File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Lol, where is your sigma DP1 now
>> Anonymous
The Sigma DP1 is intended for entirely different applications. It's a leaf-shuttered camera and that's an SLR, and the Sigma DP1 is smaller.

>4.3 x 2.4 x 1.2 in
>5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 in

The only thing wrong with the DP1 is that the lens is too short.
>> Anonymous
A pancake lens is fine too.
>> Anonymous
This is exactly the right thing to do for Olympus. Go for the mini-SLR format with nice pancake lenses. It can compete in its own niche.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
That stubby little lens is boner-inducing. About time the DSLR world started seeing this sort of thing.
>> Anonymous
I wonder what Pentax is thinking. They have the 40/2.8, which is even smaller than this Olympus pancake, yet their cameras keep getting fatter and heavier with each generation.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
It's like digital PEN F, fuck yeah
>> heman
what advantages does such a pancake lens have?

just less glass?
ty
>> Anonymous
>>135466
It's small, light and cute.

Also, almost every pancake lens to date was very good optically, so people subconsciously associate "pancake" with "good". We'll see how the Olympus lens performs, but there's no reason to suspect it will be an exception to this.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>135470
This is the only "bad" pancake I know. But it's hard to fault it when it sells for the price of a body cap...

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-410Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Color Filter Array Pattern702Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:05 14:30:03Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias-0.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
Small dslr with 50mm equivalent f/2.8 prime lens. Hell yes! I see Olympus in whole new light now.
>> Anonymous
>>135477
Hell yes indeed! Now I will have the ultimate pancakefag kit: E-410, 40/2 Voigtlaender for portraits and 25/2.8 Olympus for everything else.
>> Anonymous
I came
>> Anonymous
It's cute, I want it! But I couldn't justify spending $700 on this, when I already have a lovely D70s.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
lol, someone already shooped that pancake onto a E-510

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:03:05 12:48:50Image Width600Image Height365
>> Anonymous
Holy fuck this is making me want to buy into the failure that is 4/3rds.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Is this an accurate depiction of today's events?
>> Anonymous
Someone should put this near D40, my friend has one and it's already damn tiny.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>135512
>> Anonymous
I want to see this lens on a Panasonic L-1 hmm that would be nice.

Speaking of which, whats the L-1 comparible to in terms of image quality? I'm thinking of buying a dslr, but i would prefer something that doesn't look like a SLR. Something more inconspicuous ...i can't afford a epson or m8 :(

However if the 4/3rds sensor is too limiting fuck that i'll have to make do.

So hows the sensor compare to a enttry level pentax / canon / nikon?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>135513
Nikon looks way fatter though (about half inch thicker at the mount due to difference in flange focal distance, plus right hand grip)
>> Anonymous
>>135515
L-1 is about half a stop more noisy compared to your usual APS-C camera. But that isn't the main problem with it: L1 is quite an ergonomic nightmare - very dark viewfinder, lack of grip, extremely poor button placement, etc. Plus it's fucking expensive for no reason (unless you get it used without the lens).
>> Anonymous
>>135456
You've never seen a pancake lens before?

>>135516
The D40 is larger but you can actually hold the damn thing, which is fucking impossible to do with the E-410.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I'm getting the Ricoh GR Digital II in a few weeks, so I'm totally pumped.
>> Anonymous
Its about fucking time someone did this. I've been waiting for pentax to do this for a long time since they actually have a good selection of pancakes. So hopefully they'll ninja this idea, though they've probably have something similar in the works.
>> Anonymous
>>135522
>you can actually hold the damn thing, which is fucking impossible to do with the E-410.
You're telling ME? It surely depends on the size of your hands, but I've got no problems holding it with small lenses. After all, people have been shooting with similarly shaped film cameras for like fifty years.
>> Anonymous
>>135524
Well, at least ricoh has decent viewfinder available.
>> Anonymous
>>135527
...for 150 bucks. D:
>> Anonymous
ITT, pentaxfags and olympusfags unite

massive fail
>> Anonymous
>>135566
10bux says you can't point out the pentaxfags, lol
>> Anonymous
>>135572
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>135580
WRONG!
>> Anonymous
The Canon PowerShot G9 is better than your piece of shit camera.

http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com/2008/03/canon-g9-vs-oly.html
>> Anonymous
>>135587
we already had this thread yesterday
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
HAHAHAHAHAHA, that's just classic

You should do a test and prove that faggot on DPR wrong.

He keeps posting about how great his G9 is compared to his SLR.

"I think the E-500 is just outclassed by a camera that has 50% more megapixels. I've shattered the myth that adding megapixels to small sensor cameras is a waste."
>> Anonymous
>>135604
No way in hell I'm going to DPR forums just to prove some idiot wrong. Plus he actually does have a point - the G9 is indeed better for shooting boring buildings in daylight.
>> Anonymous
sure it helps to have the greater dof and is

but every faggot on there is praising him for doing their g9 justice
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Returning back to the original topic

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution87 dpiVertical Resolution87 dpiImage Created2008:03:05 10:22:26Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width445Image Height687
>> Anonymous
>>135526
Yeah, I certainly COULD continue to shoot with small and uncomfortable SLRs, but why would anyone consider to do so with the wealth of alternatives that are available?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>135632
I'd prefer to see this compared with, say, a PowerShot A-series or a normal SLR. I don't have a good intuitive feel for the size of the DP1.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>135638
Well, I can offer only an approximation of E-420 with 25/2.8, but here it is
>> Anonymous
>>135515

Get a DSLR, a Sigma DP1, a small-sensor camera, or a film rangefinder. Besides everything already said, it's an SLR. Even small SLRs stick out a bit. Put up with that or go for another option with more image noise. Or film with about the same amount of grain.

>>135524

Are you sure about that? It's well-made, but it's got a twelve second shot-to-shot time shooting in raw mode. I'd suggest Panasonic's Lumix line- the lenses are great and the FZ8 I own handles well- or, for as much as it's praised by idiots, a Powershot G-series. Newer ones have better sensors; older ones have faster lenses. You'll lose the external finder, though.

>>135638

It is 5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 inches. Your Rebel XTi 5 x 3.7 x 2.6 inches.

The smallness of this camera is mostly hype. The pancake lens is good and interesting news, but the body is not the special thing Olympus is putting it up as at all.
>> Anonymous
>>135649
how do i pancaked e410?
>> Anonymous
There has ALWAYS been a market for small cameras like this, even for professional use.

I've heard many old hands, both professional and hobbyists, say that they lament the smaller quality film cameras not being matched by similarly smaller sized digital cameras. DSLR or digital rangefinders in neat packages like this are very welcome for some.

Not just because they have "tiny hands" or some bullshit either. Small cameras have their place, just as the "XBOX HUEG" ones do too.
>> Anonymous
>>135929

newsflash, it's not that small
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>135936
She's just telling you that to spare your feelings.

Wait, what were we talking about again?
>> Anonymous
>>135944

I'm pretty sure it had something to do with penises and measuring them.
>> Anonymous
>>135929
This camera is not that much smaller than a Rebel. It's actually larger in some dimensions. Not that that matters. Leica M's are actually about the size of the Rebel. There's a certain size that's small enough for most everything, and these cameras are at it.

The problem is that, with the exception of the Leica M, they all suck as cameras. Poor controls and viewfinders. Someone needs to make an SLR with a bright, 100% viewfinder with two control dials in this size, or even better a camera with a decent EVF that's thinner and has a quieter shutter.
>> Anonymous
Man, those Olympus SLRs are uncomfortable as fuck to hold. They got those stupid metal strap holder things on the sides that just dig into your fingers. Shit sucks.
>> Anonymous
Still no framelines in viewfinder for 3:2 and square format? Hope they soon realize that noooone wants their shitty 4:3 images and add those framelines.
>> Anonymous
>>135966
your fingers must be fat as hell...
>> Anonymous
>>135986
People who shoot 645 would like a word with you.

(I like wider aspect ratios, too; I'd actually like to see a DSLR with a chip as wide as a full-frame sensor but the height of an APS-C one. But there's plenty of people who dig 4:3.)