daveleo Posted June 19, 2009 Share #81 Posted June 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) John T. you get a gold star (make that a GOLD STAR) for your EP-1 observations. my hopes were high (almost as high as before photokina 2008) for something genuinely great .... the EP-1 looks so good at first glance and so great in possibilities .....yet another letdown. AND .... you get a solid diamond supernova star for your WORD comments .... *THE* worst P.O.S. program anyone ever wrote. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 Hi daveleo, Take a look here Olympus take a bite at the m8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ceflynn Posted June 19, 2009 Share #82 Posted June 19, 2009 John's observations on the Olympus EP-1 remind me that when I saw a photo of the interface of the camera in manual mode, I noted clear numerals showing f-stop, shutter speed, and exposure, but the exposure is just a numeral. There is no simulation of a meter such as we see in the Panasonic LX3 and Leica D-Lux 4 and D-Lux 3 interfaces. Perhaps that is an option that can be turned on, somewhere in a nested set of menus. Those of you who dislike Word and use a Macintosh might try Mellel: Mellel, The word processor for Mac OS X Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 20, 2009 Share #83 Posted June 20, 2009 John, it's called "modal operation" - and I generally agree. Imagine a car in which the steering wheel controlled everything: To change gears, press the "gear" button while turning the wheel; to brake, push the "brake" button while turning the wheel; to tune the radio, push the "tune" button while turning the wheel. Of course, if you happen to need to steer AND brake AND change gears at the same time to avoid an accident...... It is cheaper for the manufacturers to write one piece of control software to load on every body than to put an aperture ring on every lens. Not smart, just cheaper. Me, I'm in the market for a SLR for those things the M can't handle, and am leaning strongly now to an "out-of-date" Nikon D80 simply because it can mount and use lenses with aperture rings on them without losing functionality. Doesn't matter what cool "picture styles" and other options - or even nice glass - Canon and Olympus offer. Not interested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted June 20, 2009 Share #84 Posted June 20, 2009 John, it's called "modal operation" - and I generally agree. Imagine a car in which the steering wheel controlled everything: To change gears, press the "gear" button while turning the wheel; to brake, push the "brake" button while turning the wheel; to tune the radio, push the "tune" button while turning the wheel. Of course, if you happen to need to steer AND brake AND change gears at the same time to avoid an accident...... It is cheaper for the manufacturers to write one piece of control software to load on every body than to put an aperture ring on every lens. Not smart, just cheaper. Me, I'm in the market for a SLR for those things the M can't handle, and am leaning strongly now to an "out-of-date" Nikon D80 simply because it can mount and use lenses with aperture rings on them without losing functionality. Doesn't matter what cool "picture styles" and other options - or even nice glass - Canon and Olympus offer. Not interested. No, I understand completely... and I'm not expecting my little tantrum to convince technical designers to rethink the design... but the whole thing is just so Xbox/Playstation centric. Not to make the Leica boardroom cringe, but I just don't understand why someone doesn't a see the niche (albeit sizeable one) for the likes of a knock-off M8. I mean Epson got pretty close. I just fear my trusty Digilux 2 will someday grow to far out-of-date.... and there'll be nothing analog-like to replace it. I'm picking up a 5D MKII in the next few days to add to my existing Canon gear. It's not the ergnomics or mental fit I want, but it compliments the rest of my Canon work kit... inasmuch as I have all L series glass from 16mm to 500mm - it will be a nice addition... and I already know the dials. LOL Thanks for the feedback, JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted June 20, 2009 Share #85 Posted June 20, 2009 John T. you get a gold star (make that a GOLD STAR) for your EP-1 observations. my hopes were high (almost as high as before photokina 2008) for something genuinely great .... the EP-1 looks so good at first glance and so great in possibilities .....yet another letdown. AND .... you get a solid diamond supernova star for your WORD comments .... *THE* worst P.O.S. program anyone ever wrote. Thanks... I could use a gold star. LOL - I was a big WordPerfect fan. Hands down the finest tech support EVER to grace the software business. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted June 20, 2009 Share #86 Posted June 20, 2009 Those of you who dislike Word and use a Macintosh might try Mellel: Mellel, The word processor for Mac OS X I'll need to take a look. I currently use Pages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2009 Share #87 Posted June 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) John, it's called "modal operation" - and I generally agree. Imagine a car in which the steering wheel controlled everything: To change gears, press the "gear" button while turning the wheel; to brake, push the "brake" button while turning the wheel; to tune the radio, push the "tune" button while turning the wheel. Of course, if you happen to need to steer AND brake AND change gears at the same time to avoid an accident...... It is cheaper for the manufacturers to write one piece of control software to load on every body than to put an aperture ring on every lens. Not smart, just cheaper. Me, I'm in the market for a SLR for those things the M can't handle, and am leaning strongly now to an "out-of-date" Nikon D80 simply because it can mount and use lenses with aperture rings on them without losing functionality. Doesn't matter what cool "picture styles" and other options - or even nice glass - Canon and Olympus offer. Not interested. Hi Andy, Are you sure the D80 has the full manual lens functionality of the D200, D300, etc? It may but I'm not sure. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2009 Share #88 Posted June 20, 2009 Not to make the Leica boardroom cringe, but I just don't understand why someone doesn't a see the niche (albeit sizeable one) for the likes of a knock-off M8. I mean Epson got pretty close. JT The Epson came first of course but I've never thought of the M8 as a knock-off R-D1. <G> Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2009 Share #89 Posted June 20, 2009 I haven't yet tested the new Oly and am looking forward to it but one feature the Sigma DP-2 has (and which others could learn from) is its manual focus wheel with fixed distance markings. For fast zone focused work, its nearly as good as a marked mechanical focus ring. The G10 has an ISO dial and, of course, the M8 and R-D1 have actual shutter speed dials and (on their lenses) aperture rings and marked focus rings. I'd love to see more cross influence among the manufacturers and I'd also love to see movement away from modal controls and/or those that rely on the LCD screen. The Oly, of course, could gain an aperture ring and marked manual focus ring when using M lenses but I don't know yet if it will perform any differently with wide angle RF lenses than does the G1. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 20, 2009 Share #90 Posted June 20, 2009 Hi Andy, Are you sure the D80 has the full manual lens functionality of the D200, D300, etc? It may but I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it doesn't (I found the lens compatibility chart for the D90, which doesn't meter with non-CPU lenses. I held off getting a DSLR until the D200 came out precisely because it was the first "semi-pro" body that would give me full use of my collection of manual Nikkors. OTOH even the low-range bodies such as the D40 let you use old manual lenses in M - though you have to use an external meter. Compatibility-wise the key difference between D40 and D80-90 seems to be that the latter can autofocus lenses that don't have built-in motors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 20, 2009 Share #91 Posted June 20, 2009 John's observations on the Olympus PEN - looks retro initially but not on close inspection - made me think. Leica seem to believe that a digital R is not useful as they would not be able to compete with the big boys concerning AF and other gadgetry. This is probably true & sensible. But if they made a DSLR with all manual controls, no AF, no nothing exept a basic light meter and aperture priority. I.e. similar to a R8/R9 (or a M8 for that matter) in terms of ergonomics I would buy one. Less is more as far as I am concerned and it would be a unique niche for the 'real' photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted June 20, 2009 Share #92 Posted June 20, 2009 Hi Andy, Are you sure the D80 has the full manual lens functionality of the D200, D300, etc? It may but I'm not sure. Cheers, Sean No it doesn't, but it will work with any autofocus Nikon lens. No metering at all with manual focus lenses though, which is a disgrace, if Panasonic can manage aperture priority and manual metering with M lenses on the G1, you would have thought Nikon could offer that functionality to 'loyal' Nikon users! My firend has a D80, and has been disapointed, for instance the RAW files are compressed! Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted June 20, 2009 Share #93 Posted June 20, 2009 The Epson came first of course but I've never thought of the M8 as a knock-off R-D1. <G> Cheers, Of course you're right. I didn't mean to imply the Epson was a "knock off"... but simply a lower cost example of what I'd like to see. Unlike your well thought out reviews, my writing was a caffeine induced rant. LOL Thanks, JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted June 20, 2009 Share #94 Posted June 20, 2009 Would one of the adaptors which allow the use of Leica glass on the G1 work on this Olympus? Does seem a ridiculous price for a p&s. Welll... Considering the price of the Leica version of the LX3 or the Leica version of the E-330 I don't think the new Oly is priced out of the market. It's cute, it looks like fun, it has better high - asa ratings than the M8 (they SERIOUSLY need to upgrade the M8 sensor), certainly much better ratings than the LX-3... So, what's the problem? Leica's first cameras didn't have a coupled VF, did they now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted June 20, 2009 Share #95 Posted June 20, 2009 John T. you get a gold star (make that a GOLD STAR) for your EP-1 observations. my hopes were high (almost as high as before photokina 2008) for something genuinely great .... the EP-1 looks so good at first glance and so great in possibilities .....yet another letdown. AND .... you get a solid diamond supernova star for your WORD comments .... *THE* worst P.O.S. program anyone ever wrote. It isn't a letdown, it is a tool. You wouldn't use an M8 for sports, would you? Not if you are sane... So, let this camera have its own niche. People get so defensive... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted June 20, 2009 Share #96 Posted June 20, 2009 Is there a lot of space between the image quality from the 620 files and the LX3 files? Or is one just a bit better than the other and if one wont do the other struggles too? The LX3 is a point and shoot with fairly poor low-light capability. I have the Oly SLRs and an LX3, and they are for different things. The 620 is more flexible and has much better low-light capability, but the LX3 is a sexy little pocket cam. Just lots of fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted June 20, 2009 Share #97 Posted June 20, 2009 Using Leica lenses (M or R) on cropped sensors is a waste of precious Leica glass. That's been point against the M8 but it is far worse for 4/3 cameras. On an M8 you waste 43% of the image area, on a 4/3 camera it is 75%. I do not think that word means what you think it means. It's only waste if you can't get good images. Can you get good images? Yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted June 20, 2009 Share #98 Posted June 20, 2009 Not seen files yet. But it uses the same sensor as the E620, which I happen to own. I doubt you wanted to claim that G10 or D-lux4/Lx3 sensors (the LX3 I have as well) are a match. If its IQ is at the the E620 level, yes, then it is pretty good, for a compact digital. Actually, I think the sensor (or at least the processing) is better than the 620's. Digital photography just keeps getting more fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted June 21, 2009 Share #99 Posted June 21, 2009 People get so defensive... Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 21, 2009 Share #100 Posted June 21, 2009 I do not think that word means what you think it means. It's only waste if you can't get good images. Can you get good images? Yes. Um, sort of, but sort of not too. It's a waste of money if you pay for a fully corrected 21 1.4 ASPH then stick it on a camera that crops more that 50% of the image circle that lens makes--just to get a 40mm-ish FOV. The PEN looks interesting as its own system; but I'll wait to see production high ISO shots and focus ability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.