, minimum aperture.

You're viewing at very close to how you perceive it when you see the subject- everything in focus (whether it is, actually and technically to your eyes, or not- it is all in focus in my, well, vision or perception if you will...) The viewfinder is showing you not much more than what you see with your eyes, plus some crop lines- a very different thing than what you see through a camera taking lens.

maybe someone else can help out here- but I will say that for all that, I find the LCD, especially one with the Live View of the E-P1 to be even better to shoot with in that style.

I don't understand what you mean here Ted, could you explain what advantage gives the E-P1 Live View over a DLSR viewfinder in terms of 'what the sensor is actually going to see'?

Regards.

For one thing, at low f-stops, the DOF seen in an SLR optical VF is greater than you actually get, because of the way the OVF secondary image is formed by scattering off the "ground glass". Of course there are other ways in which main sensor live view (LCD or EVF) is more "what you see is what you get" than any optical viewfinder, like avoiding back-focus or front-focus problems, and allowing one to preview the image at full resolution by zooming. A DSLR's OVF image is of far lower resolution than the sensor gives, due again to being a secondary image scattered off the ground glass.

The E-P1 gives you actual exposure and actual focus preview on the LCD.

An SLR gives you maximum aperture (thus minimum depth of field), not actual aperture (thus not actual depth of field), or, with the dof preview button pushed, a very dark image (not actual exposure) with the actual aperture and actual dof.

Does this mean the E-P1 always displays according to the aperture set by the user? I think this would be sub-optimum to have a cleaner Live View display under mid or low lighting, in those cases where the displayed DOF is not of interest, right?

BR

not sure what you mean... the camera displays at the actual exposure- aperture and shutter speed. if the exposure is correct, it displays as the correct brightness. if it's underexposed it will display that way- low light or not.

on my canon g9 it does that too, but you have to push the shutter partway down, can't remember if you have to do that on the E-P1 in LiveView or not... the g9 will give you your "optimum" view, ie, cleaner LiveView, with the shutter not pushed down.

Let's say you set f/16 because you want a high DOF. To display what the final image will look like at that aperture, the lens must be stopped to f/16 (i.e. the blades must close the entrance pupil). If so, there will be a very low light level entering the camera, and we all know what happens to Live View displays when in low light conditions: they display very noisy and jerky.

That's why I wondered if the E-P1 can only work with the lenses stopped down to the user setting, or can be released to allow more light entering in low light conditions.

Please note I am all the time talking about the Live View display, not the capture afterwards.

Regards

Got it, OK. I'm not sure what the controls are, maybe someone who has the camera can chime in- like I said, my G9 runs at full open until you push partway down and then you get the accurate exposure preview, which works great. The E-P1 LiveView focus preview was something I only got to work with for a few minutes- I'd assume it has a similar function.

Hold on- found it on Olympus' site:
"AUTOFOCUS LIVE VIEW

The Live View Autofocus system works as effectively and seamlessly on the E-P1 as it does on conventional E-System DSLR and point-and-shoot cameras. Subjects are displayed in complete focus on the bright LCD as soon as the shutter is pressed half way. "

so yeah- full open for normal Live View, stopped down when partly pressed. probably noisy and jerky too.

As far as I know, the E-P1 aperture operates as with an SLR: wide open during composition except if you activate DOF preview. The differences from an OVF are that
1. wide open, the DOF is always accurate (along with the framing and focus)
2. in DOF preview mode, the image brightness can be boosted, so it may then be a bit noisy, but at least is not so dim as to be useless, which is often the case with SLR DOF preview at high f-stops.

Apparently E-P1 has updated firmware to address the slow focusing issues.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10354219-1.html

The quick forum consensus is a worthwhile improvement in AF performance of both the body (E-P1) and the lenses (14-42, 17mm), particularly in good light, but Panasonic m4/3 bodies and lenses are still ahead. Hopefully reviews can now compare AF between the updated E-P1 and the GF-1, along with maybe the G1/GH1 and a DSLR in roughly the same size range (E-620?).

P. S. and now Panasonic also has firmware updates to improve AF in its m4/3 bodies and lenses. The m4/3 makers have clearly identified AF as the system's most prominent weak point, and are focussed on closing the AF performance gap to DSLR's.

The Panasonics hardly had weak AF before. While I haven't upgraded my G1 yet, it's been far better for general kid photography than my old Nikon D40. Overall AF is essentially as fast, and the face recognition on the G1 has eliminated the focus-recompose delay that I had with the D40. I'll be amazed if they managed to make it even faster. (To be fair to Nikon though, the D40 is much better for continous shooting just because of the G1's inability to return instantly to live view after each shot.)