E-P1-DP1-LX3-G10 Size Comparison
click on picture to enlarge
So what do you thnk? The E-P1 comparea very well with the DP2 and is just a little thicker than the LX3. From the size point of view I am really satisfied with the E-P1!
Maybe I am a little biased, but to me the top dial is the classiest of the group here.
Marky
4 years ago |Not 100% convinced about that. Afterall, you don’t yet have the final specs on size. What’s stopping a picture from being stretched a little more or less before comparison?
Mark
4 years ago |The size of the hot shoe is standard. That’s stopping the pictures from being stretched.
J.D.
4 years ago |Very cool comparison! Thanks for posting it
.
The EP-1 seems considerably smaller than my Panasonic G1. I have updated your image to include the Panasonic G1 as well as some Olympus fourthirds DSLRs and the Canon SD800 (which is my current pocket camera). You can find the updated image here.
Best regards,
-JD
dd
4 years ago |What’s that ugly silver camera above all those lovely black cameras?
black on black with a little extra black, please!
Bu
4 years ago |Not much of a size reduction on the Panasonic, still a tad chunky, and no viewfinder or flash, shame.
Will
4 years ago |Bu, the absence of a viewfinder is one of the draws! It is almost rude to put a camera over your face when you are taking pictures today. And it is a waste of materials to include it.
Bu
4 years ago |Will, I’d prefer a smaller screen, half the size, simply to review a photo with settings displayed, using the rest of the space for the viewfinder. Screens simply consume large quantities of power, most of the time you cannot see them clearly outdoors (sunshine), and I much prefer composition with the camera to my face than aligning through a screen; less about habit, more about preference… We will just have to agree to disagree
Alex
4 years ago |I totally agree with Bu. It may seem a “waste of material” to include a viewfinder, but what I like about the e-p1 is its moderate “retro”-look. If it only had a viewfinder I’d consider buying that pretty thing. I simply don’t like holding a camera half a meter in front of my head and staring at a little monitor. A matter of taste, I guess.
panmoria
4 years ago |To remain a credible source of information you should refer to the source of where you copied those images from.
Great, difficult work by the way your site!
admin
4 years ago |You are right. Sometimes we are to busy and we forget to put the right links. Bye
forester
4 years ago |both viewfinder argument in this thread are valid. the question is who Olympus is gearing this camera to. if you’re coming up from a point and shoot, you never used a viewfinder before, so the screen is just fine. at the same time they are also use to taking a picture when and where ever they want… this include generous use of a flash. Since there is no flash, maybe this is for the pro that wants something more small and portable without compromising so much on image quality. Those people (me included) are use to a viewfinder. looking at a screen is now ackward and in low light I don’t have the extra contact point of my face to brace the camera. what the hell has Oly made… It’s just more and more sounds like this was built by comity. AND THE DESIGN!?! now this is driving me a bit crazy, so I will do a mild rant. the prototype had three design elements… small rectangle, simple flat lens, (all these are in the high end point and shoots… Panasonic Lx3, or what ever it’s called, and the DB1&2) the third design element that set the Oly apart was the grip band across the body. this is the element that sold all of us! am I right?! it spoke to a purity of the cameras we first had or our parents, a thing that told us “this is a tool. a beautiful tool. it will do what ever you tell it to.” Now it looks like they’ve taken that off and left us with a big rubber… what are we calling this? a square? more like a Black eye. I recently went to Olys website to look at there other point and shoots and the designs, on an esthetic level, are…well… terrible… just awful. I don’t trust them any more. the pictures may be nice, but I’m the one that’s got to look at this thing all the time. Panisonic on the other hand knows how to design and build a camera. maybe I’ll just have to wait… oh lord… after following all these rumors day after day to not buy… how heart breaking… sorry if I went off a bit. I do love this site.
Anton
4 years ago |I agree with what forester said. I want a digital camera that looks like my dad’s Oly or to my first Contax rangefinder. What have we done with the world of well built things we had only few decades ago? Why everything which is cheaper than Steve Balmer’s yearly bonus looks so awful?
I know the answer. Marketing guys are killing us. They make their fake researches and reports asking wrong people about wrong things and then they ruin all things which started great (just like this m4/3) .
Lu
4 years ago |@forester: I agree with you.
@Anton:
“Marketing guys are killing us. They make their fake researches and reports asking wrong people about wrong things and then they ruin all things which started great (just like this m4/3)”
nicely put!
The industry seems to have way too little courage to just make something innovative.
The design of the E-P1 really disappoints me.
There is so much room for dials there and they just stripped everything they could.
Somehow I do like reduction but it’s just way more efficient to be able to adjust aperture/exposure quickly with a dial. and ISO I would like to adjust the same way.
we don’t know about the front yet,
but Olympus seems to be worried that “regular” people won’t buy the camera if it looks to complicated to operate.
This sucks!
I mean, if the key point of such a camera is that you can chance lenses, then I can’t image so many novice users that think of switching lenses but don’t know about aperture control.
oh, i didn’t want to write so much but i also followed this site for some time now and with this one leaked picture it immediatedly got clear that what we will get is far worser than most of us probably dreamed of.
but to think positive of it: maybe it’s then mostly a matter of time and i have to wait for next year untill there’s a compact Pro targeted m4/3 camera.
by the way: i think in the combination of black and a little bit silver lies good potential for very appealing designs.
problem is, that this plastic silver look is so different than real metal reflectiveness (e.g. of matte, brushed metal),
it just looks cheap, can’t help it. it always looks cheap and ugly.
Bu
4 years ago |I do not understand the obsession with a retro design. I prefer a camera based on its looks and ease of use. Looking like something from the 60s/70s is irrelevant. What matters more is build quality – built to last opposed to built to survive 18 months till the next iteration of mass produced cheap technology.
Bu
4 years ago |Of course I should add that the only thing which looks real in this photo is the lens, the camera body looks more like an graphical rendering…
James
4 years ago |Forester/Anton/Lu, regarding the design of the proposed camera, are 100% correct. The design is very underwhelming. I hope Oly is listening (reading).
Either that or I hope those most recent photos were only meant to ‘throw us off/distract us’ and be ‘intentionally’ dissappointing only to later release on June 15th what we are all looking for, as stated in Forester/Anton/Lu’s comments below.
C’mon Oly, get with the program; we’re only asking for what you have already done before…50 years ago.
Breaking New Ground: The First Olympus micro-4/3, E-P1 « Enticing the Light
4 years ago |[...] to offer a camera with a 4/3 sensor and a micro-4/3 mount (hence, no mirror or prism assembly) that is small and will accept interchangeable lenses. Seriously? I mean, how many do they hope to sell to us men? [...]
Mike
4 years ago |@forester, Anton, Lu – I agree with you all. There is only a hope this is a preproduction model and real product will be different. Considering leaked pictures – this is the Olympus Pen heritage? I think not. And that (rumored) price for this silver-cheap-lookin’ design is just silly. Is it a metal at least? I don’t want it look expensive, but intuitive, discreet and robust are qualities what I need by a camera.
Brad
4 years ago |gee, thanks for the credit on the bottom comparison composite shot you lifted from my post on DPReview
admin
4 years ago |hi Brad! Sorry, we now added the right link to your website! Many thanks for your nice collage
Brad
4 years ago |Thank you
Andrea
4 years ago |The comparison above makes the Ep-1 look smaller than it actually is. All the other cameras have zoom lenses while the EP-1 is mounting the 28mm prime. With the 14-42mm zoom it is way bigger than the other cameras. Also, the G10 lens collapses completely into the body (Nikon too?), so the camera is more portable than the EP-1 with zoom lens (at least it is flat).