Olympus Pen Digital 4/3 advice please

Please no flamers. Please will the P&S troll stay out of this. i'm
looking for honest advice, preferably from someone with firsthand
experience with the new Olympus 4/3 Pen Digital cameras.

I am a film photographer using good SLRs (Pentax 6x7 for MF, Olympus
OM2 and OM10, and Nikon F for 35mm) but I want to get a good digital
camera. I was looking at the Nikon D5000 and the Olympus Digital Pen
EP1. The Nikon will NOT take my manual F lenses, though they will fit
on it. The Olympus, with an adaptor, WILL take all my OM lenses with
full function except for the auto focus part. That makes the Olympus a
much more attractive camera. But the EP1 has only a live screen, not a
viewfinder, because it is not an SLR but is the closest thing to a
digital "rangefinder" that I've seen. I don't know how that screen
behaves in bright sunlight. Then they came out with the EP2 which has
the EVF attachment, eliminating the problem of the LCD screen in
sunlight, but it costs $300 more. And now I saw announced yet a third
EP that is LESS expensive than the EP1 AND it contains a built in
flash. So there must be a fair amount of compromise there.

Does anyone have firsthand experience with any of these cameras and can
you advise? If I leave the issue of compatible old lenses out of it, is
the Nikon D5000 at the same street price as the EP1 a better camera
with more functionality?

Please no flames, no trolls, but helpful information would be very much
appreciated.
--
Michael

The upper end of the Nikon dSLR line will use your old film lenses and work
in metered modes without the kludge of an adaptor. These are large and heavy
camera/lens combinations that are even heavier than film counterparts.
I presume you are attracted to the d5000 because of its size. I'm sure it
was just a bad sample but I bought one of these and returned it because it
was a dud of duds (I think the sensor was not properly aligned so images
were not uniformly sharp across the field) and would not work with older
Nikon AF lenses.
Theoretically older lenses may have problems with reflections between their
uncoated rear elements and the image capture sensor but much of that is
noise aimed at getting users to buy new lenses. I have never seen this as an
issue when I use older Nikon lenses on Nikon dSLRs.
If camera bulk is more of a concern for you than absolute image quality you
have to check out the older and newer mini 4/3 cameras and see what works
for you. The quality of data coming off the sensor is comparable to what the
d5000 can ideally produce for most uses but noise may be a consideration if
you routinely use ISOs higher than 400. In my experience with Nikons and
Canons current APS-c sensors have acceptable noise out to ISO 800 but beyond
that it's a subjective technical/aesthetic judgment.
Noise that is seen in blown-up sections of an image on a computer monitor
more often than not is a non-issue for the size the image will be used at or
for printing or viewing, particularly with minor processing in Photoshop.
A physically immutable property of smaller focal length lenses is
diffraction error that affects image quality and this is a real issue with
smaller sensor cameras that technology cannot change. I think the 4/3 sensor
size is as small as it can get without relying on image processing to
disguise the physical properties of light passing through a transparent
medium.
Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology. I would not invest in a camera that did not have at least an
eye-level EVF as a primary camera for "serious" use because there is no way
to rely on the viewing screen attached to the back of a camera in sunlight.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" wrote:


Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

On 2010-02-20 15:30:37 -0500, Dan M said:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" wrote:


Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

P&S Troll: I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
contributing nothing but flame and gas.
--
Michael

On 2010-02-20 14:28:35 -0500, c_atiel said:

The upper end of the Nikon dSLR line will use your old film lenses and
work in metered modes without the kludge of an adaptor. These are large
and heavy camera/lens combinations that are even heavier than film
counterparts.
I presume you are attracted to the d5000 because of its size. I'm sure
it was just a bad sample but I bought one of these and returned it
because it was a dud of duds (I think the sensor was not properly
aligned so images were not uniformly sharp across the field) and would
not work with older Nikon AF lenses.
Theoretically older lenses may have problems with reflections between
their uncoated rear elements and the image capture sensor but much of
that is noise aimed at getting users to buy new lenses. I have never
seen this as an issue when I use older Nikon lenses on Nikon dSLRs.
If camera bulk is more of a concern for you than absolute image quality
you have to check out the older and newer mini 4/3 cameras and see what
works for you. The quality of data coming off the sensor is comparable
to what the d5000 can ideally produce for most uses but noise may be a
consideration if you routinely use ISOs higher than 400. In my
experience with Nikons and Canons current APS-c sensors have acceptable
noise out to ISO 800 but beyond that it's a subjective
technical/aesthetic judgment.
Noise that is seen in blown-up sections of an image on a computer
monitor more often than not is a non-issue for the size the image will
be used at or for printing or viewing, particularly with minor
processing in Photoshop.
A physically immutable property of smaller focal length lenses is
diffraction error that affects image quality and this is a real issue
with smaller sensor cameras that technology cannot change. I think the
4/3 sensor size is as small as it can get without relying on image
processing to disguise the physical properties of light passing through
a transparent medium.
Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their
best current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical
mirror/prism SLR technology. I would not invest in a camera that did
not have at least an eye-level EVF as a primary camera for "serious"
use because there is no way to rely on the viewing screen attached to
the back of a camera in sunlight.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Thanks for the detailed reply. As a film photographer I almost never
stray above ISO 400 (Tri X) and usually am at 100 (Ektachromes) or
lower (64 with what's left of my Kodachrome, or Velvia 50) so the noise
issue over 400 is not much of an issue for me. It is the viewing screen
issue in sunlight that is the biggest putoff. I hope someone who
actually uses this camera will add to the discussion because I really
need some hands on experience with that viewfinder to talk to me.
--
Michael

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:27:55 -0500, Michael The Complete Idiot
Spewed:

On 2010-02-20 15:30:37 -0500, Dan M said:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" wrote:


Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
contributing nothing but flame and gas.

On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation. There's
no need for anyone to refute it if they have as much experience with
cameras as I have. So there will be no flame nor gas from it. Those that do
refute it are just displaying their ignorance and inexperience. If you
can't correct their lies then I will. On the upside, now you know you can't
trust anything that person said because they displayed their lack of
expertise and experience with any camera that has an EVF. You can use that
lie of theirs to diminish the importance of their opinion. Make their lies
work in your favor by weeding out the pretend-photographer bull**** artists
that spew them.

Get smarter. If not, your loss and yours alone.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:13:19 -0600, Dan M
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:27:55 -0500, Michael The Complete Idiot
Spewed:

On 2010-02-20 15:30:37 -0500, Dan M said:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" wrote:


Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
contributing nothing but flame and gas.

On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation.

No, you continue to be nothing but an idiot and an annoyance.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:24:06 -0500, rwalker wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:13:19 -0600, Dan M
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:27:55 -0500, Michael The Complete Idiot
Spewed:

On 2010-02-20 15:30:37 -0500, Dan M said:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" wrote:


Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
contributing nothing but flame and gas.

On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation.

No, you continue to be nothing but an idiot and an annoyance.

I see, you're another troll's-misinformation spewing idiot.

Let's break it down for you. For example:

On a Canon Powershot S5IS, the EVF refresh rate is ~1/60th of a second for
all shutter speeds at 1/60th of a second or faster. 17 milliseconds between
refreshed images in the EVF. Documented and proved with the CHDK program's
internal benchmark tests.

The S5IS is capable of responding to a motion-detection script in CHDK and
taking an image in 45 milliseconds. This is the total time from the image
changing on the CCD in the FOV until the shutter is snapped. 45-55
milliseconds, by the way, is the same amount of time delay from half-press
to captured image too, if done by an alert hand. (The idiots at dpreview
don't even know how to test these features properly.)

If we figure in the time for image processing from the true image on the
CCD until it appears on the EVF (the EVF data being the stream that is used
for the motion detection algorithm), then the delay between real image on
the CCD and EVF display is only 28 milliseconds. This is 45ms (total time)
minus 17ms (the EVF refresh rate). That's 1/38th of a second. Faster than
the refresh rate on all TVs that you've been viewing all your life. Faster
than the refresh rate of all movies you've seen in a theater. Faster than
human reaction time.

The ONLY time there is a lag in an EVF that is longer than human-reaction
time is if you use a shutter-speed slower than human reaction time. An EVF
has a true, real-time, shutter-speed preview. So you may dial-in the exact
shutter speed you need for those milky water effects or knowing if it's
fast enough to stop that bee's wings in flight with no blur, before you
even press the shutter and capture its image. All seen in real-time. Minus
the 1/38th second delay between CCD's real image and EVF display.

My, what terrible terrible EVF lag, 28 milliseconds. Your own mirrors on
DSLRs take longer than that to flip out of the way. Then on top of it you
can't even see what you are capturing while the mirror is up. Now if you
really want to talk about viewfinder lag, let's address the one that exists
in all DSLRs with their slow and loudly slapping sloppy mirrors.

Are you getting smarter yet? Are you starting to now realize just how
****ingly stupid that you and everyone else has become? From
pretend-photographer trolls relentlessly spewing their troll's-bull**** and
all of you swallowing without question right it to the hilt.

You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
never been truer than in these newsgroups.

Dan M wrote:

You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
never been truer than in these newsgroups.


It's amazing that such a scholar and gentleman such as yourself would
spend so much time among the hoi poloi.

--
lsmft

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:06:05 -0800 (PST), Rich
wrote:

On Feb 20, 2:28*pm, "c_atiel" wrote:

Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
SLR technology.

I was using one tonight. The E-P2's problem isn't the viewfinder,
which is good, maybe as good as the G1's. It's problem is the dead-
slow and hunty AF. The Panasonic offering runs rings around it.

Slow auto-focus reports for all cameras are more often caused by human
error. Someone not being able to hold a camera still enough for it to lock
onto something to focus on. Especially common with those using superzoom
lenses who report "hunty" and slow auto-focus speeds. They are expecting
the camera to compensate for their own muscle jitters now being amplified
with focal-lengths over 400mm. Something they've never even attempted
before. Or pointing it at a solid color wall or wispy clouds and expecting
the camera to focus on that.

What were you trying to focus on, at what focal-length lens? Was this with
or without image-stabilization turned on? If on, then was this at the
"always on" setting or the "shoot only" setting? It makes a difference to
auto-focus speeds. What were the light-levels at the time? What is your own
hand-held record-attempt to get a tack-sharp image using long focal-lengths
and slow shutter-speeds? With or without IS. They all determine
auto-focusing speeds. These significant things too are always conveniently
omitted from the test reports authored at dpreview.idiots. How anyone can
ever take their "test" results seriously is beyond me.

Until we know these things, you may have been testing both cameras under
vastly different circumstances involving focal-lengths, subject-matter,
light-levels, and image-stabilization settings. Maybe not even taking these
things into account to formulate your own opinion properly because you
don't even realize how much they can change auto-focusing speeds. Until we
know more it just makes your personal review pointless, or just plain
biased.