> So in summary, it's a pretty, piece of junk. I am very disappointed at
> Olympus launching this camera in its current form. Ever since I saw those
> first images, I have been proclaiming that the 17mm lens is a pathetic piece
> of glass, and your review makes me believe this even more.
Actually, I disagree!!! It is not a "pretty, piece of junk", but a decent
camera that has just a few design flaws that would give me grief. I
definitely wouldn't classify it as junk. For the right price, I'd get one
in a heartbeat.
The lens, on the other hand, is. I'm appalled at the 17mm F2.8 lens and
wouldn't suggest buying it UNLESS you are satisfied with 8x10" prints as
being your standard largest print. The fact is, the CA in this lens will be
obscured in any final print smaller than that. So, we're just talking about
fringe color fringe. My 14-54 has CA too, as well as the 35-80 and the
> I also don't think you can draw any conclusions as to the "bokeh"
> characteristics of the lens in one, or five, test shots.
Typically I would agree with you, but I specifically chose shots that would
give me an indication of whether or not the bokeh is obnoxious. It passed
my test. It's better than my 14-54 at similar focal length.
> Anyway, with a 17mm f/2.8 it's almost impossible to get any form of shallow
> DOF except for close-up shots, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Well..... No. The DoF may be shallow, but the question is whether or not
the image is "flat" or does it show some dimensionality. I was satisfied
with the separation from background I was seeing.
If plastic is "built to last" (which it may very well be), perhaps,
> but recall the online demonstration of somebody
> disassembling an E-P1, showing that every last bit of the innards and
> chassis of both lens and camera was 100%
> plastic, with thin metal sheets tacked onto the camera body for "feel".
That may be, but the thin metal sheets covering the plastic aren't plastic.
The wear/appearance characteristics are different.
I think you are insulting our OM cameras by even mentioning both in
> the same sentence,
I don't. This is the first digital camera I've come across that has the
feel of an older camera and it feels so much at home. In your mind the
thought comes across that this is the way cameras are supposed to feel. You
can go from OM to E-P1 and not have to retrain your grasp.
The Zuiko name is fast losing its meaning, if this is the future of
> what we are going to see from Olympus.
I don't understand the disparity in design. The Zuiko engineers are doing
an excellent job with MOST lenses, but then they come out with a dog like
this to show that they are still human.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/