Olympus E-500 DSLR reviewed

What do you get when you mix one part old school Japanese optics manufacturing, one part ugs 80s-lookin' body design, and one part high-end lowish-priced DSLR? The Olympus E-500, of course, which DC Views took a good look at and decided they really liked; they cited the E-500 as being a full-featured, versatile digital camera sure to please beginners and enthusiasts alike. With camera makers dropping like flies and shifting gears these days, we can only hope more companies start producing devices like the E-500 that hit a lot of high notes without asking for too many bank notes in return.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 21st 2006 3:43PM]

Oh... i'm fall in love... that's a fantastic camera!!

Greetings from Spain.
David.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 21st 2006 5:02PM]

I have the elder brother, the E-1, and really wish I'd waited for this one. But oh well, the E-1 is great as well.

[StammesOpfer Posted Jan 21st 2006 5:02PM]

If you really want one of these then look at the Olympus E-300 it is the same exact camera in a little more solid housing only thing is it is kinda ugly but the money that you save between the two should be enough to off set the looks

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 21st 2006 5:31PM]

A bit late for a review of a camera that has been on the market for over 2 months, don't ya' think?

Anyway, $ for $ the e-300 does give a better deal, I've seen it under $600 with the two lens kit at http://www.ilikecheapstuff.com when dell does their crazy coupon codes.

The upside, both camera's are a lot of camera for the dollar, it is really hard to beat an 8mp dslr for the price point. The down side, everything else for them is really spendy, from the grip and flash units to the other lenses in the line. If you are looking for a camera to grow with and you really have no lenses from a previous 35mm film slr, I'd say go Canon or Nikon.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 21st 2006 6:24PM]

Not really impressed with this review. It's not very detailed, and sounds like it's reciting the press release. "Images are good, low noise, no CA..." in just about as many words.

One of the big advantages of a DSLR with a larger-than-consumer-cam sensor is the ability to control DOF. So far, Four-thirds hasn't shown it's up to that task, definitely not when compared with APS-C or full-frame. I'd consider saving money and getting one of the image-stabilized ultrazooms like the 12x zoom Panasonic DMC-FZ30 or Canon Powershot S2-IS.

If you want the real advantages of a DSLR, the Nikon D50 and Canon Digital Rebel XT are both within the $600-800 range, and benefit from a huge selection of real Nikon and Canon glass. Or you could go with the Sony DSC-R1, which does not have interchangeable lenses (so like the compact cams doesn't need a fancy dust remover), but has a real (near) APS-C sized sensor.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 21st 2006 7:26PM]

Foof, I definitely agree with you that DOF is a big reason for getting a DSLR--but as an owner of an E-1 (same size sensor) I have zero problems getting the DOF that I need. Nor do hundreds of other professional and amateur photographers who post absolutely excellent work at myfourthirds. One thing might be is that the 4/3 lenses usually have (much) larger apertures than equivalent 35mm/1.6x lenses by Canon or Nikon.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 21st 2006 10:58PM]

Olympus has always been a very innovative company and designer of world-class optics. The E-1 is a superb camera and in many respects the E-500 seems an improvement in many areas. What really makes the FourThirds system though are the phenomenal optics available for it. No competitors lenses even come close to Olympus' 14-35mm f2, 35-100mm f2 and 90-250mm f2.8 lenses, with there super quick and unchanging maximum apertures.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 22nd 2006 7:42AM]

Steven,

Sorry, I have to disagre with you about the lenses, only because I work in the industry. On paper, f/2 sounds better then f/2.8 - the reality of it is that it is that the 14-35, which is really a 28-70 lens, is no sharper then a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, which I own. On top of that, none of their bodies are anywhere near as fast fps as the 20d, and they are barely as fast as a Rebel XT... not to mention a d200 or 1d mkII for speed.

Having pretty numbers on the side of a lens looks good, but not when the body can't do anything w/ the speed and not when the prices are 15-200% more in price. the Oly 7-14mm lens (14-28 w/ their 2x multiplier) runs just shy of $3000. Compare that to Canon's 16-35L lens for around $1600. Same goes with just about every lens they sell.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 22nd 2006 2:42PM]

F/2.0 is significantly faster than f/2.8, but the advantage in speed and DOF is neatly negated by the smaller sensor. However, you're misinformed about the the Olympus 7-14mm. 7mm (equivalent to 14mm on a 35mm, or 9mm on an APS-C camera) is significantly wider than 16mm on a full-frame. Also, it sells for $1569 at B&H, which is pricier than Canon's 16-35mm at $1399, but not by a whole lot. Sure, it's a stop slower, and lacks USM, but it's pretty reasonable for what you get. You can't get a wider rectilinear zoom without getting an EF-S type reduced image circle lens, or the slow and bulky Sigma 12-24mm. I'm a Canon shooter, but there's plenty to disparage about Olympus without resorting to making things up.

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 23rd 2006 12:01AM]

I got an E-500 for christmas. I'd been an OLY owner from waaaay back staring with the 35mm IS-200 and the C-750. I'd done some research and it was a final choice between the EOS 350 and the e-500. While both cameras are good (see NO FLAMES starting!!) with the 350 having a MUCH better ISO handling over 400 and cheaper lenses, the OLY won out because of the following reasons.

The e-300 was on sale at the time but the e-500 handled the higher ISOs better. And it looked better

1) Feels WAAAAY better than the 350. Due to my large hands (hey girls.. how you doin!) it gave me a better feel on the grip. I just couldn't get over how "plastiky" the canon 350 felt.
2) In my mind, better value for money if you got the dual lens kit (17.5 - 45 & 40 - 150) ($1371 Au from Harvey Norman Australia). The looked and felt better than the one you got with the canon. According to the dpreview forums, they're above standard quality compared to the Canon. Given that I'm starting out in DSLR land, I thought this point was a winner. If I had more money, the 2D would have won out.
3) SSWF dust elimination system
4) I like the OLY colours.
5) Extrenal Flash units are DA BOMB with zoom flash etc,
6) GREAT for beginners like me. Lotsa scene modes to start out with and very forgiving.
7) variable powered internal flash

BAD Points!
===========
1) You're stuck with zuiko (and sigma to a certain extent). They're not cheap baby!! (800AU for 50mm prime lens) Although from what I've heard, they're pretty good! Adapters are coming from camera quest to use other mounts but say bye bye to AF.
2) iso 400 > is noisy. Although not as noisy as you might think. For non pro P&S you should be fine. Something like noise ninja can fix it. Since i don't plan to shoot > 400 its OK to me.
3) No IS but then again, it's nothing a GOOD tripod and NOT drinking will fix ;-)

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 23rd 2006 1:14AM]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/ the reviews been out since Oct 2005...

[(Unverified) Posted Jan 29th 2006 4:40PM]

I have an E-10 which has image-splitting -"pelex"-mirror which, to me at least, simplifies framing moving objects, etc. Why doesn't Olympus use this system in their new cameras such as the 8080 and 330?

Am I on the right track or is there a valid optical-mechanical reason?

Thanks,
Lew