The 500D’s JPEG output is a lot closer to the EP-1’s, but even here the little Olympus has the edge when it comes to pixel-level sharpness – despite the Canon’s higher nominal resolution. There’s really not a lot in it though, and in a print you’d be unlikely to see any difference in detail at all. The 500D’s color and contrast is a little more muted, and again it’s handling the roll-off of highlights a little more gently (and again, the difference would be less at ISO 200), but as both cameras offer extensive control over image parameters this is really only relevant to those who never change a single camera setting.

Lenses used were the Olympus 50mm f/2.0 Telephoto Macro ED on the E-P1, and Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard / Medium Telephoto on the T1i / 500D / Kiss X3.

It’s clear to see that Olympus – as usual – is doing a great job with its out of camera JPEGs, and at a pixel level the E-P1 produces, sharper, crisper output than the Nikon, and the punchier default contrast, sharpening and saturation mean that the results are more immediately appealing. You’re not going to see a huge difference at normal magnifications (and turning up the Nikon’s rather conservative sharpening evens things out a little), but there’s no denying that the little Olympus is giving the D5000 a good run for its money (though again the rather harsh highlight roll-off produces slightly clipped tones at ISO 100).

Lenses used were the Olympus 50mm f/2.0 Telephoto Macro ED on the E-P1, and Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor on the D5000.

Not surprisingly given the family ties (and the fact it’s the same lens), the output is very, very similar, with color, contrast and saturation almost identical. Look a bit closer and you can see – even in a JPEG – that there are some differences. The most obvious is the EP-1’s visibly better pixel-level sharpness (thanks to a lighter anti-alias / low pass filter), though we also noticed that the highlight roll-off is a little harsher than the E-620 (something confirmed in our dynamic range testing) – it’s better at ISO 200, but still not as good as the E-620. Overall though, it’s great to see that Olympus hasn’t just delivered on its promise to match SLR quality – it’s actually surpassed it.

The lens used on both cameras was the Olympus 50mm f/2.0 Telephoto Macro ED.

Images produced by the E-P1’s 12.3 megapixel sensor are spectacular. In PCMag Labs, I use a testing suite called Imatest, which offers objective tests that gauge image quality. The results showed that the images produced by the E-P1 are extraordinarily sharp, competitive with or even better than most SLR’s in its price range. Noise was undetectable at ISO 100-1600, which is also better than more expensive cameras.

Exposure Information (EXIF Info after the Jump)
Olympus E-P1
14-42mm lens
Olympus RM-UC1 Remote Cable
100 ISO / f5.6 / Exposure 30 minutes + 30 minutes Dark Subtraction = 60 minutes total (30 minutes is the longest exposure allowed in Bulb setting.)
Manual Settings / Manual Focus
Tripod Mounted
Approximately 11:30 pm / July 22, 2009
Existing available light spilling from sodium vapor lights, moonlight, and some incandescent spillage from neighboring houses.

[...]

Also, there was interest in how much image noise and heat would be generated would be present/generated in an extremely long exposure. Now, this is an ongoing Insider process where more long exposures will be taken in the coming weeks.

The Olympus E-P1 is an interesting and innovative camera, and as a first model in what will probably be a series it has some very nice features. Build quality and finish are of an exceptionally high standard, and image quality and performance are safely superior to the vast majority of compact cameras. However the enormous cost compared to a good DSLR, and the lack of either a viewfinder or built-in flash will put many people off.

Cliff gave the E-P1 an overall rating score of 7/10.

The review also comes with several 14-42mm sample images, some can be clicked on to see the full-resolution version Test Shots – ISO Performance, Test Photos – Details and Lens Performance and Exposure Evaluation Pictures.

I was expecting the E-P1 to show similar high-ISO noise results as the Panasonic G1, but unfortunately this is not the case. While the G1 doesn’t start showing any noise until 800 ISO, the E-P1 has visible colour mottling and noise in the darker tones at its default auto setting of 200 ISO, getting progressively worse, although overall colour reproduction remains reasonably good right up to 3200 ISO. JPEG images also show some over-sharpening, but at least the compression rate is nice and low, with fine JPEG mode producing files of around 5.5MB and Raw files of around 12MB.

Metering is superb although the best overall option seems to be the centre-weighted mode as evaluative metering seems to underexpose very slightly, presumably to help preserve highlight detail. Spot metering is great for portraits where even some of my shots of the misses taken against strong backlighting are correctly exposed to the face and flattering to boot (even if I do say so myself).

[...]

True this camera will be neither fish nor fowl to some, who may not be able to see the point. However, others that may hanker for that “days of yore” feeling, evoked by the styling, design and handling will not be disappointed. As for me? Well, I was won over by the image quality and that at the end of the day is probably the single most important factor and so makes this a camera one I cannot help but recommend.

Doug gave the PEN E-P1 an overall rating score of 9/10.

Apart from the way you hold the camera, the main difference is the fact that the G1 cancels your MF assist zoom view the moment you half depress the shutter release button. We asked for this to be improved several months ago – with specific suggestions accepted as feedback by Panasonic – still waiting for an upgrade via firmware.

So, in summary, I personally find the E-P1 much easier in practical terms to shoot a lengthy series of manually focused shots… but the G1 could be improved any time now with a firmware fix (hopefully!).

The E-P1, without doubt has a clearer, crisper and more visible LCD than the G1 – it’s a fairer comparison to compare it with the G1 EVF, which is similar in visible quality for framing / focusing to the E-P1 LCD.
The advantage goes to the G1 in brilliant sunshine – where the EVF is shielded… although in this situation I’d prefer to be using an OVF.
For all other situations, I much prefer the LCD of the E-P1 – it is more ‘open’ in that you retain peripheral vision of the scene, and is fast large and clear.
I also think that framing and focusing with an LCD is dramatically less obtrusive than using an eye level viewfinder. This is really a huge benefit for social photography in public – people remain far more relaxed in the vicinity

• Part I – Body and Lens
• Part II – Focus, Video, User Interface
• Part III – Image Quality, Noise, Verdict

Test photos and sample movie clips are sprinkled throughout the review.

David’s verdict:

Overall, I’d have to say I’m impressed with how well the optics, sensor, and processor works together to deliver really good image quality without going through RAW processing and post-processing sharpening. I’m not sure if the EP-1 has a low-pass filter, but the images are quite sharp without unsharp-masking (USM) applied, but improves greatly with USM added in post-processing.

It’s quite obvious that I’m very disappointed with how clunky the focusing system is, and I really don’t understand why anyone who have used a digital camera post 2005 will find the AF to be acceptable in speed and accuracy. If this was a $400-500 camera, then I’d accept that as a compromise, but not a $900 camera as that price range already ventured into the entry-level DSLR category and I don’t think the $400+ premium is worth the entry fee to own a retro digital camera.

I think I prefer the G1 to the EP-1. I have both right now. Viewfinder, AF speed, and swivel screen makes the G1 a fun photo tool.

Micro 4/3 made me use also manual focusing a lot more, it’s very easy with the magnification screen.

The articulated LCD display on the E-620 lets you hold and shoot the camera at odd angles and orientations, say, to shoot a self portrait, or to hold the camera low to the ground, at waist level, or high up overhead.

Be aware that you’d need to engage Live view on the E-620 to take advantage of this feature. In Live View mode, the E-620 will use contrast detection AF (autofocus), which will be slower than the equivalent AF performance on the E-P1.

Read more on Olympus E-P1 vs Olympus E-620.

The E-P1 has better noise control than the E-620, and is easier to use with fast (and often cheap) legacy lenses.

Advantage: E-P1.

Read more on Olympus E-P1 vs Olympus E-620.

I’ve reproduced the post below, with minor edits for clarity …

/*** Start of post ***/

I was also seriously considering the E-P1 but finally opted for the E-620.

I ordered it last week after a brief hands-on with both E-P1 and E-620.

Here is why:

1. Focusing Speed and Moving Subject Isolation. (Human Size Subjects)

I emphasize human subjects because whenever you bring up DOF control, there is always someone ready to demonstrate great DOF control and subject isolation for very small subjects (flowers, insects, birds, etc…) something very much easier to do than on human size subjects (specially for the 4/3 format).

Actually, have you ever seen a picture of a very large subject (building, large truck, etc…) with blurred background? And the other way around, have you ever seen a picture of an insect without a blurred background?

I like the ability to produce nice (human) portraits with blurred background.

This imposes a challenge on any AF system, especially if the subject is not still and moving around such as kids playing in the backyard. (No I am not talking sports).

Actually the narrower the DOF, the more precise the AF has to be, imposing an even greater challenge to the AF system even for relatively slow moving subjects.

While the E-P1 CAF (contrast detection auto focus) is relatively fast with its native m4/3 lenses, (slower CAF than G1 or GH1 but relatively fast); I found 4 problems: None of the available native m4/3 lenses are fast enough for portraits; CAF is still very slow compared to dedicated PDAF (SLR); E-P1 CAF is even slower with the 4/3 adaptor and most ZD (Zuiko Digital) lenses, specially with the ZD 50mm F2 and finally, there are no fast primes in sight for the m4/3 lens line-up.

2. No EVF and No Articulated Screen

I also like shooting live view whenever possible but only with an articulated screen.

The E-P1 claims almost 180 degree viewing but live view is at its best with an articulated screen, once you tried it you will not want to go back to a fixed view. The E620 provides this.

3. External Flash

I do quite a bit of shooting indoors and almost always with a bounce flash, never direct. (I hate direct flash except for outdoor mild fill-in).

Forget about the cute little E-P1 flash (Olympus FL-14) for bounce, it does not swivel and even if it could, it does not have the power.

Even the FL-36R has border line amount of power for bouncing.

In reality, the E-P1 has very little appeal except for its size.

Mind you its size is a major appeal and in that respect it is an exceptional camera.

Once you start mounting decent 4/3 glass and a FL-36R, you might wish you had the E620 body to hold it together.

Hope this helps.

/*** End of post ***/

Read more on Olympus E-P1 vs Olympus E-620.

I had to do some digging on the Oly to get it into LSF (large super fine) mode (by default it does not even show up in the menus). It’s then that the .jpg sizes go up. In LF (large fine) mode they’re about 4 or 5 MB.

In a related forum post, Brian had this to say about the lens:

The absolute perfect fast lens would be the ZD 35-100mm f2 – unbelievably sharp wide open, and bokeh to die for…

I just received my EP-1 yesterday and although there are flaws, I couldn’t believe the image quality, especially the color and sharpness which comes very close to my Canon DSLR, much much better than the G10.

Refer to DPReview’s comparison.

Weight (inc. batteries)
E-620: 515 g (18.2 oz)
E-P1: 355 g (12.5 oz)

Dimensions
E-620: 130 x 94 x 60 mm (5.1 x 3.7 x 2.4 in)
E-P1: 121 x 70 x 36 mm (4.8 x 2.8 x 1.4 in)

Simply put, the E-P1 is smaller and lighter than the E-620.

Read more on Olympus E-P1 vs Olympus E-620.

The E-620 has a phase detection autofocus system, while the E-P1 has a contrast detection AF.

This results in the E-620 having a more responsive AF performance that’s suited for quicker focus acquisition and lock.

Coupled with the availability of an optical viewfinder on the E-620 DSLR (none on the E-P1), this makes the E-620 the preferred equipment for such photography. Wikipedia states:

DSLRs are often preferred by professional still photographers because they allow an accurate preview of framing close to the moment of exposure …

Read more on the differences between phase and contrast detection AF, and on Olympus E-P1 vs Olympus E-620.

The E-P1 does not have an internal / pop-up flash.

Read more on Olympus E-P1 vs Olympus E-620.

Yes, on the GH1 you have manual control over shutter and aperature while in video mode. On the E-P1 you cannot.

Because of the small size of the E-P1, M. Zuiko lenses and the FL-14 flash, the Micro Four Thirds system is ideal for taking photos during events and family outings when you don’t want to carry a large/heavy camera bag. It’s great for snap shooting with Intelligent Auto mode but equally suitable for serious photography using any of the many creative features and overrides.

Peter has also provided a sample photo of “Zoltan the Adequate” where the FL-14 was as a fill flash. Peter says:

While the E-P1 accepts the full-size Olympus flash units, the FL-14 is much more compact and adequately powerful for use with the short focal length lenses. For most testing, I used it outdoors to provide fill-lighting under harsh illumination or in deeply shaded locations.

The large 12-60mm f/2.8-4 SWD zoom worked perfectly with the compact E-P1 (using the MMF-1 adapter) as did the huge 50-200mm (100-400mm equivalent) f/2.8-3.5 SWD zoom. Autofocus was a tad slower with the larger lenses, particularly with the telephoto, but owners of an Olympus DSLR system should still appreciate the E-P1 as a second camera.

Frankly, the E-P1 produced even better JPEG quality than the E-620, thanks to the newer processor and improved algorithms.

The lenses are:

1. Olympus M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 collapsible kit zoom.
2. Olympus 4/3rds 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens (requires Olympus MMF-1 Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds Adapter).
3. Voigtlander Nokton Classic (35mm, f1.4) Leica M mount (requires VM Leica M to micro 4/3rds adaptor).

Manually focusing is not at all a problem for me. I was able to manually focus in bright sunlight with no problems using the 7x magnification feature. I move the focus box around to where I need it on the screen, hit the OK button to magnify to 7x and NAIL the focus every time.

nboyer also says that the image quality on the E-P1 is better than what he gets from the Olympus E-3.

With the ability to capture beautiful photos, a host of creative still and video options, pleasing HD video quality, and various accessory options, the E-P1 is one well-rounded digital camera. With an MSRP of US$799.99 as tested, the E-P1 isn’t cheap. However, for the level of sophistication, easy or use, and the level of features and performance you are receiving, I feel it still offers a great value.

There’s also a gallery of full-resolution sample images with a nice variety of shots (taken with the M.Zuiko 14-42mm Micro Four Thirds lens) for you to assess the image quality of the PEN E-P1 with. On that same page, you’ll find three sample .AVI video clips, and four pictures taken with the new Olympus FL-14 flash.

1. Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3
2. Canon PowerShot SX1 IS
3. Canon Powershot SD780 IS Digital ELPH / Canon Digital IXUS 100 IS
4. Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 / DMC-TZ7
5. Olympus PEN E-P1
6. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T900

The article has links to more comprehensive reviews for each camera.

Really this camera has a large appeal to all the parties in my house, and I can say that is a first. I may have to buy 2 or 3 of these cameras to keep everyone happy. So what is it that truly makes it a camera for everyone? In my opinion it boils down to 5 important factors and in no particular order: Performance, Size, Price, Options and Technologies.