Fun with E-P2

[ustein]

The in-body IS is certainly a nice-to-have, but I seem to remember a time when we boldly shot away with no IS whatsoever. Good camera technique and the ISO flexibility and performance we enjoy today go a long way to mitigating the requirement for IS.

Cheers,

Yes they do and it can be stretched using IS .

 

[Bill Gordon]

I did not get along with the E-P1 mainly because I missed an EVF. Now with the E-P2 the EVF is very impressive. I like the swivel a lot.

I just love that photo!!!

 

[ustein]

I just love that photo!!!

Thanks.

 

[OzRay]

considering the G1 screen pops around the back to allow you to use it as a point n shoot (like my wife prefers) and given the bulkiness of the EP-2 pop on the flash shoe affair I am not sure I see the difference?

this is not meant to be a "smarty pants" question, but I'm genuinely interested. In a shop recently my wife didn't like the GF or EP-1 because it didn't have the grip that the G1 has (and her Canon powershot has a small grip).

especially when you say:



I wanted something I can hang from a backpack harness loop or preferably slip into a side netting, the G1 doesn't really do that with the kit zoom, so is that what did it? Its one of the reasons (DoF and simplicity being among the others) that I am looking carfully at the 20f1.7

As I mentioned earlier, I simply didn't want another DSLR look-a-like, no matter how small, I recently sold my E-410 for that reason. I really liked the LX2, but found the body too small and the lack of lens versatility a shortfall, though it does get a fair bit of use even now. The Pen fit the bill perfectly and the GF1 would have done so as well, but it just came out too late for me.

I didn't want a camera with a pop-up fash, as I've found them to be pretty much useless. Not being able to use an external flash when the EVF is attached to the Pen is a bit of a bummer, but I suspect there'll be a solution to this in good time. For example, it could easily be implemented with an offset viewfinder with a hotshoe.

I'm very familiar with the Olympus menu system and find the super control menu one of the easiest thing to work with, so that wasn't an issue for me. And I guess the fact that all of my Olympus lenses will work with the Pen was a bonus. That said, I don't use them that often, as I prefer my M mount lenses. The in-body IS works really well here, as I can handhold even my Nikon 300mm (OK, it's not M mount) when using the Pen and the Pen 2 EVF has elevated things to a new level.

I'm not concerned that the Pen isn't pocketable like the LX2, but what I really like is that it doesn't scream out and scare people like my E3 and 14-35mm, for example. It's also far more easy to cart around. That's where the travelling bit on planes comes into it as well; I can toss just about my entire kit into a small carry-on case that has everything that I need, including clothes for a few days etc.

I guess the fact that Panasonic came out first means that there are more Panasonic users out there and the fact that the Pen got a poor report in reviews about it's AF performance, even though I think it was somewhat over-blown, increased the sales of Panasonic m4/3s cameras. Also, I think that existing Panasonic users were hungering for a new camera, since Panasonic more or less abandoned 4/3s in 2007, so the excitement of Panasonic owners probably exceeds that of Olympus owners, who have been able to keep updating on a constant basis.

I'm by no means putting down Panasonic gear, I reckon it's great, but I've observed both here and that other place (DPR) that there seems to be more of an us and them relationship between Olympus and Panasonic owners, much like between Canon/Nikon owners, rather than mutual bonding in adversity. By adversity, I mean the constant put downs by other brand owners of the m4/3s system (another solution looking for a probem?), until their brand/s comes up with a suitable answer.

Cheers

Ray

 

[Vivek]

Ray, Both the brands (Oly and Pana) use Pana sensors. Just the package is slightly different. Canon make their own sensors and Nikon buy it from Sony or get them fabricated by Sony and others besides having very different mounts.

The m4/3rds, as I disclosed a long time ago, essentially has the Olympus pen F mount, used by Panasonic in their CCTV cameras for a long time.

 

[pellicle]

Ray

thanks for your answer. Particularly the "doesn't scare people" is one of the reasons I'm tempted by the GF (now that I have a G1), I must say however I have been considering an EP because (as a legacy lens user) I would like to try the IS on the Oly

 

[OzRay]

Ray, Both the brands (Oly and Pana) use Pana sensors. Just the package is slightly different. Canon make their own sensors and Nikon buy it from Sony or get them fabricated by Sony and others besides having very different mounts.

The m4/3rds, as I disclosed a long time ago, essentially has the Olympus pen F mount, used by Panasonic in their CCTV cameras for a long time.

Yep, know that. The big difference between Panasonic and Olympus are their ASICs and how they implement their image processing algorithms (with the current Panasonic sensor). The interesting thing about sensors is that Kodak is getting back into the scene in a big way and there's also Sanyo that makes some interesting stuff. Foveon is lost in the woods and, according to some reports, would be a dead loss anyway, despite its apparent attractions. So in this regard, Olympus is not wedded to Panasonic in any way and may diverge at any time.

Since I haven't used a Pansonic 4/3s or m4/3s, I don't know how any of them compare to Olympus 4/3s or m4/3s, though it's clear the implementation is different, based on views on this and other forums. I always loved, and still do, the Kodak sensor in the E1. I still have my first E1, as I just can't get rid of it, but I do have to send it in one day for a full service. And despite the fact that Olympus no longer use the Kodak sensor, they've done a pretty good job of retaining the great colours it provided in it's follow-on cameras (personal opinion of course).

Never heard about the Pen F mount, but in a way, it would have been nice if the mount was an exact duplicate so that the old Pen lenses had fitted m4/3s, maybe.

On another note, having read today, Michael Reichmann's latest missive on what Leica should be doing to secure the future of their rangefinder line, I reckon he's taken a bundle of ideas from m4/3s. When I pick up my Pen 2, I reckon I've got the closest approximation to what he's dreaming about.

Cheers

Ray

 

[Vivek]

The similarity of the pen F mount to the m4/3rds mount was the key to me being able to make the Leica and pen F adapters that were reported here.

Initially, I just used pen F lenses (40/1.4 and 38/3.5 Macro) straight on with a shim to hold the lens, on my G1. Focus scales were off due to differences in registries.

The pen F mount (slight variation) was already used by Panasonic in the VW cameras (registry is very different). Also, Panasonic made a variety of adapters to use Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus lenses on their CCTV cams via a c-mount. These c-mount adapters are very well made.

 

[OzRay]

I recently bought a Sony C Mount 16-64mm f/2 Zoom Lens from eBay at an el cheapo price (still to arrive), just to see exactly how a range of focal lengths perform with m4/3s:

It may end up being a complete crock, but hey, if you don't try, you'll never know. The thing I was really interested in was the effective FOV with C mount lenses, compared to M mount lenses ie, is 64mm actually something like 50/55/60mm, rather than the opposite that you get with 35mm lenses. I've never actually seen anything that describes whether you're getting a wider, equivalent or narrower FOV.

Cheers

Ray

 

[ustein]

>When I pick up my Pen 2, I reckon I've got the closest approximation to what he's dreaming about.

Yes, plus AF and video thrown in.

 

[Vivek]

When I pick up my Pen 2, I reckon I've got the closest approximation to what he's dreaming about.

If I were one of those Leica invitees to see the X1 production, I would have said that to Leica in private and not blog about it.

 

[Amin]

The thing I was really interested in was the effective FOV with C mount lenses, compared to M mount lenses ie, is 64mm actually something like 50/55/60mm, rather than the opposite that you get with 35mm lenses. I've never actually seen anything that describes whether you're getting a wider, equivalent or narrower FOV.

The angle of view of a 60mm C mount lens adapted to Micro Four Thirds should be the same as that of an adapted 60mm medium format lens or an adapted 60mm lens for 35mm frame.

 

[OzRay]

The angle of view of a 60mm C mount lens adapted to Micro Four Thirds should be the same as that of an adapted 60mm medium format lens or an adapted 60mm lens for 35mm frame.

That doesn't make sense.

A 60mm lens made to cover a 35mm film surface works effectively as a 120mm on 4/3s and m4/3s.

A 60mm lens made to cover a 120mm film suface works effectively as a 240mm/480mm? (can't be bothered to calculate) on 4/3s and m4/3s.

So one would assume that a 60mm lens made to cover a film surface smaller than 4/3s would work effectively as a wider lens on 4/3s.

I'll find out when I get my Sony lens.

Cheers

Ray

 

[Brian Mosley]

Interesting point Ray, I hadn't considered that.

Maybe Vivek or another of our experienced Pen F lens users can comment? what effective focal length field of view would a 60mm Pen F lens provide on 4/3rds?

Cheers

Brian

 

[s.agar]

A few comments:

Please consider the differences in perspective also. It's not only the angle that is important. A 60mm lens has the perspective of 60mm on any format. It's just the angle changing.

Imagine a Nikon 50mm lens on 35 mm FF camera. It records a certain area 24X36mm on the sensor.

The same lens used with an adapter on M4/3 gives exactly the same picture on the sensor area, except that the sensor is small, and records only a small central portion of it. (Smaller angle, like a 100mm lens on 35mm camera)

Therefore, the angle of view changes, but not the picture (and perspective). Therefore it is not a true 100mm lens like on a 35mm camera. It records the same area, but in the M4/3 case, the items closer to the camera seems fine, while the objects farther away will be much smaller.

That said, the 50mm on M4/3 does not make a perfect portrait lens for example (at least for me, because I prefer 100+mms). It's just like a 50mm lens.

Seyhun

 

[Brian Mosley]

That said, the 50mm on M4/3 does not make a perfect portrait lens for example (at least for me, because I prefer 100+mms). It's just like a 50mm lens.

Seyhun

Good point, what would be your favourite focal length for a 4/3rds sensor for portraits?

I have a preference for the 57mm f1.2 myself.

G1 + Hexanon 57mm f1.2

Cheers

Brian

 

[Novaron]

With all this talk about the evf, one feature of the Panasopnic G1 that folk do not mention is the rotating lcd. There are some shots of Tony Bennett at JazzFest when I was far from stage and standing behind some tall folk that I would not have been able to get without rotating the lcd, holding the camera above my head and looking through the lcd to verify that I had Tony Bennett in focus. Still the improvements in the Pen 2 would seem to make this a intriguing choice for using with legacy lenses and an adapter and a second mu43 body to carry around.

 

[Brian Mosley]

Novaron, that's a good point - the portrait of my daughter above was framed and focused using the G1 articulating LCD. :thumbup:

Cheers

Brian

 

[pellicle]

Hi Ray

I recently bought a Sony C Mount 16-64mm f/2 Zoom Lens from eBay at an el cheapo price (still to arrive), just to see exactly how a range of focal lengths perform with m4/3s:
...
The thing I was really interested in was the effective FOV with C mount lenses, compared to M mount lenses ie, is 64mm actually something like 50/55/60mm, rather than the opposite that you get with 35mm lenses. I've never actually seen anything that describes whether you're getting a wider, equivalent or narrower FOV.

I've read this twice now and I still don't quite get exactly what you mean. A 60mm will be a 60mm no matter what you throw it on. The only difference will be the angle of view that the sensor captures. A 35mm film / sensor just happens to catch a larger area of the exact same projected image.

I'm not sure if you're thinking that the numbers translate to effective view or something because its from a different format or if your wondering what it'll be like when you take into account the losses due to lack of coverage.


For instance ... I've got a 12mm C mount and it captures exactly the same view as the 9-18mm does (set to 12mm) ... just that I get less image as it looses the corners due to lack of coverage.

So it ends up (when I crop to reduce the vignetting) being more or less the same as my 14mm (except still with some vignetting ; -)

As far as lenses go, its really small, so if you were after something for the EP to compliment the 17mm that was manual and bright, I'd go for one of these

I paid about $12 on ebay for mine (my adaptor cost more!)
Being C mount and Sony I'm guessing that its oriented for TV or perhaps 8mm or 16mm, so this may effect how much coverage you get out of it (like will it darken the corners)

 

[ustein]

The swivel LCD of the G1/GH1 is clearly a strength: