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.
I also don't think you can draw any conclusions as to the "bokeh"
characteristics of the lens in
one, or five, test shots. 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.
Again, I compare it to the 35mm f/2.8 lens on a Minox GT, which is
less than half the size of the
E-P1's 17mm lens, and has no distortion, and no visible chromatic
aberration (that I've ever seen in
my shots, in anyway). And it's from 1974!
Also, I have to address your one comment:
> But it is a very solid camera with a metal body that gives you the
> sense that this camera really is something special and is built to
> last.
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".
I think you are insulting our OM cameras by even mentioning both in
the same sentence, I think the E-P1
at this stage is only a contender with some of the better Four Thirds
glass on it (and this does not include the
25mm f/2.8, which by no means compare to just about any 50mm lens I've
seen for any system).
The Zuiko name is fast losing its meaning, if this is the future of
what we are going to see from Olympus.
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|