Olympus E-P1 price confirmed

[DaveS]

£550 would be ok if it came down to that, though I still wonder why the prime lens kit is so much more than the zoom
1) They don't expect to sell as many, hence more expensive
2) It's more desireable, hence more expensive.

I won't believe the 17mm is more expensive to produce than the 14-42 zoom.
Dave

[Barney]

I won't believe the 17mm is more expensive to produce than the 14-42 zoom.
Dave

Don't you? Why is a Nikon 20mm f:2.8 more expensive than the 18-70mm kit lens? Production costs would be the single over riding reason for mine.

[Zou]

Plus the finder is in the kit - £100 is about the going rate for a good finder.

[Bone_Idle]

To put it into a bit of context. The RRP for the Pentax Km is £371 and the Pentax 21mm f/3.2 is £639. That's £1010 for a combination that is probably no better specified than the E-P1.
Obviously it can be bought cheaper, but we're comparing RRP not Street Prices.

I only took Pentax as an example as they are well known for their Pancake lenses.

anyway, £750 isn't expensive.... This is expensive!!!

[Zou]

To put it into a bit of context. The RRP for the Pentax Km is £371 and the Pentax 21mm f/3.2 is £639. That's £1010 for a combination that is probably no better specified than the E-P1.
Obviously it can be bought cheaper, but we're comparing RRP not Street Prices.

I only took Pentax as an example as they are well known for their Pancake lenses.

True, but then that combination isn't almost identical in body size to my Pentax MG, unlike the E-P1. Higher spec, but still a bit too large for carry anywhere use. My K100D is pretty petite but it is bulky enough to make me prefer to leave it at home in place of my MG or Holga. Unless Pentax pull their finger out and launch something similar, I'll be looking for an E-P1 with K mount adaptor.

anyway, £750 isn't expensive.... This is expensive!!!

And almost as desirable!

[DaveS]

I'm sorry, but I stand by my position.
17mm on 4/3 is only moderately wide, we're talking 34mm in normal speak, and f/2.8 isn't blindingly fast. Moreover because there's nothing in the way, it can be designed like a RF lens, so doesn't need to be retrofocus, so we're looking at a bog-standard double-Gauss construction. Further, because it's monofocal, the mechanical construction can be simpler, as far as I can see the zoom is of a double extension design, harder to engineer well.
So, no, I'll stay unconvinced that it needs to be more expensive.
Dave

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm sorry, but I stand by my position.
17mm on 4/3 is only moderately wide, we're talking 34mm in normal speak, and f/2.8 isn't blindingly fast. Moreover because there's nothing in the way, it can be designed like a RF lens, so doesn't need to be retrofocus, so we're looking at a bog-standard double-Gauss construction. Further, because it's monofocal, the mechanical construction can be simpler, as far as I can see the zoom is of a double extension design, harder to engineer well.
So, no, I'll stay unconvinced that it needs to be more expensive.
Dave

The construction can not be as simple as you say.
a standard high quality wide angle lens will produce both CA and vignetting problems at the sides of the image on a digital sensor. There must have been considerable design input.

Focal lengths of around 35mm have always been thought of as the Ideal for walk around photography.

[Zou]

Also bear in mind that there have already been 2 or three iterations of the 14-42 design, so R&D costs will be significantly lower, and probably many parts are shared too.

I don't doubt that there's a premium on the prime because they know it'll sell, I just don't think it is as unreasonable as it could have been.

[DaveS]

Come on...35mm eq isn't that wide, and removing the mirror means the lens designer is no longer constrained in where he puts the rear element, so the lens doesn't have to be retrofocus.
Sorry, but I still fail to be convinced of the difficulty cf the zoom lens.
Dave

[beejaybee]

Come on...35mm eq isn't that wide, and removing the mirror means the lens designer is no longer constrained in where he puts the rear element, so the lens doesn't have to be retrofocus.

But making a lens strongly retrofocus is the best way of making a relatively wide angle lens behave something approaching telecentrically, which is an attribute a "designed for digital" lens needs.

Anyway if you look at M mount short focus prime lenses, with limited clearance between the rear element and the focal plane, they almost all have what most people would now consider to be a serious issue with vignetting. Maybe it didn't matter too much in the days of 8 stop latitude negative film emulsions, but with digital sensor technology such a characteristic is not at all desireable. Flat fielding or software compensation is possible but it does come at a price, in this case decreasing the signal to noise ratio, a quality which a smallish sensor does not posess in spades to start off with.

Sorry, but I still fail to be convinced of the difficulty cf the zoom lens.

Another factor here is that people expect zoom lenses to be a bit soft; OTOH a prime lens that is less than razor sharp will be pilloried.

The situation is far from clear cut.

[DaveS]

But short B/F M mount lenses are covering a 35mm frame, not 4/3.
I'll take your word about lens design re: telecenticity, but still think they're pricing the 17mm over the top, perhaps because they reccon people will pay for it anyway.
Dave

[RogerMac]

Another factor here is that people expect zoom lenses to be a bit soft; OTOH a prime lens that is less than razor sharp will be pilloried.

I have three ZD zoom lenses and can't say that I have noticed any softness at all in two of them (even when compared to the 50mm f2 prime) Possibly a little in the 70-300 but with a little care even that can produce very sharp images.

Edit: If the cheaper ones have any significant faults it's in the amount of distortion, especially at short focal lengths.

Roger

[Still_Togging_Along]

AP is saying £749 is for the body, 17mm lens and viewfinder. That's £50 more expensive, but the odds are the veiwfinder would cost about £100 seperately. This would therefore make the 17mm £50 cheaper than the zoom, but as far as I am aware we don't know what the body only will cost, so it's difficult to work out what just the lenses cost.

Whilst Prime lenses are much more highly regarded optically than zooms, they do not sell in anything like the same quantities, (maybe 2-3 zooms for every Prime sold?) and if I am not mistaken, how many other manufacturers have tried to sell a Prime w/a camera kit and a zoom kit side by side?

Volume of units sold will govern what these will sell for and based on the track records of all manufacturers selling camera kits, zooms get 'subsidised' more than primes do.

[Barney]

but as far as I am aware we don't know what the body only will cost, so it's difficult to work out what just the lenses cost.

Oh yes we do! (£599 for those who can't be bothered to click)

[rowlands]

Disappointed with the price of the E-P1... Since I found out about this delightful camera I've soo excited, except for the price. I see others complaining that it's too expensive, however I've discovered that Olympus are adding an extra markup to those living in the UK.

The only comparison I'll do with the US prices, is to state that the E-P1 is the SAME price as the Pany G1 in the states. Yet over here in ole blighty, it's £200 more than the pany!

I've tried to get a response from Olympus about this, but so far I haven't. If I get anything I'll be sure to post it asap. I'd buy this camera if it were the same price as the Panasonic G1 (£489 in Jessops).

I am truly excited by this camera, more than any other camera ever... However I'm agitated by the fact that Olympus are charging more than is fair!

[DaveS]

Twas ever thus
Dave

[Benchista]

You're comparing list price with street price - check the list price of the Panny...