[Brightcolours]

Well, I think the similarity is there. It's not a copy but a decent modern re-evaluation. When they did get down to copying stuff, they did it for wrong reasons. Of course, I'm talking about that stupid wheel on the front - stupid now in function, not in form. Now such controls are better used for some functions that have a limited number of options - like drive mode, metering or maybe exposure compensation. But there it quickly gets fiddly because modern cameras now go to Â±5 and it's just too many small increments that would be difficult to hit precisely. More so with shutter speed and ISO because I imagine it could be a nightmare to find the right value among a mass of tiny clicks, especially if you're in a hurry.

You do see a similarity? Really? There is none, other than that they both are cameras. And use metal. And black. And have a lens.

Look again at the PEN-F:



Now look at the 1st Olympus MFT camera, the PEN E-P1:



 

Now THERE the similarity is there. That camera does look like the PEN-F. That is why they called it PEN in the 1st place.

But the new PEN-F?



 

No. The similarity is not there. Only the same type face. Well not even that, they managed to not get that right either. They should have called it the Olympus Canon L1, actually:

[thxbb12]

I agree with BC on this one. The similarity is just not there at all.

I find it silly to (badly) copy an old camera for the sake of copying.

In terms of ergonomics the PEN-F missed the mark by quite a big margin.

 

I actually think it's a crap camera for the price. An E-M10 II features almost the exact same specs (except for the high-res mode), better ergonomics and is almost a third of the price.

At the price point Olympus is asking, the Pen-F makes zero sense IMO.

[Rover]

WTF! You people sure aren't seeing what I'm seeing (and vice versa):

- the lack of grip (as opposed to having a glued-on something on the E-P1);

- the wheel;

- the way the fake leather covers the front;

- the relief of the top plate (not the dials and buttons, mind you, but the actual relief is a pretty direct copy; the E-P1 is similar but slightly less so);

- now that you mentioned it, the similar use of metal (as opposed to the E-P1).

 

Now, the Canon sure does look similar as well but that was probably a standard of camera design back in the day?

Again, I'm not defending the new Olympus - why would I? Just pointing out my observations.

 

P.S. I think there have been worse examples of retro-worship: Nikon DF, I summon thee, demanding the sacred right to burn in Hell.

[wim]

Apparently look is more important than function.

 

Effectively inside this is a OM-D E-M5 Mark II with a higher res sensor, a slightly lower res EVF, non-tiltable screen, but extremely compact.

Compactness comes with trade-offs, especially with a camera that can do as much as this one can.

 

Is it worth the money?

As with all things, to some it is, to others it isn't.

 

Kind regards, Wim