E-500 Questions

[lunaris]

Hi everyone,

I'm getting ready for my first dSLR and I am tormenting myself what to get. My budget is limited, which will subsequently also limit the selection of the camera/lenses I can buy. I had an eye on the upcoming Panasonic L1, but it's announced price is beyond what I want/can spend. So back to the decision making. My budget is around 1200-1400 USD (less is better of course, if I can stay under 1000 USD that would be great) and it must cover camera, lens, memory card, warranty and maybe an extra battery, although that one I could get later.

I am looking at:
1) Evolt E-500 with the 2 lens kit
2) Canon XT with the lens kit

I ruled out the E-330 because of the price. I just think the image quality is better with the Canon and quite equal to the E-500. I do not want a camera with 6MP when there are 8MP cameras around, which rules out Minolta, Pentax, and Nikon in that price range. I know those 2 MB won't make a big difference, but it will give me more room to crop and still print 8x10 inch photos or even slightly bigger.

I try to look at as many photos made with the 2 Cameras that are on my list as possible. When the light conditions are good, both perform equally well (IMO). However, when the light conditions are not as nice, for example harsh light, it seems the Canon is better. The E-500 seems to have problems with keeping detail in highlights. I'm not too concerned about the "Jaggies" mentioned in many reviews, since they are not a big issue in a printed photo (I tested it with the photo samples), the clipped highlights however are an issue.

When you go to this site: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and select the E-500 and compare it to the Canon you will see what I'm talking about. In the first portrait photo (sunlight) the highlights are blown out with the E-500 - no detail left (look at the nose and some areas of the white blouse), while they still contain detail with the Canon. I also tried this comparison with the Panasonic FZ20 (which I have), and it shows more detail in highlight than the E-500. Of course the FZ20 has other issues, like more noise.

What I'm wondering about is the performance when using Raw. All the photos I'm seeing are jpegs, nothing mentioned that they have been shot as raw files and then converted later on. On the site above the author increases the exposure by 0.7 EV, which will of course not help when a camera has some issues with highlights in the first place. On another site the author uses -0.3 to -0.7 EV to keep highlights in check (http://wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/e500-rev.html). So this might help with keeping detail in highlight areas. What I cannot find is a comparison of the same shot between jpeg and raw. Will the highlight details be preserved in Raw files? If that's the case, I would probably go for the E-500.

A friend of mine has the 2 lens E-500 kit. She loves it. She is a big Olympus fan, uses those cameras since the pre digital days. So I will be able to get some hands on experience one of these days.

What makes the E-500 so attractive for me is the price. You get a lot for your money. The Canon XT is now also available for a good price, the kit lens is supposed to be OK at best. But lenses can be replaced later on. And good lenses cost money, no matter if they are from Canon or Olympus. I also like the fact that it is a light camera. I bring my cameras with me all the time, and I am honestly not interested in schlepping a heavy camera with me. I also love shooting with my vintage cameras, especially my Zeiss Ikon (medium format folder from 1937), so this one comes with me a lot also. So weight is def. one of the factors that will make or breal a deal for me.

To end this long post, what I would like to hear from Evolt users here is their own expertience with the highlight issues I mentioned above. Do you have some raw vs jpeg comparisons? How do you circumvent/avoid clipped highlights (if possible at all)? I know at some point every camera will produce blown out highlights. I'm not talking about extreme situation here, more like the situation we have in the first link with the sunlight portrait.

Thanks for you patience, and I'm looking forward to some answers.

Sabine

[kgosden]

While the highlights do seem blown out a bit in the E-500 the overall exposure also seems to be different enough from the XT to acount for much of that. I have had my E-500 for a few months and I am quite happy with it. I looked at the Nikon and Canon as well. While I really liked the Nikon the slightly lower resolution and SD media were minuses for me (I had a pretty good collection of CF and only a little SD). I did not care for the XT mainly due to the lack of spot metering and the higher price.

[lunaris]

kgosden, thanks for your reply.

While the highlights do seem blown out a bit in the E-500 the overall exposure also seems to be different enough from the XT to acount for much of that.

Can you be a bit more specific what you mean by this?

Yes, the lack of spotmetering bites a bit, and the fact that there is no focusing aid for manual focussing (but the E-500 doesn't have that either, right?).

[kgosden]

Overall the entire E-500 sunlight portrait seems about 1 stop more exposed than the XT version. The shadows and eyes on the XT bversion seem too dark to me. Of course, you can generally rescue shadows more than highlights.

[Rodster]

I've had my E-500 for about three weeks now, and I absolutely love it. I went through a very similar comparison/debate on which camera to purchase as my first DSLR (I've had 5 other compact digitals over four years). My last camera was the Minolta Dimage A2, which was very feature packed, but not nearly the image quality I was looking for. With about $1,100 to spend on a camera outfit I soon realized, just as Sabine noted, that the best overall value options on the table were the Rebel XT and the E-500. But after taking the "math" a step further, the price differences were much greater between the two cameras than at first glance.

I took my own memory card to stores and took pictures with both the XT and the E-500 on several occasions to compare the results at home for myself. Yes, the Canon takes a noticeably better picture. But I just didn't like the way it felt in my hands - cheap. I also kept accidentally pressing the timer activation button with my right thumb; the button is near the upper right corner of the rear display, a natural place for your right thumb to rest. I activated the timer at least once every time I used the camera. Also, that 18-55 lense is just plain cheap. I saw it for $90, and with the price of Canon lenses, what does that tell you? So that means I'd be looking at at least $400 for a second Canon lens, just to get by with day-to-day shooting; so now the price is up to $1,199, and I still don't have a memory card (not to mention filters, flash, etc.).

So I decided to purchase the E-500 two lens kit. The camera fits very nicely in my hands. The lenses are terrific for every day use. I am very pleased with the sharpness of my images. I have taken 200 photos in three weeks, and I am very pleased with the balance of lighting in all of my photos. I shot a play last week at 1000 iso with the metering on spot, and the images turned out fabulous - well balanced and colorful with minimal noise. I have also taken a few outdoor nature shots with the macro on both lenses with excellent results. I have a 2 gig compact flash card, so I shoot everything in raw. I am beta testing Adobe's Lightroom software, which has fantastic controls for working with raw images (a definite purchase item when the final version hits the street). Lighting is a problem when both your lenses are f 3.5-4.5, so I purchased the Olympus FL-50 flash, wich also does a fine job.

The bottom line? I purchased the two lens E-500, a 2 gig Lexar memory card, the FL-50 flash, 3 filters, a bag and a lens cleaner for $1200, and I'm set - for a long time. And I haven't encountered any blowout or clipping issues nearly as dramatic as I saw in the photo comparisons online. If you are at least a moderately experienced amateur photographer, I think you'll truly be thrilled with the overall quality of your E-500 images. If you need more quality than that, it's gonna cost ya. you can see a couple of my first images at http://homepage.mac.com/rodahill.

Good luck,

Rod

[1bigdawg]

Today my wife and I purchased an Olympus Evolt E-500 Kit with the 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 and the 40-150mm 3.5-4.5 lens. We have a friend who works at a camera shop and although we didn't get any special price for buying it from him the great thing was being able to compare the Olympus to Canon & Nikon the only other cameras we felt we all in the same league.

For us as novices the very minor differences between these cameras at this time was not significant. Some of the aspects that did sway our decision were.

Large 2.5" LCD Screen
Adjustable focus eyepiece
2 lenses
More compact and lighter than Canon or Nikon
Confidence in Olympus quality
Finally and maybe mores important it fit well in my wife's hands and mine and I have very large hands.

We recently purchased new helmet and there was one definite similarity in the purchasing expericence; fit is a very important factor in the final purchasing decision. It doesn't matter how it looks or what it does if it doesn't fit it doesn't work.

We are planning a motorcycle trip from Phoenix to Taos the first week of Sept and I hope to have some great photos and feedback on the camera itself.

We are still awaiting the battery to get charged up so we can begin to play.

[Norm in Fujino]

Hey, dawg, great decision. You're absolutely right, all the entry-level cameras can produce absolutely great pictures up to very large sizes (I just had two B1 sized prints -- over 1 meter tall-- printed out from my E-300 and they look great), but if it doesn't fit your hands right, it just won't work for you. The ergonomics of the E-500 are much better than some of the competition, and the two-lens kit is a bargain, especially for the 40-150 lens, which is a beautiful piece of work for such a low price. Please check your message box for more info.

[m_a_r]

Hi everyone,

I'm getting ready for my first dSLR and I am tormenting myself what to get. My budget is limited, which will subsequently also limit the selection of the camera/lenses I can buy. I had an eye on the upcoming Panasonic L1, but it's announced price is beyond what I want/can spend. So back to the decision making. My budget is around 1200-1400 USD (less is better of course, if I can stay under 1000 USD that would be great) and it must cover camera, lens, memory card, warranty and maybe an extra battery, although that one I could get later.

I am looking at:
1) Evolt E-500 with the 2 lens kit
2) Canon XT with the lens kit

I ruled out the E-330 because of the price. I just think the image quality is better with the Canon and quite equal to the E-500. I do not want a camera with 6MP when there are 8MP cameras around, which rules out Minolta, Pentax, and Nikon in that price range. I know those 2 MB won't make a big difference, but it will give me more room to crop and still print 8x10 inch photos or even slightly bigger.

I try to look at as many photos made with the 2 Cameras that are on my list as possible. When the light conditions are good, both perform equally well (IMO). However, when the light conditions are not as nice, for example harsh light, it seems the Canon is better. The E-500 seems to have problems with keeping detail in highlights. I'm not too concerned about the "Jaggies" mentioned in many reviews, since they are not a big issue in a printed photo (I tested it with the photo samples), the clipped highlights however are an issue.

When you go to this site: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and select the E-500 and compare it to the Canon you will see what I'm talking about. In the first portrait photo (sunlight) the highlights are blown out with the E-500 - no detail left (look at the nose and some areas of the white blouse), while they still contain detail with the Canon. I also tried this comparison with the Panasonic FZ20 (which I have), and it shows more detail in highlight than the E-500. Of course the FZ20 has other issues, like more noise.

What I'm wondering about is the performance when using Raw. All the photos I'm seeing are jpegs, nothing mentioned that they have been shot as raw files and then converted later on. On the site above the author increases the exposure by 0.7 EV, which will of course not help when a camera has some issues with highlights in the first place. On another site the author uses -0.3 to -0.7 EV to keep highlights in check (http://wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/e500-rev.html). So this might help with keeping detail in highlight areas. What I cannot find is a comparison of the same shot between jpeg and raw. Will the highlight details be preserved in Raw files? If that's the case, I would probably go for the E-500.

A friend of mine has the 2 lens E-500 kit. She loves it. She is a big Olympus fan, uses those cameras since the pre digital days. So I will be able to get some hands on experience one of these days.

What makes the E-500 so attractive for me is the price. You get a lot for your money. The Canon XT is now also available for a good price, the kit lens is supposed to be OK at best. But lenses can be replaced later on. And good lenses cost money, no matter if they are from Canon or Olympus. I also like the fact that it is a light camera. I bring my cameras with me all the time, and I am honestly not interested in schlepping a heavy camera with me. I also love shooting with my vintage cameras, especially my Zeiss Ikon (medium format folder from 1937), so this one comes with me a lot also. So weight is def. one of the factors that will make or breal a deal for me.

To end this long post, what I would like to hear from Evolt users here is their own expertience with the highlight issues I mentioned above. Do you have some raw vs jpeg comparisons? How do you circumvent/avoid clipped highlights (if possible at all)? I know at some point every camera will produce blown out highlights. I'm not talking about extreme situation here, more like the situation we have in the first link with the sunlight portrait.

Thanks for you patience, and I'm looking forward to some answers.

Sabine

I am also looking at the Canon XT and the Evolt E-500. One other thing I noticed (maybe because I am more of a beginner) is that the Evolt is a little more confusing and might take a little while to get used to. I like the fact that the Canon XT has a screen above the LCD. It also has a seven point focus. I believe that the Evolt only has 3. However, I think that if you are able to use the Evolt easily and get used to it, it might be the better option, especially if you get the 2-lens kit. It has a bigger LCD display and a better wide angle lens. The Evolt has more scene modes and has two slots for more memory. (CF and xD Picture-card)

[Norm in Fujino]

I am also looking at the Canon XT and the Evolt E-500. One other thing I noticed (maybe because I am more of a beginner) is that the Evolt is a little more confusing and might take a little while to get used to. I like the fact that the Canon XT has a screen above the LCD. It also has a seven point focus. I believe that the Evolt only has 3. However, I think that if you are able to use the Evolt easily and get used to it, it might be the better option, especially if you get the 2-lens kit. It has a bigger LCD display and a better wide angle lens. The Evolt has more scene modes and has two slots for more memory. (CF and xD Picture-card)

You'll find that you probably use one focus point (the center) 90% of the time. As a kit, the E-500 is ergonomically better IMO than the 350, and the control layout is superior (although this is totally subjective user to user, and I've only played with the 350 in the store on several occasions). The kit lenses on the E-500 are much better than those that come with the 350 (plastic bases on the Canon, metal on the Oly, and the 40-150 is a steal in this package). I'd personally ignore the presence of scene modes, though, and learn to to use minimally P, then A, S, and M as much as possible to get the most from any camera.
The Canon has better high-ISO performance, but the Oly has better color, from everything I've read.
--and don't forget the effective dust filter and in-camera pixel mapping, both of which are non-available with Canon.

[lunaris]

It's been a while since I logged on here. Wow, several posts, great.

Rodster:

And I haven't encountered any blowout or clipping issues nearly as dramatic as I saw in the photo comparisons online.

That's good to hear. I looked at your photos. The iso1000 shot is impressive, cute dog. Nice grain, not really distracting. Excellent.

I didn't get arount to take the E-500 for a test shooting yet (a friend of mine has one). Guess I should do it soon.

One point that makes the E-Volt attractive (may mean nothing to someone else though) is the compatibility with the Panasonic dSLR. Means I could use the Leica lense(s) made for it (assuming there will be more than one down the road). Or even get that beautiful Panasonic L1 at one point in the future. Decisions