richard oleson , Jun 21, 2009; 12:17 p.m.
I just got a look at the new Olympus Micro-4/3 camera, which they're "unofficially" referring to as the 'digital Pen" (a reference to the landmark 1963 Pen F, the compact half-frame SLR). It certainly looks the part, and I was really excited at the thought of a 12MP digital successor to this inspired and timeless design. And then I saw the camera from the back.
It has no viewfinder! NO viewfinder! After coming this close to a digital equivalent to the pocketable SLR, Olympus instead created an interchangeable-lens Sony Mavica, a wave-it-around-at-arms-length $800 point-and-shoot! After 45 years, the guardians of Maitani's legacy took the opportunity of a generation and chucked it in the wastebin to save the cost of a decent electronic viewfinder. It's enough to bring one to tears.
:\=
George Shihanian , Jun 21, 2009; 12:55 p.m.
The Olympus guy responsible for this new PEN line said in an interview that there are more bodies to come, and some with a viewfinder of some kind. EVF? I am certainly interested in the system but this first body isn't enough to make me buy one. I also wonder what the cost of the follow-on bodies will be, with this first offering already at $800. Any higher is a deal killer for me. The system is desirable, For someone just starting out on the DSLR road and wanting to keep it small, this is a big deal, but not enough at those prices for me to replace my E-420 which serves my needs well.
Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins 
, Jun 21, 2009; 02:38 p.m.
Eh, considering it's awfully close to the hypothetical digicam I've had in mind for a few years, I'm not complaining. The addition of an accessory viewfinder seems like an acceptable option for now.
I don't want an EVF either. My main use for this type of camera will be stuff like photographing live performances locally (theater, opera, etc.). I don't want anything that glows or spoils my dark-adapted eyes. So for me a virtually silent, non-glowing, tiny camera is just about perfect.
But this seems very much like a first generation effort, something for the bleeding edge folks to toy with. I'm betting Olympus will follow through with something closer to what fans of miniature format, handheld photography are really hoping for.
Consider the first generation Voigtlander Bessa L from Cosina, very cheaply built on the same basic chassis as the pseudo-brand name entry level 35mm SLRs sold by Nikon (FM-10), Canon (T60, I think), Olympus and others, including Vivitar. Basically, Cosina whacked off the prism and mirror, gave it a Leica threaded mount and offered accessory viewfinders for zone focusing with wides and ultra-wides. And look how Cosina took off from that start.
Sure, it'd be nice if Olympus had priced the new "Pen" cheaper, but they didn't have the advantage of building on an existing model. Besides, until fairly recently Olympus has rarely been known for being particularly competitive in terms of price. Even when the last of the OM-4 and OM-3 series had been discontinued and no more manual focus Zuikos were being made they still weren't bargains. That's one reason I switched to Nikon 35mm SLRs in 2002 - better values in bodies and, especially, lenses. Heck, I waited for Olympus to discount their first generation film scanner after it had been discontinued - no dice. Even the local electronics discounters were selling open box scanners at full price, while apologizing that their contract with Olympus prohibited unauthorized discounts. I finally gave up and bought a first generation Minolta Dimage Scan Dual for less than $100.
If Olympus is smart they'll drop the price on the E-P1 quickly and seed the rumor mill with "oops" leaks of a follow-up model that addresses the most pressing concerns.
Josh Root 
, Jun 21, 2009; 02:43 p.m.
Keep in mind that the micro four-thirds system has been strongly pointed at the "tweeners" since the begining. People that want to move up from a p&s to a better camera. But who find DSLR's "scary". This has been mentioned over and over by various people from the m4/3 companies. So the lack of a viewfinder isn't exactly surprising.
Still, I'm with Lex. The viewfinder issue isn't a dealbreaker. I can slap a Voigtlander VF on there if I'm really interested in not using the LCD. That having been said, I've done some great work with just the LCD on cameras like the Panasonic LX3. I think it's just a change that many people are going to have to get used to or work around. sort of like the switch from ground glass to a reflex finder 50-70 years ago.
richard oleson , Jun 21, 2009; 02:46 p.m.
I can see your point on using an EVF in the dark, but I could see one with a manual or automatic brightness control, something like the car instruments that get dimmer at night. EVF image quality would be a concern, I assume that will continue to improve over time... but you certainly can't go waving that 3 inch LCD around in a darkened theatre, and I don't like having to pop accessory viewfinders onto my screwmount Leicas and I'm not likely to enjoy it much more on a new digital.... especially when the whole raison d'etre of the entire system is compactness.
Patrick Dempsey , Jun 21, 2009; 06:17 p.m.
I hear you Richard... I'm actually really suprised with the extra time Olympus has had since the G1 release to look at people's comments that they didn't seriously consider a removable EVF, or an optical viewfinder with some kind of feedback, at the minimum focus confirmation, at the most, an optical version of the main display with zooming elements and lights for all the most common settings/warnings etc. The fact that sub-cigarette-pack sized cameras can have viewfinders like that with autozoom and all kinds of lights at a low price really makes the doubt any kind of real technical difficulty here.
Jeffrey Corsa , Jun 21, 2009; 07:49 p.m.
The fact that sub-cigarette-pack sized cameras can have viewfinders like that with autozoom and all kinds of lights at a low price really makes the doubt any kind of real technical difficulty here.
Patrick - do you know of any that can swap out lenses?
Richard - true, I was also a bit disappointed when I read that the new Pen didn't have a viewfinder. I was also upset back in the 1990s when contax released their G1. How on earth did they release a system with no focus control built into the viewfinder! I vowed not to get one then, and in early 2000 picked one up and haven't regretted it since. I'm willing to give Oly a chance on this, and if it doesn't work out I'm sure my system will sell well used. And I really think I'll need more than a few minutes testing a demo at a store or reading about it from online reviews.
Reed George , Jun 21, 2009; 09:15 p.m.
Rick,
The 17mm f2.8 pancake can be purchased with a finder (for range focusing only). But, that's sort of reminiscent of old Leicas, no?
I agree with you - a finder is a necessity. I've been playing with the Lumix G1, and like it quite a bit. I may have to pick up the new Oly pancake for it, though.
Reed
Starvy Goodfellows 
, Jun 21, 2009; 09:52 p.m.
the concept is important and as others have said, future bodies would take into account a lot of the suggestions. in the meanwhile, if you can afford it do buy a body. olympus needs to survive this economic downturn and what better way to say thank you to this wonderfully innovative company than buy their products.
Dan B. , Jun 21, 2009; 10:04 p.m.
Sorry, I don't spend money (especially $800-plus) to say "thank you" or to keep alive a company in hopes that it eventually will put out something I want. On the other hand, I'm not pronouncing the whole idea of a digital Pen dead, based on this first camera body; after all, in retrospect, I likely wouldn't have bought any of the first few Pen 35mm film cameras. Nonetheless, I own, and still use, Pen Fs and FTs, because, by and large, they work terrifically.
