After a lot of build-up, the first Olympus micro 4/3 camera has finally been announced, and it's a PEN. For those not as old as I, the Olympus Pen F was a defining small camera in the 1960's. While it didn't last all that long (the original Pen was introduced in 1959 and the last model in the line, the FT, in 1966, it nevertheless was one of Olympus' shining moments: a quality SLR in a very concise package (they often advertised it inside a shoe to demonstrate how small it was).
With the E-P1 the Pen is back. At least that's what Olympus wants us to think. While Panasonic chose a modern design (complete with colored bodies) for their first m4/3 camera (the G1), Olympus chose a retro design that is quite reminscent of the Pen F model.
So why am I writing about an Olympus product? Those of you who remember my Compact Challenge know why: the E-P1 is one of the first cameras to come along that could be said to fit my description (compact sized camera, DSLR sensor features and image quality). To be fair, Sigma was there first with their DP-1 (and now DP-2). But both Sigma models just don't quite cut it as a camera for me, and their lenses, while exceedingly good, aren't choices that work for me either.
So the question is whether the Olympus E-P1 will. First, a couple of things to get out of the way. Sizewise, the E-P1 body isn't a lot larger than the Panasonic LX3 that I've been carrying lately. Call it "large pocket" sized. But the E-P1 has a 12mp 4/3 sensor in it, which is much larger physically than the LX3's small sensor. In theory, there's potential for much better image quality.
The big issue for the E-P1 is this: lenses. The initial lenses are decidedly consumer: 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 (that's 28-85mm equivalent) and a pancake 17mm f/2.8 (35mm equivalent). But it's an interchangeable mount, and one that should be able to retrofit almost ANY interchangeable lens via adapter. I'll give you a little advice: think Leica. As in M and screw-mount lenses. Quite a few small lenses for the Leica M series exist, and adapters are already available for M to m4/3. The only thing to pay attention to is the 2x magnification factor: divide the effective focal length you want by 2 to find the lens you should use. Want a 50mm equivalent? Then get something in the 24-25mm range. Lenses in the Leica mount go all the way down to 12mm, so this isn't as big a problem as it first appears. True, these are MF lenses, but they'll get you by until Olympus and Panasonic flesh out their lens lineups.
The real question is whether Nikon has gotten the wake up call yet. There are quotes in the business press in Japan from Nikon executives indicating that they're aware of m4/3 and watching it closely, but that they don't currently have development plans for anything similar. If true, that's a huge mistake, Nikon. Huge. As in "risk losing the consumer DSLR market" huge. Meanwhile, as Oly has proven with the E-P1, the high-end compact market may be at risk, too.
All it really takes for Nikon to start moving is to (1) define the lens/sensor relationship for a no-mirror camera; and (2) develop two or more lenses and an F-mount adapter for that definition. The rest is just cutting flab from the D5000 body. Well, okay, that's the crude way of getting there and Nikon needs a better contrast AF system. Better would be to do a full bottom-up rethink.
But I'm serious about Nikon being behind the eight-ball. First, you have to ask yourself where growth comes from. Well, one place is transitioning P&S users to something with higher quality and a bit more sophistication. Panasonic targeted that group with the G1 and Samsung is targeting them with the NX. That's two very large consumer electronics firms getting there first, and with very respectable offerings. The G1 made it onto a lot of top-ten DSLR model selling lists for extended periods of time since its introduction. By the time Nikon has any offering, Panasonic will have a G2, almost certainly. You can't allow a serious competitor to refine and dominate a new market before you even get a single offering out.
The other place for growth is to sell something to everyone you've already sold something to. That's what my Compact Challenge was all about: every serious photographer I know--not some, but EVERY--is looking around for their Everywhere Camera and not quite finding it. We try new compacts like the P6000, G10, and LX3 when they come out and pick the one that comes the closest to what we want (another Nikon problem, it isn't the P6000). But we're not happy. We're still shopping. We looked at the DP-1 (and DP-2) and passed. We're looking at the E-P1 now and finding something that looks like it might pass muster.
Seriously, Nikon: you've executed your DX/FX strategy reasonably well and are now at the top of the hill. But for how long? Time to think outside the narrow line extension thinking you're using. What does it really cost you to create a Coolpix DX? Seriously. If it's successful it bolsters the bottom of your DSLR line and fixes the "no decent Coolpix anymore" perception. It if fails, it's a Coolpix! ;~)
The sad thing is that the Coolpix innovation of the past (e.g. the 900 twist-body design) is gone and has been replaced by OEMed me-too cameras. Unfortunately, Nikon perceives this as success because they sell more Coolpix today than they used to. But this has also made them a commodity producer, not a premium producer. Commodity producers have this tendency to die if they aren't #1 or #2. Nikon is barely #4 or #5.