The future is mirrorless

There, I said it. The future of interchangeable lens cameras is mirrorless.

Olympus E-P1 camera

Let’s see why.

The SLR design date back from the film days. A design that allow precise framing using through the lens viewfinder, but that has a somewhat complex mechanical design, increasing cost and size. Today, the film being replaced by an electronic sensor, an instant image can be obtained through the lens. An electronic viewfinder will also be through the lens, with all the advantage of the SLR design, and more. Without the need for that complex and bulky mirror box, the camera can be designed to be more compact.

There are a few reasons why DLSR exists and are still somewhat the de-facto design: trade offs.

The first trade off is that you have to change the lens mount to benefit from a more compact design. This made moving from the older film camera to the digital one is not as easy unless you threw away your investments in glass. This was a perfectly valid point in the last decade, and since the move has happened, the problem persists, even for those that started with a DSLR.

The second trade off is the performance of the autofocus system. DSLR use a phase detection system with sensor located in the mirror box. Something that appear to be problematic on a mirrorless camera, and phase detection AF is more performant than the contrast detection system commonly used by mirrorless cameras. Manufacturers have worked out technology to improve the situation a lot. A small category of users that needs it really needs it still, but we are getting there.

But it is time to make the jump.

The market

Currently only 4 vendors still offer DSLR. Canon, Nikon, Ricoh-Pentax and Leica. Sony hasn’t released a DSLR in a while and given their α lineup (mirrorless), I don’t think they will, Olympus has made the switch to M4/3 a while ago already, Panasonic has been mirrorless only as well also with the M4/3 system, Leica is mostly betting on mirrorless and Fujifilm has been kicking it with the X- series, improving at each generation and the GFX medium format.

In August Canon announced the EOS R, their full frame mirrorless system, while they have a EOS M series that feature an APS-C sensor. They just announced new lenses for that system, so it might stay for a little while. And it is much more affordable as well.

Weeks prior to that, Nikon had just announced the Nikon Z, their full frame mirrorless system, after discontinuing the Nikon 1 which wasn’t really a sensible proposal with its miniature sensor.

As for Ricoh-Pentax life is tough. The Pentax K 01 wasn’t really a success, nor was the Pentax Q that disappeared as quickly as it appeared. And now that it is Photokina, it doesn’t seem that Ricoh had anything to announce in that product line.

If anything, the growth on the market for Sony as proven that mirrorless full frame can be a viable option. Sony is clearly the market leader for full frame and Canon, Nikon and Panasonic wants to try to catch up.

Is full frame the future? I don’t think it will be the only but it will be dominant. Panasonic just announced a full frame mirrorless, sharing the lens mount with the Leica SL, while still continuing with the M4/3, and Sigma who barely has presence in the camera body market has announced they were developing a body for the L-mount. I’m confident that Fujifilm can continue with the X-series without moving away from APS-C, with a more compact system that nails the image quality including in low light, at a price lower than the current full frame lineup. Sony will probably keep some of their APS-C mirrorless until they can bring down the price of the α series down enough.

The medium format has a future too for demanding users, but the price is steep. For example, the Fujifilm GFX 50, a “medium” format sensor mirrorless starts at about US$5,000.

The future

I predict that within 5 years, neither Canon nor Nikon will be pushing DSLR, except maybe in a few niche segments like top of the line sports. The Leica S might survive as Leica just announced the S3 just 10 years after the previous iteration but this camera is already in a very niche segment given it’s price. And some of the manufacturers won’t be left unscathed.

SLR mount for a mirrorless, does it make sense?

There is a lot of chatter lately about Canon and Nikon tardiness in the mirrorless world. On one side, Canon seeked feedback from their user about what they want in a pro mirrorless camera. On the other side, Nikon is announcing a full frame mirrorless camera with a new lens mount dubbed “Z-mount”. In both sides there is one topic that seems to come back into the discussion: the camera should be directly compatible with the SLR mount (EF for Canon, F for Nikon). While it is clearly understandable why users would want that, let’s explain on why it is not a good idea, and why the mount adapter is the best compromise — compromise that Canon made for the EOS-M.

A lens mount is defined by a certain number of attributes ; flange distance is the one that matters here.

The flange distance or register distance is the distance between the lens mount ring on the camera body and the focal plane (the surface of the sensor or the film). It is a fixed dimension for the lens mount.

On an SLR camera, you have the mirror box between the lens and the sensor, defining a minimum flange distance, while a mirrorless doesn’t have the mirror box. This is why in general a mirrorless camera has a much shorter flange distance even with a similar sensor size.

Flange Focal Length (2 types camera)
Flange on a SLR camera (top) and mirrorless camera (bottom). By Shigeru23 (Own work) licensed under GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

For example, Sony E-Mount is 18mm while Sony A-Mount (former Minolta SLR) is 44.5mm, as Canon EF-M is 18mm while Canon EF and EF-S are 44mm. In both cases the flange on SLR mount is more than twice as large as on the mirrorless.

What would a DSLR mount do on a mirrorless system? It would increase the thickness of the body in way that the camera wouldn’t be that much more compact. The real example is Pentax mirrorless Pentax K-01. With a flange distance of 45.46mm for the K-Mount, the camera is bulkier than it should with a thickness (depth) of 59mm. In comparison, the Canon EOS-M100 is 35mm thick (deep) as it uses the EF-M mount, designed for mirrorless.

That’s why using a DSLR mount for a mirrorless system, meant to be more compact, isn’t a good design choice. Offering an adapter that support all the features of their DSLR mount is, on the other hand, the best compromise that a camera maker can do, almost equivalent to the practicality of using native mount, but the advantage of the size: the extra bulk only comes if you need it.

Dear Canon

Dear Canon,

You just announced the 6D MkII to update the aging 6D. Nice. Flip screen, dual pixel AF (which mean fast auto-focus in live view mode including video), you got in with the programme. No 4K video, WHAT?

When you released the 5D MkII in 2009, you put the video mode and led the industry and it was so good that it was used to film major TV features. You improved it and spread it through the whole range of EOS DSLR including the entry level Rebels. The 80D is one of YouTube content producers favourite, with a great auto-focus, the flip screen, while still only 1080p.

I know the 6D MkII is a camera for photographers and is definitely not targeted at those that make a living out if it, no doubt about that. But not differently than the 80D. So why not offering 4K for video? I’m sure you are eager to sell one of these EOS Cinema, or more 5D MkIV or 1D that are so much more expensive, but people might actually go with the similarly priced Sony, that has adapters for EF lenses and do 4K. You should disrupt yourself, otherwise you will be disrupted. You could have a very attractive camera for video creators that can’t really or don’t really need an EOS Cinema.

Also let’s talk about the EOS-M or the G series (the G7X MkII in particular), I really hope you next iteration will have 4K. Even Nikon has a 4K compact camera in the same range of the G7X MkII, for less money. Sony has the RX100M5. Even the M4 and its problem did 4K.

And I’ll be honest, had you put 4K on the 6D MkII, you’d have my pre-order right here. Instead maybe I’ll stick to Fuji X series.

Ode to the iPhone

“The best camera is the one you have with you” — Chase Jarvis

For a long time I disliked point and shoot cameras in the era of film. Often clunky to use, poor performance or quality, this dislike trumped the reason to have them: not missing a shot. I probably missed a lot. Still, I bought an Olympus mju-2 (aka Stylus Epic) to have something in my pocket. This is a film camera, one that was the best compromise, one I could shoot slide film with, and that had a fast prime sharp 35mm f2.8 lens. This was before cell-phone had cameras.

Cell-phone cameras where horrible for a while. My Motorola clamshell phone camera was awful. This was before the original iPhone, which was the first to actually gather interest as being, at the time, decent. I didn’t get one.

In 2010, I got a Nexus One, liked the phone as a communication device, had a camera with nothing to rave about. I started using Instagram which had been released for Android. Then in 2012, I got a Samsung Galaxy Note (long story short, I won it): better camera, hated the phablet and the software. Still using Instagram. Later, in late 2013, I upgraded to the Nexus 4. Better camera, using it more, still posting Instagram. But it didn’t come close to the older 2012 iPhone 4S that my partner used. Each time I used it I fell it was so much nicer.

Taken with the Nexus 4, processed in Instagram:
Last Sunday. Habitat 67.

Later on, I got a Sony Xperia Z3c. I had a nice camera, but due to the reason I had this device I didn’t have the proper software than made the camera better. Distortion, lesser ISO performance, this made it unsatisfying, even if as is it was better than the Nexus 4.

As you can see the Sony Xperia Z3c camera has a visible pincushion:
In Montreal you have wine cellars in the subway.

Looking for a proper replacement communication device, and not considering an Android that wasn’t Google, I got an iPhone SE. It was cheaper than the Google flagship Pixel.

Why do I love it?

Like any other phone, I always have it on me. It is in my pocket, on my desk, etc. This camera, has great software: it is pleasant to use and generate good quality pictures. Better than any previous phones I have had. Quality and user experience is what make it shine ; it is a camera that is more reactive.

In 2016 I spend most of the year, commuting to work, not carrying a camera but my phone. I took few pictures with it, despite plenty of opportunities.

In April 2017, I went for two weeks to Cologne in Germany. I did lug my photo back pack with the Fuji X-Pro1 and three lenses. I ended up using the iPhone mostly to take snaps, when previously I would have used the bigger camera, I even used it to take some moves and timelapses. I used the Fuji on a few walkabout and even then I used the iPhone as a second camera, more often than before. And I felt that my yield of keepers is higher with this phone than ever. And I end up using Instagram more.

Head down

This iPhone beats hand down lots of compact cameras: quality, reactivity, lens.

Same subject, day, night. iPhone SE processed in Instagram:
To the platforms
To platform 4

Making movies

Today every camera can do movies. 1080p is the “standard”, 4k is one that few reach. Canon needs expensive DSLR for that. But the iPhone, it can do it. I’ll be honest, I don’t feel the need for 4k, but two things: 4k is where things are at right now, and 4k allow zooming for a 1080p output, which is what most people will target anyway.

The iPhone has incredible quality for a small camera. It can do slo-mo, time lapse, shoot 1080p at either 30 or 60fps, 4k at 30fps, slo-mo 1080p at 120fps, 240fps if you go down to 720p. In short, you have choice. Even with the front facing camera, which makes it practical for vlogging.

Last but not least, it comes with iMovie. “Shot, edited and upoaded on iPhone”. That’s right you have all the workflow in one device.

This is not to say an Android phone could be as good. Just that so far the one I had weren’t and, and as a communication device they get
obsoleted too quickly. Even the Pixel, that dollar for dollar, cost as much as an iPhone 7.

Smartphone have clearly evolved as a photographic and movie making tool. They are capable of doing things no one expected a few years ago. And they are clearly eating into the compact camera market.

Needle in the sky

And now the conclusion

The iPhone SE really made me tilt over using the smartphone as a photographic tool more often. I felt successfully creative with it. Not that it is a big innovation, it is just that as a whole it works better. Gear doesn’t make the photographer, but gear that you are not comfortable with (that frustrate your) is ultimately hindering your process. Ultimately I will not abandon my other cameras, but I’ll be more inclined to leave it home for circumstances where I believe the iPhone will work.

Losing the X-Pro1 viewfinder eyepiece

After over 5 years I finally lost the X-Pro1 viewfinder eyepiece that has often been loose (pun intended). I have dropped it a few times in the previous years, including in the first weeks of use. Not sure when this happened but I found out when I was in Cologne, Germany in February. While this doesn’t prevent from using the camera, I think I do need to replace it.

X-Pro1 viewfinder
X-Pro1 viewfinder missing the eyepiece.

It seems to be a recurring problem amongst X-Pro1 shooters: link, link,

I’m trying to locate a proper Fujifilm replacement, which is part # FZ09210-100. Digging up the forum I get various stories, with a common point: contact Fujifilm. Some say “you have to send the camera in”, some say they got a replacement in the mail (no mention of cost though, but I’m not expecting it to be free since the camera is no longer covered by the warranty).

Apparently a 19mm eye piece for a Nikon F3 works fine and these go for a reasonable price. I’m ok with that.

On a side note, I lost the flash PC sync cover eons ago and back then it was CAD$7 + shipping for a replacement from Fujifilm. You can find replacements on ebay quite inexpensively.

I’ll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, with the missing eyepiece, here is the status of the camera:

Fujifilm X-Pro1 camera
My X-Pro1 setup in February 2017 – Flickr

My X-Pro1 is back

As I mentioned back last April, my X-Pro1 failed badly.

It cost me over CAD$600 but I got it back from Fujifilm a week or so after. Kudos to Fujifilm service. At the same time they cleaned up the camera and replaced the back screen glass that had a scratch as well as some of the body.

But 2016 hasn’t been very photographic for me as I haven’t really taken a lot of pictures. I used to carry my camera bag to work, and this year I didn’t. Nor did I post here.

Bye bye X-Pro1

Last Saturday as I was wandering around in a park in Laval, QC (northern suburb of Montréal) my X-Pro1 decided to stop working, shutter stuck closed — the camera turn on but doesn’t respond to anything ; it will respond to the firmware flash mode triggered by [DISP] + power on. A quick search lead to other people with the same problem and with a a claim of a $500~$800 (USD?) servicing cost. When a X-Pro2 cost CAD$2000, it might be a no-brainer.

The camera is now in the shop, in the hands of Fujifilm Canada technicians, and I should know soon.

In the mean time, back to shooting with the Canon 5DMkII. It is even more sad that my 2005 Canon 20D still work.

Sony Alpha 7

The Sony Alpha 7 and A7R have just been announced and feature a full frame interchangeable lens mirror-less camera for around $2000. This niche was held so far by the Leica M at a much higher price point. Unlike the Leica, this is not a range finder.

Brian Smith has a field test that show what we can expect: an IQ Sony style (pun intended), ie good.

I believe that for a modern design system, “full frame” is possibly overkill, and Fuji has shown us that you can get top notch IQ with an APS-C sized sensor. Most DSLR systems, like Canon EOS, Nikon, Sony or even Pentax were designed for 135 film, as well as their lens, hence the “full frame” bias. This is also why I considered the RX-1 overpriced and overspeced, even though some people have found it worth it ; and with a top image quality as well. At $2000 body only the A7 can even be cheaper than the RX-1.

But this Sony is an E-mount (like on the Nex), with a short flange distance, that allow an easy adaptation of older lenses via easily available mount adpaters, including M-mount. This is probably why this camera has a lead off the m4/3 or even the Fuji. You get the real deal, the same field of view on your older lenses as they were designed. The only other alternative today is the Leica M type 240, which is both much more expensive (several time the price), hard to come by, and for which adapted lenses require either the use or the rear LCD or the external EVF.

I do believe that the A7 and A7R will find their way in the hands of people that have a large collection of lenses to adapt, and we can be largely confident that the image quality will continue to meet the expectations. Sony has really shown leadership on a market that was dominated by Olympus and Panasonic, and show that Nikon and Canon have to worry given their disappointing incursion into mirror-less land.

Olympus E-M5 hands on presentation

I just came back from a presentation of the Olympus E-M5 at Lens & Shutter. This was quite exclusive as the Olympus representative was in Vancouver with the only camera in Canada, showing us, most of the crowd being from the Vancouver Four-Third Flickr group, the new OM-D camera the Olympus E-M5.

I would like to thank Eric for alerting us, Mike from Lens & Shutter, and Yannick from Olympus Americas for giving us the opportunity to see the camera in real life.

The size

This has already been established, and will be repeated: the Olympus E-M5 isn’t much bigger than an E-P2. With the viewfinder, the E-P2 is actually a bit taller. Here is the comparison (unfortunately kinda out of focus :-/), both with the 45mm f1.8:

E-P2 vs E-M5


The pre-production model passed around. It is hard to say in so little time, but my first impression is good. The camera handles well, the front dial is accessible, the back one less. The EVF is clear and the camera respond well to the autofocus.

Olympus E-M5 (back)

The default grip works fine, better than the E-P1 in my opinion. The optional grip that will come later has the option to remove the extra battery pack if not needed provide a better grip without too much extra volume. In both pictures the external flash was missing. Also another funny thing is that despite being unnecessary, the EVF from the Olympus Pens do indeed work on the E-M5. Proof that the accessory port is exactly identical.

As the camera was a pre-release model, we were not allowed to get images, so I won’t be able to talk about image quality. Fair enough, pixel peepers will tell us in a bit.

The price will be $999 for the body only, available end of March or early April in Canada at first camera store and not in big box stores.

Bottom line

I could be convinced to get one. I don’t really see how the Olympus Pen position themselves now beside a lower price point. Or maybe that’s the differentiator. In both case it seems to be obvious that the m4/3 system will be growing. To be continued.

Olympus E-P1, a dive into Micro Four-Third

I wanted a more compact camera than my DSLR but still with the versatility. The Micro Fourth-Third system (m4/3) was presenting the best compromise, so in November 2010 I bought an Olympus E-P1.

The Micro Four-Third system

m4/3 is a camera system developed by Olympus and Panasonic for a mirror-less through-the-lens digital camera. It is an evolution of the Four-Third system that included a mirror for the viewfinder. By design m4/3 is more compact as it remove that mirror box to use substitute the reflex viewfinder with an EVF. The system standard does not seem to be as “open” as the previous, but it does not really change anything as only Olympus and Panasonic are making cameras, like in Four-Third: the Leica Digilux 3 was just a rebadged Panasonic and Kodak never did anything.

Olympus is very serious about it now that they just announced the OM-D line, starting with the Olympus E-M5, the latest in the m4/3 system, meant to be the spiritual successor of their OM film SLR camera series.

The Olympus E-P1

The Olympus E-P1 or Pen Digital is the first camera Olympus released for m4/3. With a design deliberately retro, it features a small package with a LCD screen in lieu of a viewfinder, interchangeable lenses, no flash (but a hot shoe) and in-body image stabilization. It features a 12 Megapixels sensor with a crop factor of x2, which is quite enough for virtually everything.

Olympus E-P1 camera

I compared it to the E-P2 and the Panasonic GF1. The E-P2 offered the same as an E-P1 with the addition of an accessory port that allow connecting an EVF, with a higher price. The Panasonic GF1 does not have the IS but allowed and EVF. And it was supposedly a bit faster (more on that later). In the end I chose the E-P1. I love the IS and I miss a viewfinder.

In term of ergonomics, the camera has a rotating selector to select the shooting mode (PSAM, movie and misc), thumb roller to set the aperture or speed depending on the mode, and exposure compensation button and a rotating wheel with 4 direction controller and a central OK button. That last is probably the most cumbersome for my big thumbs as I always end up pressing it when I didn’t want. It allow quick access to ISO, White balance, Auto focus and shooting mode / delay when pressing on one of the four direction. Odd if you try to use the wheel to change exposure in M mode. Maybe it is too small, maybe it should just be the wheel configured differently. I disabled the quick access. You can also configure the 4 way control to set the AF point.


The camera does not have a viewfinder, just a rear LCD with all the advantage and inconvenience.

Advantage: you can shoot freestyle, from the hip or with awkward angle and still be able to see. It is through the lens, and you have info displayed on it.

Inconvenience: hard to see in the sun, lack the stability of the eye level finder, use the battery.

E-P1, Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4, 1/40 f1.4, ISO 1600

There is an optional optical viewfinder for the 17mm f2.8 lens that you mount on the hot shoe, but I haven’t tried it. Unfortunately there is no accessory port for the EVF, that’s left to the other models.

Despite the situation not being ideal in my mind, I managed to be able to use the camera without much trouble. It gets used to have a back LCD only, and it is really a bit of a guestimate when in the full sunlight.

The lenses

When I bought my E-P1, it wasn’t available with the 17mm in the store, and buying the body only was more expensive than with the 14-42mm f3.5-5.6. So I got the kit on sale and started with that. The lens is decent, a bit slow on the longer end.

Later I bought the Olympus 17mm f2.8 “pancake” that has become the mostly permanent lens on my E-P1. Excellent choice as it gives an equivalent field of view of a 35mm on 35mm and is reasonably fast.

Other lens choices are the Panasonic 20mm f1.7, then later the 14mm f2.5. These two “pancake” lenses provide excellent image quality. Today Olympus added a 45mm f1.7, a 12mm f2, and there is a bunch of zoom and other third party lenses, including a Leica-Panasonic 45mm Macro f2.8 that is extremely sharp. It is not the lack of choice, and I haven’t listed them all.

E-P1, Pentax Auto 110 70mm f2.8, 1/320 f2.8, ISO 400

If you have an old film camera system, there are plenty of adapters for older manual focus lenses, and that itself is responsible the price rise of older SLR lenses on eBay. There is one for almost anything: Pentax K and M42, Pentax Auto 110, Canon FD, Nikon F, Leica M and LTM. Even better, Olympus sells one for their OM mount. I could never find one for the Fujinon-X mount, probably because these cameras were not very common.

The E-P1 firmware has been designed with that usage in mind. For example the in body image stabilizer must be tuned to the focal length. While this is transparent when the m4/3 lenses are being used, with the manual focus lenses, you set it in the camera menu. While not perfect as it might be a problem with a zoom, it is pretty slick and this alone make it very well suited for that.


Using the autofocus is nothing different. It is not super fast, but on overall it is usable. There is also face detection. It sounds like a gimmick but it actually helps if you are taking pictures of people as the autofocus will use it as a target.

To perform manual focus, either on a m4/3 lens or on a “legacy” lens, you have a magnifier on screen. It allow a nice precision, but the camera shake makes it harder than necessary. This is where you miss the EVF. The m4/3 lenses have manual focus by the wire – ie rotating the focusing ring controls a motor that will adjust focus. It works quite well, and it automatically switches the magnifier on as do it. There is also an AF+MF mode that allow full time control while still using autofocus. You can always achieve defocused image or just re-adjust as you please.

E-P1, M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8, 1/30 f/3 ISO 1600

Still there are cases where it doesn’t cut it. I tried to use the E-P1 to take picture of dogs at a Boston Terrier meetup, and it didn’t work out well.

In the field

For a while the E-P1 was the only camera I used. The Canon 5D MkII was left behind. It was much lighter and still very capable.

I heard lot of complaint about shutter lag and autofocus speed, which to be another aren’t that fast, but in general it performs as expected in the streets and in bad weather.

I went on train trip from Vancouver to Toronto, 3 days and 4 nights each way. I decided to not use the 5D MkII an stuck to the E-P1, with only the 17mm. No regrets, I could get what I wanted when I needed, which is what one would expect. In fact during the whole trip I only use the 5D MkII on two situations. One for low light portraits, where 50mm f1.4 helps, and once because I needed a wider angle inside Union Station with the 24mm. I surely could have done without.

The image stabilizer works pretty well, whichever lens you use and that itself can justify going Olympus vs Panasonic. This is even more important since you lose steadiness by holding the camera in front of your rather than against you with an eye level finder.

The sore point with the battery life. It is not that great and I ended up needing to recharge it every 200 shots or even less, as the LCD drains down power. Fortunately I had an extra battery always ready, and recommend anybody to get that extra.

When shooting outside in plain sunlight, it gets harder. The LCD is completely unreadable. It is not specific to this camera ; even my phone can’t be used in this circumstance.

E-P1, M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8, 1/320 f/6, ISO 100

Low light

One of the things one expect with a modern camera is to be able to shoot in low light. The m4/3 system has a few fast prime including the Panansonic 20mm f/1.7 or even the M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8.

At ISO 1600 the camera really show noise. It is still usable, but it gets a bit too grainy to my taste, even more compared to other DSLR (with a larger sensor). Nonetheless it will beat most of the point and shoot that have a smaller sensor. Of course, ISO 3200 is even more noisy.

The user base

Shortly after my purchase I discovered that there was a Vancouver Four Third group on Flickr with a bunch of dedicated users to Four Third and now mostly Micro Four Third. They love the system and beside some film camera, only use that, sometime with a mix of Olympus and Panasonic bodies and lenses.

That offered me the possibility to test the Pentax Auto 110 70mm, the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, the Panasonic 45mm f2.8 Macro, and others.

E-P1, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, f/2 1/400, ISO 100 – color shift in Aperture

This reminds me of RFF meetups. I don’t remember Canon dedicated user base.

In conclusion

The Micro Four-Third system is very capable and thrive with a decent choice of body and lenses, where both Panasonic (with Leica) and Olympus are committed, helped with other third parties and “legacy” lens adapters. There is a good selection of fast prime lenses as well as more consumer oriented zooms.

If I had to redo the choice, I’d get the E-P2 because of the EVF (today it would be the E-P3 that is also faster). I also wouldn’t buy it with the 14-42 and instead get it with the 17mm, and maybe another lens, like the 45mm. Today when you compare the E-P2 + EVF with the newly announced E-M5, it is highly possible that the E-M5 is the way to go.

I still feel uncomfortable with the LCD as the only viewfinder, and this may explain my interest for the Fujifilm X-100 and now the X-Pro1: the hybrid viewfinder presenting the actual innovation in that area.

Today, the E-P1 gets a premium place in my bag as the camera I have with me over the DSLR or any of my film gear, even though, sometime, I may have the Ricoh GR-D 2 on my belt instead.


Below a few more pictures I took with the E-P1. Some might have been a bit post-processed.

E-P1, Leica Summicron M 90mm f/2, 1/500 f/2, ISO 400

E-P1, M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 @29mm, 1/50 f/7, ISO 400

E-P1, M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 @14mm, 1/10 f/5.6, ISO 3200

E-P1, M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8, 1/320 f/8, ISO 100

E-P1, M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 @42mm, 1/80 f/8, ISO 100

E-P1, M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8, 1/15 f/2.8, ISO 400