[Rumor FT5] New Pen revolution

[ayuready]

actually,

the EPL line vs the EP line, what the main different?

I am a relatively new M4/3 adopted. To me seems like main difference is body constructions?

 

[Oly5050]

actually,

the EPL line vs the EP line, what the main different?

I am a relatively new M4/3 adopted. To me seems like main difference is body constructions?

Big difference. EP is more prosumer whereas EPL is more consumer. EPL stands for EP lite. EPM for mini. EP has got all the bells and whistles like twin dials, touch screen, better LCD, flash etc etc. EP is also bigger and heavier. EPL is the lite version so has no inbuilt flash, single dial, smaller and more compact, no touch screen etc. To me, the main thing is size and weight and build quality.

 

[wonglp]

I honestly hope they'll at least include a option for users to manually select ISO100 although the base ISO may be ISO200. I'll jump for joy if there's an option for ISO50!

Hmm, same here, I would like to have it too for long exposures, it's not really the high iso I'm targeting. Of course there would be many who would need hi iso performance. Rather disappointed to have iso200 on em5. An option of 100 would be good, 50 abit too much to ask haha...only the FF i have seen with it.

 

[nissanmanic]

Haha. Like tat u better buy leica.

Seriously, the reason why base is 200 is bec they hv to compromise to get good high iso performance which everyone else is fixated upon and will judge how good a camera is based on it. No one ever judges a camera based on how they perform at iso 100 or 200.

wouldn't mind! haha. if i don't have to work my ass off for one that is!

but honestly, sure, improving high iso performance may be the way to go for sensor advancement given the current consumer demand, but i don't see why they have to axe iso100. i could be wrong about this but isn't iso100 easier to implement than iso25600? i think for iso performance wise, you can still have improved high iso performance, higher iso ceiling but still have the option for lower sensitivities when you want to use it.

I rather they further improve noise control at high iso so that u wun think twice about setting iso upper limit to 6400

well, no one's going to dispute that, including me. high iso performance is always good to have and a very very good marketing tool. well, if you look at it this way, if high iso performance is increased, one can usually imply better performance at lower sensitivities, hence as mentioned by oly5050, no one's talking about low iso performance. for me it's a matter of just including the option of iso100, although better low iso performance would definitely be most welcomed.

i do long exposures and sometimes shoot at shutter speeds of 120s at iso100, i can still see long exposure noise with noise reduction turned on. i can't imagine that things will be better for an exposure of 120s at iso 200.

if they're going to pitch M4/3s to enthusiasts, then i think it's only right they have as many options available, especially for something as basic as iso100. but that's my point of view, haha.

 

[MichaelLee]

Oh dear....sounds exciting...but....maybe not. Well, after E-M5, dun really know what it could be.

make it simple, there are definately demand for a PEN that has no EVF and come cheaper (body for SGD999) Make it a successor to EP3 with the new sensor..that shall be good.

 

[ageha]

make it simple, there are definately demand for a PEN that has no EVF and come cheaper (body for SGD999) Make it a successor to EP3 with the new sensor..that shall be good.

Yup, doubt they axe the E-P line. The more expensive the better for Olympus.

 

[theITguy]

wouldn't mind! haha. if i don't have to work my ass off for one that is!

but honestly, sure, improving high iso performance may be the way to go for sensor advancement given the current consumer demand, but i don't see why they have to axe iso100. i could be wrong about this but isn't iso100 easier to implement than iso25600? i think for iso performance wise, you can still have improved high iso performance, higher iso ceiling but still have the option for lower sensitivities when you want to use it.



well, no one's going to dispute that, including me. high iso performance is always good to have and a very very good marketing tool. well, if you look at it this way, if high iso performance is increased, one can usually imply better performance at lower sensitivities, hence as mentioned by oly5050, no one's talking about low iso performance. for me it's a matter of just including the option of iso100, although better low iso performance would definitely be most welcomed.

i do long exposures and sometimes shoot at shutter speeds of 120s at iso100, i can still see long exposure noise with noise reduction turned on. i can't imagine that things will be better for an exposure of 120s at iso 200.

if they're going to pitch M4/3s to enthusiasts, then i think it's only right they have as many options available, especially for something as basic as iso100. but that's my point of view, haha.

It is easier to bring along a 1x or 2x or 3x ND filter to shoot than to sacrifice the higher performance ISO speed.

 

[nissanmanic]

It is easier to bring along a 1x or 2x or 3x ND filter to shoot than to sacrifice the higher performance ISO speed.

haha i think you've got me wrong, what i'm referring to is the LE noise. if LE noise is apparent at iso100 with dark frame subtraction, it's going to be more apparent at iso 200 given the same exposure time. neither am i saying that they should sacrifice performance at higher iso speeds, but saying that they should allow the user the option for iso100.

 

[bousozoku]

I honestly hope they'll at least include a option for users to manually select ISO100 although the base ISO may be ISO200. I'll jump for joy if there's an option for ISO50!

Is that because the fastest shutter speed is only 1/4000 and you'd like to compensate for that somehow or that you believe the noise will be improved under ISO 200?

 

[nissanmanic]

Is that because the fastest shutter speed is only 1/4000 and you'd like to compensate for that somehow or that you believe the noise will be improved under ISO 200?

for me it has mainly got to do with long exposure noise, that's if my assumption/belief that a LE shot at a lower ISO will have less LE noise compared to a higher ISO is correct.

for people who use bright primes, that could be a way to compensate for the max shutter speed without having to use NDs, like you've pointed out. (;

 

[bousozoku]

for me it has mainly got to do with long exposure noise, that's if my assumption/belief that a LE shot at a lower ISO will have less LE noise compared to a higher ISO is correct.

for people who use bright primes, that could be a way to compensate for the max shutter speed without having to use NDs, like you've pointed out. (;

I'm surprised that none of the camera makers have used adjacent pixel examination during long exposures to subtract noise. It may be too much for their CPUs to handle, but it should be a possibility to produce cleaner images.