Olympus E-330 DSLR with live LCD reviewed

When Olympus announced the E-330 back in January, the company shook up the DSLR market in a big way: the camera was the first DSLR to offer a full-time live LCD preview, something that point-and-shoot users have taken for granted for years. Now that the camera is starting to make its way to retail channels, we can get a better idea of how successful Olympus has been at making this a seamless experience -- and whether it's a good camera as well. DPReview has one of the first full reviews of a production unit and, not surprisingly, goes to great lengths to explain how that live preview feature works. Their conclusion? It's "poorly implemented," and "suffers from a noisy /grainy view in medium/low light, doesn't provide full frame coverage and doesn't represent white balance or depth of field correct." Additionally, DPreview found that the camera's image quality was a "mixed bag," and that the price -- over $1,000 with lens -- makes it more expensive than most other consumer SLRs, not to mention the 10-megapixel fixed-lens Sony DSC-R1. Despite the drubbing, the camera is still likely to find an audience among upgrading point-and-shooters, at least until competitors add live preview to their models (and we can't help but think that combining this with Panasonic's Olympus-compatible, image-stabilized Leica lens could just make this a very tempting package).

[Brian Short @ Mar 23rd 2006 12:59PM]

Live Preview? If you're so keen on live preview then a DSLR isn't really for you. Holding your camera at arms length while trying to see a teeny little LCD screen through the glare in direct sunlight is not my idea of an ideal photographic experience.

In general, I just don't understand Olympus's thinking behind their Four Thirds cameras. They have slow start up time, a very limited selection of lenses that tend to be very very pricey, a teeny little viewfinder, a small sensor that boasts a lot of noise, a 4:3 aspect ratio when we're seeing more and more cameras come with 16:9, and an overall body size that's larger than a Canon Rebel XT.

Oh, and it's more expensive, too.

I'm just not sure who they think their target market is.

[Jeff @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:15PM]

"a 4:3 aspect ratio when we're seeing more and more cameras come with 16:9"

Well, no... 16:9 will never be a standard camera aspect ratio, anymore than 4:3 will. 3:2 is and always will be the standard ratio; anything else will always be niche. (That doesn't mean a 16:9 or 4:3 camera couldn't be successful in the same way the old instamatic or even some individual APS cameras were successful, but they will never be standard.)

This review touches on some issues with the live preview that will be difficult for Olympus to solve. Depth of field, for example - how do you represent that when you've got a sensor reading light that is not coming through the lens? I can't imagine how that could even be done. It could probably be simulated, but it would require some not-insignificant processing power, and for every lens? That seems to me like it would require a constant barrage of firmware upgrades every time a new lens is released.

If nothing else, this camera demonstrates why SLR's don't have live images on their LCD screens. I personally just really think it can't be done properly. Putting in a second sensor is sort of a clever idea, but one that probably just cannot really work in practice because of issues like those listed above.

And anyway, I do agree with those that say if you need a live LCD preview, then you aren't in the market for an SLR to begin with. SLR users buy SLR's mostly because their combination of features ensures that they will get the best image quality for the money, and one of those features is a real TTL viewfinder that lets you see exactly what the lens is seeing in exactly the same way the lens is seeing it. This is a desirable feature of the SLR format, not a drawback that needs to be remedied. The whole point of any SLR is its lack of compromise, and a live preview LCD is a compromise.

[Jeff @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:18PM]

bah, well this serves me right for not RTFA'ing before posting - the live sensor is in the viewfinder box. Seems it's gotta be the size of the sensor that's the issue with DOF, but again, tough to solve. You'd have to have a sensor the same size as the main sensor to preview DOF as accurately as the viewfinder.

[jacob @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:15PM]

I was kinda hoping the Live preview would be well implemented, as a DSLR owner (Olympus E-500) there have been times where shooting over my head or near the ground would have made having a movable live preview screen nice... but alas, I am happy w/ my E500 and I will be keeping it for some time it seems

[360Capture @ Mar 23rd 2006 3:44PM]

The live preview will only appeal to people who are looking to move up from point-and-shoots, the kind of people who think they must have a LCD preview to take pictures. The same people will probably take all their shots in AUTO too.

Here are few reasons why this live preview technology is junk:

- SLRs are usually pretty heavy, it's much more comfortable to hold it against the body and look through the view finder rather than holding it away from you.

- No LCD display will ever match the clarity and resolution of a mirror-based view finder.

- The normal view finder becomes much darker because of light directed away to feed the live preview sensor.

No serious photographer would ever consider this camera.

What's next, an SLR camera that can also record movies, play MP3s and make phone calls?

[Lars @ Mar 23rd 2006 5:18PM]

"how do you represent that when you've got a sensor reading light that is not coming through the lens?"

The light is coming through the lens. Depending on which live mode is being used, some of the light going to the viewfinder is passed onto a small sensor. The other mode allows light from the lens to directly hit the main sensor by holding the mirror up. This mode does allow for good depth-of-field preview on the LCD, but only manual focussing (ie. for macros).

I agree that the live preview is something that will require more work to be implemented properly, but I think dismissing it out of hand as a feature that no "serious" photographer would ever consider is elitist and stupid. I'm sure there were lots of "serious" photographers who claimed that digital photography is something they would never consider too.

This is a technology in its infancy, and I think it has a lot of potential. Olympus has shown that they can be innovative with their products while other brands don't do much more than replace the sensors in their cameras.

[andy @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:44PM]

Jeff (#2), while you are right in saying that the secondary sensor would have to be the same size as the mail one (in theory) to capture the same DOF, in practice this is not really the case. DOF is measured about the physical size of the pic. So the sensor has to produce a pic of some size to measure DOF. Since the secondary one doesn't really do that, it is pointless. If you look at a 6x4 and then a 8x12 of the same frame, then the limits of acceptable blur will be different for the same pic, even though they were captured by the same sensor.

Also, don't forget that the very specialized Canon 20Da has a live preview feature, although somewhat crass. I personally think that is enough for a serious DSLR shooter. There are some times where you could use live preview, like extreme angles, and when using a tripod and/or shooting over your head. You only need a crass live preview to get you to frame well, and a live histogram would be also maybe even more useful.

I tihnk Olympus went too far with that. A secondary sensor and two different live preview systems just sound redundant and unnecessary, but for the one coming "spoiled" from point and shoots, it would be a nice transition. But it makes the camera unnecessarily more expensive too.

[andy @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:49PM]

oh, and also, you don't get an accurate DOF representation on the viewfinder either, far from it. It depends on the focusing screen too.

[Alex Stewart @ Mar 27th 2006 3:25PM]

I am rather astonished at the responses of people who really haven't had any experience with this camera, and who haven't given much thought to why its live preview might actually matter.
Moreover, the comments on the system in general are off the mark because they fail to recognize that any system is a tradeoff. Having a smaller sensor does impose limitations but if that were all to the story nobody would use a camera as small as a 35mm.
The selective comments from the review in DPreview make a slanted review even more so. For example, the reference to a noisy/gainy view does not apply in medium light, but only when the user selects an image boost in really poor light.
The swiveling ability of the screen is useful not only for the obvious but highly specialized purposes of macro and underwater work, but also for those of us who work with the people we photograph; that is, work of an photojournalistic, ethnophotographic or, for that matter, family sort. The point is not to hide the camera, as if that were possible (rather, I think that keeping it always in view turns it into background noise) but rather to maintain relationships and not have a camera sticking out of one's face. This is an old lesson known by anyone who has used medium format. You need not assume that all of us who use this camera are upgrading from point and shoots. (In general I find the tone of the comments immensely condescending.)
The other advantage is focusing in poor light. For this purpose one has to use the second (B) method (the only one in the Panasonic) and it works very well as it is easy to magnify the focusing area (which you can mode) by 10X. Focusing in poor light is a longstanding weakness of all autofocus cameras (with the possible, and I am not sure I believe this, but possible) exception of the most recent, expensive Canons. It's for this reason that I also use manual focus Nikons, but I see them relegated increasingly to very wide angle use.
The comment on lacking a depth of field image is one I never understood in the review, but I see it's been repeated above.
I suggest that people wait until reviews in reputable magazines appear, and if the tradeoffs that it makes (like any other camera) might work for them, to give it a close inspection of their own. Please do not pay much attention to the (sorry, I was about to be a bit impolite) comments that may be jumping to premature conclusions. Actually, though I am using the camera (mainly with the 14-54mm lens) my own understanding of its strengths and weaknesses is still forming.

[Jeff Skinner @ Apr 7th 2006 6:55PM]

It doesn't surprise me that there are so many negative comments from people who haven't tried the camera. Photographers are not technologically forward-thinking. They want the future to be an endless extension of SLR design, because they are comfortable with that, and therefore it must be the last word in still image capture! I guess if god had wanted photographers to use LCD viewers, she'd have put them on SLR's in the first place.

As an obsessesed photographic amateur and former musician and software designer I have been giving it a lot of thought lately. The camera I WANT would be completely computer controlled from my laptop with a nice bright HDTV style display which would make a nice view finder, don't you think? The camera/computer interface could be a wireless ethernet link, or even a cat 5 cable for 100 Mb connectivity. All the camera's controls could display in a Photoshop (for comforts sake!) style interface And of course, a servo controlled tripod, also driven from the laptop.

This isn't technically ambitious all. The pieces are all available and not even expensive. The camera's are all computer driven already, just needing the remote i/f. The software to drive it could be executed by a small team in a year or so and refined endlessly.

But the big guys, Canon, Nikon, Olympus et al aren't yet selling such a thing, though I'm sure they all have it in the lab. And why is that?

Because photographers are the most conservative hide-bound group of professionals imaginable! Even musicians, who are serious neanderthals technically have finally adopted high tech after resisting it for a decade or so. The revoulution is over in the recording studio. It has barely begun in the image capture world.

You may love your SLR (And it's damned cool tech in a 20th century kind of way), but right now it's as antiquated as the proverbial buggy whip. In ten years the only people still using them will be the photographic equivalent of those quaint souls who still swear vinyl records sound better.

JS

[NM @ Aug 19th 2007 6:53PM]

Live preview is something that is invaluable in certain situations. There have been many times when I have been slpayed out on the ground, trying to look through my viewfinder to get the shot I see in my head, and having to end up shooting blindly because I just can't get my eye to the viewfinder because of the angles involved. A live LCD preview is exactly what is needed there. Second, there have been times when I am in another country trying to take pictures and entire herds of children will come running to get their picture taken if they realize what you are doing. With live LCD preview, you can sit the camera on your lap and look like you are simply fiddling around with it when you are actually taking pictures. Sure, this is not optimal for taking the best pictures, but it is better than shooting blindly or not being able to get the shot you want. For regular pictures you use the viewfinder. When that is getting in the way of taking the picture for whatever reason, use the LCD screen.