Is that the E-P2 or your E-P1 is just happy to see me?..

I have expected the E-P2 to be a minor upgrade to the E-P1, but definitely did not expect it to be this minor.

Basically, what Olympus did was to include a port for an EVF, thus allowing an external EVF and microphone to be mounted on the E-P2. I suspect Olympus timed the E-P2 to be launched after Epson's 1.44mpx EVF goes into production not long ago.

Other improvements include
- TruePic V (is this just a renaming of the TruePic III+?)
- 2 new Art Filters (Cross Processing and Diorama),
- iEnhance
- AF Tracking.
- Full Manual Control of shutter/aperture in Movie Mode
- HDMI Control of camera's playback function using the TV Remote when connected to HDTV

I suspect these other enhancement could be added to the E-P1 via firmware upgrade.

What about the single most important improvement that we are all looking for? AF Speed. cnet-asia reported this about the AF speed.

"The unit we tried was a prototype, so we weren't not able to find out whether Olympus has fixed the slow focusing problem which plagued the E-P1. We'll know when a commercial unit arrives in our Labs."

In my opinion, there may not be a major jump in AF speed. I remember that dpreview tested the AF speed of E-P1 with multiple lenses, pitting E-P1 against the GH1. (link)

The conclusions are:
- AF speed is highly dependent on the lens used. The M.Zuiko 14-42mm produces the slowest AF speed amongst all the lens tested, namely the 17mm and the 14-140mm. The 14-140mm being the fastest.
- Even when using the same lens, the GH1 was 50% faster than the E-P1, except for the 17mm.

So, while there is hope that Oly may improve AF speed of the E-P2 with TruePic V, I am doubtful it will be drastic. Not if the same 14-42mm kit lens is used...

*sigh* so it is possible that Olympus packed in some new features that many do not care for into the E-P2 and left the single biggest issue with the camera, AF speed, unfixed.

Oh ya, the most improvement of the E-P2...it comes in BLACK!!!

At the same time, Olympus launched 2 new lenses for the m4/3 mount:

• M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 super wide-angle zoom lens (first half of 2010)
• M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-150mm F4.0-5.6 high-power telephoto zoom lens (first half of 2010)

GF-1 Reviews

Over the past couple of days, reviews of the GF-1 have been rolling in. The general consensus has been very consistent vs the E-P1.

ISSUES

- The JPEG output of GF-1 produces some flat colors and weird color shifts in certain colors. Dpreview noted a pinkish shift in the blue skies while imaging-resource noted that yellow becomes muted and orange becomes brown. These are mainly observed in JPEGs and RAW output are generally free of such issues.

- Panasonic's JPEG output falls behind competition in terms of details and high ISO JPEG output.

- Lower Dynamic Range than E-P1

STRENGTHS

- AF, Metering and overall performance of the camera is superior to the E-P1.

- Better screen, flash and an EVF option

- Despite weak JPEG outputs, RAW outputs are great

Is Size a Matter of Perception?

The word out there is that m43 cameras are point and shoot size with the powers of dSLRs. It is true that the latest m43 are styled very similarly to PnS rather than dSLRs and when compared to conventional dSLRs such as 500D and the D3000, the m43 cameras look considerably smaller.

However, we need to take things into perspective here. These are cameras with a 4/3" sensor inside and thus are already supposed to be smaller to begin with. To see a fair comparison, we need to compare the m4/3 to the classic 4/3 in order to know what kind of miniaturization have been achieved with these cameras.

With the arrival of the m43, everyone seems to have forgotten the beautifully engineered e-4x0 (namely the e-410, e-420 and e-450), which was wearing the crown of the 'world's smallest dSLR' before the arrival of the micros.

I have done a patch-work image, putting together the GF-1, the E-420 and the G1 to show just what kind of achievements have been made with the m43 in terms of miniaturization. You can click on the image for a larger version.

COMPARISON

From the front, you can see that the e-420 is very similar in size to the G1/GH1 series. The GF-1 is effectively the G1 with the grip and the EVF shaved off. Do note that if you were to mount the EVF on the GF-1 the sizes would be much more similar. From the top view, the GF-1 is notably thinner but being an interchangeable lens system, variations in the length and size of the lenses would reduce the impact on the thinner profile.


CONCLUSION

My conclusion? I suspect that functionally, the slight saving in terms of size may not make too much a difference in everyday usage. Although it is impressive that m43 cameras pack video, more AF points, image stabilization, evf and full live view into a package that is smaller than e4x0, it does lose some very important features of the dSLR - the optical viewfinder and the phase detect AF system. To some users like myself, these two features define the dSLR experience. No doubt Panny did achieve some engineering marvel with its lightning fast contrast detect AF, but at about 0.34s-0.4s, this is 2x-3x slower as compared to the 0.13-0.14s focus speed of the e-4x0 series.

Lets see, a full featured dSLR at a price of about US$400 (inclusive of kit lens) vs a slightly smaller m43 at double the price... I may just go for the e-4x0 series. Sorry, I just can't live with cameras with grainy EVF and sub-par AF speed at double the price of a perfectly usable dSLR. Especially when the reduction in size is somewhat short of being truly dramatic.

WHAT DO I SUGGEST?

I think Olympus has a great product in the e-4x0. They could have done so much with it but didn't. What went wrong? It may have something to do with product positioning. Since the e-4x0 is aimed at new dSLR users, ladies as well as PnS upgraders, they should have taken the path that Panasonic took when it created the G1. They gave it chic colors are market it to the yuppies and PnS users.

Since Olympus is not planning a G1/GH1 type of camera, they can squeeze more out of their current offerings by transforming it a little. Some suggestions include:

- Streamline the design, add more colors and turn it into a desirable chic gadget.
- If possible, they can shrink the whole package a little more to be in line with the G1/GH1
- Add in video
- Add more AF points
- Use the same 12mpx LiveMOS sensor as the rest

This would inevitably increase the price of the e-4x0. Alternatively, Olympus can continue to sell this excellent camera at current price points and make the appropriate enhancements to it.

EDITED 15-Oct-2009:

Added some more photos. Credit: Olyigel on Flickr

The more I look at it, the more I feel that the size differences is not very wide.

What if Santa makes cameras...

I wonder if Santa's elves have the technical expertise to make advanced photographic equipments. If they do, I would like to wish for my dream camera this Christmas ... again. Even without Santa, my wish could come true, perhaps by next year. There has been some whisperings that Canon and Nikon may make compacts with APS-C sensors.

What's new? You might ask. We all know that compact cameras with APS-C sized sensors have existed for a while now. Roughly one month back, Leica had just announced the Leica X1 and Sigma have had a compact cameras based on the APS-C size Foveon sensor for more than a year. The Micro Four Thirds are compact wannabes with an SLR sensors in them.

Despite such recent excellent efforts by manufactures, I still have a wishlist that have yet to be fulfilled by any of them. In this post, I present my wishlist with an doctored image to match it.

• Fixed Lens - For a compact camera, I don't care about interchangeable lens actually. If I wanted to invest in new lenses, I would buy them for my dSLR. Fixed lens saves weight, saves cost and are normally better matched with the sensor. Retractable lenses with built in lens cover is most preferred. Many owners drop the detachable lens covers of the LX3 and DP1/DP2 at least once every time they use the cameras.
• Zoom - The current crop of compacts with APS-C sensors all come with prime lenses. A 24-105mm as shown in the diagram is more than good enough for me. Image Stabilized lenses would be geat. I can live with f4.0 on APS-C... ofcourse f2.8 would be better
• WA and Tele Converterd - If the manufacturers can provide good wide-angle and tele converters for expansion, that would be excellent.
  
• Compact Size - Although Micro Four Thirds are smaller than dSLR, they are still not real compact cameras. I would set the limits of compactness to the size of G11 or LX3. Having a non-detachable fixed lens will make the camera smaller.
  
• Fast Contrast Detect AF - Most people know the story of Autofocus speed of the DP1/DP2... and to a lesser extend the E-P1. Enough said. Panasonic demonstrated that this is possible with contrast detect AF.
  
• APS-C Sized Sensor - I think Four Third sensors are good but APS-C are still better. My feel is that APS-C hits that sweet spot, giving an optimum balance in sharpness, DOF, Drange, noise and cost.
• High ISO Performance - If the ISO performance is not up to scratch, then there is no use for such a large sensor. Generally APS-C should be reasonably noise free up to ISO 800 and produces acceptable noise level at 1600.
• Flash and AF Assist - PnS are for social snaps, mostly. So Flash and AF Assist light are essentials. A Flash with a guide number of 6@ISO100 should be enough.
• HD Video - It would be great if this little camera can replace (at least partially) the function of your video camera. Video AF tracking would be useful as well... and ofcourse stereo sound!
• Fast Shot to Shot time - This PnS will cost close to a dSLR. It is only fair that it should have a very good shot to shot performance to match.