Hands on with Olympus E-420 -- the world's smallest DSLR

There it is, the world's smallest DSLR -- the Olympus E-420 (left) -- snuggled up next to its slightly bigger E-410 bro. Note that the E-420 on display at CeBIT is a near-final, fully-functional engineering prototype. What more can we say, it feels great in hand and the space and weight savings are certainly welcome. However, without any images to compare the best we can do is ogle the gallery until the reviews roll in.

Gallery: Hands on with Olympus E-420 -- the world's smallest DSLR

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[vance @ Mar 5th 2008 7:17AM]

So.. can you like, hold it in your hand and then take some pics? It's hard to tell how small it is exactly. Thanks!

[johnnychipface @ Mar 5th 2008 7:48AM]

I was just thinking exactly the same thing. Maybe engadget could start using a 20 deck (malboro please) since everyone knows how big they are.

[ralf @ Mar 5th 2008 8:06AM]

Hi,

the filter thread on the pancake lens is 43 mm according to the picture ( ~1.7 inch if this is more usefull to you)...
Still not as helpfull as photo with a reference, but better than nothing.

[Brad @ Apr 12th 2008 7:04PM]

I bought the 420 about a week ago from my stores olympus rep. Its just like the nikkon 40d in size. its very easy to hold and use. when i was waiting for it in the mail i thought i might not like it cuz it doesnt have much of a hand grip for your right hand. but with its lighter weight the grip is not needed and i can do longer photoshoots with this lighter camera. i would recomend this camera for anyone new to dslr's or for anyone looking to do people based shooting. i have yet to test this camera on fast moving objects like cars, jets, or sports.

[David @ Mar 5th 2008 7:18AM]

I don't much like the new surface effect. It looks as though someone sneezed over it!

[Andrew @ Mar 5th 2008 1:11PM]

But it feels great in the hand. I have E410 with the same surface and even in high humidity and temperature during my Japan vacation the camera felt comfortable and didn't slip or cause any extra sweating.

[Peter Elliot @ Mar 5th 2008 7:37AM]

They're comparing a camera with a very short no-zoom (25mm) lens against one with a zoom lens... The camera body looks identical.

[Prey521 @ Mar 5th 2008 8:00AM]

The bods are not identical, you can see the size difference....well at least I can.

[Joey Geraci @ Mar 5th 2008 8:49AM]

The bodies look completely identical. Any difference you are seeing is an optical illusion due to the difference in lense sizes.

[Jeff @ Mar 5th 2008 11:05AM]

They do look pretty much 100% identical. Even the knobs and switches are in the exact same places. I doubt they even changed much of the tooling to make these.

There's really only so small that an SLR should be, though. My Rebel XT is already too small. These are not meant to be pocket cameras. You need to ideally be able to get both hands around an SLR (or one hand fully around it, depending on the lens). All that glass carries some weight and there's no physical way around that - when you've got a lens that weighs 2 pounds and a camera that weighs 4 ounces, you're gonna have motion blur without using a tripod for every shot.

Anyway, I'm still glad that those ridiculous photos that were posted here a while back of the E-420 were apparently fake.

[Andrew @ Mar 5th 2008 1:21PM]

The E410 kit lenses or even zoom lenses are very light, nowhere near 2 pounds, because they use plastic bodies for lenses too and the amount of glass is reduced (even though the lens is still very good according to dpreview). You can easily hold E410 in one hand, or two if you wish. Some people do prefer to feel the solid weight and coolness of metal body though, I too have a photographer friend who feels there is such a thing as too light DSLR. I on the other hand am quite happy with weight of these as it means it can be around my neck the whole day while walking around and I won't feel it at all. It's good to have a choice.

[Brendan Sheehan @ Mar 5th 2008 8:35AM]

With software MENUS designed by drunk idiots.

[Rboyett @ Mar 5th 2008 9:15AM]

The bodies do look identical. Any weight savings is probably internal. Besides, that weight reduction isn't significant to begin with. Olympus is just taking full advantage of the smaller bodies you can have with a 4/3rds lens system.

[Rboyett @ Mar 5th 2008 9:21AM]

Hey, wait a second.....

Olympus says this camera weighs 13.4oz with no battery.
The older E-410 weighs 13.2oz with no battery.

I just checked the specs at DPreview for confirmation...

So what gives?

[Bob-o @ Mar 5th 2008 9:50AM]

Didn't Canon already prove that smallest wasn't a good idea? The Rebel's ergonomics are horrendous compared to their midrange models and all the Nikon models.

[Paul in Maryland @ Mar 5th 2008 9:58AM]

The "kit" zoom lens they're offering with it is a dim f/5.6 at the long end...and that long end, as I recall, is shorter than a 100mm equivament (in 35mm). What will happen when these buyers discover how useless the longer end is in darker settings?

[craig @ Mar 5th 2008 11:20AM]

The world's smallest DSLR---because everyone would use a DSLR if they only weren't so big. ;-)

If only 4/3 would actually deliver on the promises of superior image quality that they've implied from the very beginning. The whole "official" justification for 4/3 was that the new lens mount would enable designs to overcome the problems unique to digital sensor. Of course, that was a lie. Meanwhile, 4/3 get trounced by Nikon, Canon, and Sony in image quality. IQ, after all, is why people use DSLRs. Small size is irrelevant.

[Andrew @ Mar 5th 2008 1:15PM]

What are you talking about? Check dpreview, image quality of E410 and E510 is right there with the rest of cameras in that price range, if not better. It's not just sensor, it's also lenses that influence the picture quality and kit lenses with these cameras are very good.

[Priper @ Mar 5th 2008 1:59PM]

The problem with the Olympus is not the 4/3, but the processor, which is not up to par with canon and nikon. I've been using Olympus since E-1 and they are pretty good at what they do. You have to remember which dslr was the previous smallest dslr.... the e-410!!

[craig @ Mar 5th 2008 2:47PM]

You must not be reading the same dpreview, Andrew. The Olympus 4/3 cameras consistently get beat in dynamic range and noise testing. They just don't do as well and there's reason for that. Their sensors are smaller and lenses can do nothing for that. Some competitive cameras are 12MP vs. Olympus's 10MP as well.

Of course, "in their price range" is another matter, but lowering the price of a 4/3 camera does not improve its performance. Olympus wanted us to believe at the 4/3 introduction that their exclusive technology "designed specifically for digital" would more than make up for their smaller sensor. Yes, 4/3 has some nice lenses but it doesn't matter because their sensors suck. Canon and Nikon have some nice lenses, too, and their sensors don't suck. Sadly, the 4/3 mount is roughly the same size as Canon's and Nikon's so the size advantage isn't all that great either.

All things equal, larger sensors beat smaller ones every time. A Nikon D40x has 70% more surface area than a 4/3 sensor. A Canon or Nikon full frame sensor is nearly 4 times as large. As technology advances, high quality larger sensors become more and more viable at lower price points. 4/3 is on the wrong side of that trend. It's a stupid, short-sided engineering decision.

[pgabor @ Mar 5th 2008 10:24PM]

Oh, yeah! The 4/3 was a bad decision. BTW, the medium format is 416% bigger than the full frame. That means the medium format sensor size is actually 516% of the full frame sensor size. Thus, the full frame was a stupid short term decision. Right? Let me ask You if Your your birth was also a stupid short term decision?

[craig @ Mar 6th 2008 12:14AM]

Yes, 4/3 was a bad decision. Glad you see that.

No, MF's superiority over FF 35mm doesn't mean that FF is a stupid short term decision. MF cameras are far more specific, are much larger, and have a much narrower range of lenses compared to 35mm. They are in a totally different price league as well. Their larger sensors do give them an IQ advantage though their sensors are updated less frequently.

4/3, on the other hand, is roughly the same size and price as 35mm, targets the same uses as 35mm, has an inferior selection of lenses compared to 35mm, and offers inferior image quality. It's a total loser and was from the start. There's no analogy between 4/3 and MF except to the stupid.

I'll let you ask about my birth but you'd have to ask my parents, not me. Odds are, that decision was more sound that your decision to bring your idiotic comments to this thread, pgabor.

[pgabor @ Mar 6th 2008 12:48AM]

Well, as far as I can see the super high grade lenses from Oly cover everything from 14-600mm (35 equivalent), the high grade lenses cover everything from 24-400 (35 equivalent) and the standard lenses 28-600mm (35 equivalent). So, I do not think there is too much of a difference in terms of the lens lineup between the two formats.

Well, about the size. Can You please let me show that digital FF camera, which is the direct competitor of the E-420 size vise? I would like to see that.

About the image quality. Hm, that is an interesting one. You might have less DR with 4/3 (but not sure even about this). The sharpness is definitely at least on pair with the FF offerings. The Oly colors are legendary, needless to say, far superior to either Canon or Nikon. So, I am not quite sure what You are talking about here.

[craig @ Mar 6th 2008 10:57AM]

Read the reviews, then, rather than fanboy propaganda. 4/3 is definitely lower in DR and offers poorer noise and high ISO performance. I never commented on sharpness nor color since neither is a function of sensor size. I've heard propagandists for every system say their colors were "legendary". I've owned 3 different manufacturers' DSLRs and I shoot raw. I don't see the massive color differences that others say exist, but then again I calibrate. Color differences are primarily in the JPG engines and raw converters.

As far as lens lineups, it's a joke to suggest that 4/3 competes with Canon or Nikon. If you base that on focal length alone, then you aren't qualified to discuss the issue. Where's the Oly equivalent of the Canon 24 f/1.4? Where's the equivalent for the Nikon 200mm f/4 micro? How about the wide range of teleconverters? Tilt/shift lenses? Where's their portrait lenses? It goes on and on. The 4/3 lens lineup is threadbare for actual photographers.

The size of the 4/3 mount is not much different than the 35mm mounts and exceptionally small bodies have proven themselves to be ergonomic liabilities. The fact is that size difference of 4/3 doesn't qualify it for uses any different than 35mm. The size issue is simply something for Oly to hang its hat on (just like the MacBook Air). The performance still sucks. Who wants an inferiortool just because it's a little smaller?

Olympus E420: 130 x 91 x 53 mm
Nikon D60: 124 x 94 x 64 mm

Wow, what a tremendous size advantage there. Jeez.

Sorry, pgabor, but you just don't have any objective arguments in favor of 4/3. It's too bad you "joined the wrong team". Nikon and Canon don't need their full frame cameras to compete with 4/3, their least expensive, cropped entry-level cameras do just fine.

[pgabor @ Mar 6th 2008 11:32AM]

Well, I think if You have to read the reviews than that is You who is not qualified. I can decide by myself what is good for me. No need for a third party.

I used more than one dslr too. I use RAW too and I definitely have the opinion that the Oly produces better colors. So, this is not a justified point from either one of us. (BTW, color differences are not just in the JPG engine. Just to let You know this was one of my research fields.)

About the lenses. Yes, You are right. There are Canon or Nikon offerings that do not have an Oly equivalent. But the opposite is also true. Nikon or Canon do not have a 70-200 (equivalent) 2.0 for example. And well, with its creamy bokeh this seems to be a portrait lens for me. They do not have tilt/shift lenses either but I think if You want to take pictures of things that require this kind of thing than You are better of with Large Format. And again, it is good to know that I am not an actual photographer. :-)

I do not understand why You are talking about the size of the mount. It is not the mount that You carry. It is the weight of the body and the lenses.

I think You are cheating here. You mentioned the size of a cropped camera. I asked for a full frame. It is obvious that if we use Your argument than the cropped format is also a dead route. So, can You please let me know which FF can compete with the size of the 420?

Well, I joined the 4/3. I do not know if it is the wrong team or not. I definitely have to admit that Nikon and Canon have some beautiful offerings such as the D300 or D3. I just do not see why this would mean that 4/3 is dead or pointless. But You, an experienced and great photographer, might be able to open my eyes.

[craig @ Mar 6th 2008 1:51PM]

Yes, you can decide for yourself. You can even use fantasy as your guide as you clearly do. I didn't know fanboys had research fields. You'd think, after researching, you'd know more than you do.

After capitulating on the MF angle, now you've admitted your lens selection argument is false as well. Is there anything other than BS you can offer?

Both Canon and Nikon have a 70-200 f/2.8. The equivalent depth of field of the Olympus f/2.0 is produced by a FF 35mm at f/4.0. Both Canon and Nikon exceed this capability by a full stop and their high ISO performance compensates for the loss of speed. For DX sensor cameras there is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 which provides comparable focal length and depth of field capabilities. Sorry, but you are simply wrong again.

Of course, a 35mm equivalent 70-200 f/4.0 isn't a good portrait lens anyway. What does Olympus have to compare to the 50 or 85 f/1.4 (Nikon) and f/1.2 (Canon). Nothing, that's what. Portraits are taken with these lenses on 35mm, they aren't taken with whatever kludge is offered in an incomplete lens lineup.

I guess you ARE better off with large format if your digital system can't do what you want it to. That's far more true for 4/3 system users than 35mm ones. What large format digital solutions are there? Did you suddenly lose your equipment size sensitivity?

I talk about the size of the mount because it limits how small a system can be. The 4/3 mount is just as big. The only size savings come from the smaller sensor which enables smaller finder optics, mirror, and lens focal lengths. The first two savings are modest. The last is significant, but 4/3 format is only roughly 2/3 the linear size of DX or APS-C and the mount is just as large. That's why the overall size reduction just isn't that much.

I'm not cheating, I'm expressing the inferiority of 4/3 to the competition---namely Sony, Nikon, and Canon. That was in my original post as were comparisons to both cropped and full frame 35mm sensors. My story hasn't changed, yours has. 35mm digital photographers don't have to commit to one sensor size; they can choose what's best for the application.

I don't care what 35mm FF camera competes on size with the 420. It's the loser's argument to choose one arbitrary bullet point to win on and then pretend that's it's the overwhelmingly most important thing. You have now retreated to that position after losing the MF argument, the lens selection argument, and the image quality argument. Now, size is the most important issue for you.

You can insinuate that I'm being overly arrogant here, but it was you who started the personal insults and the nonsense arguments. It's irrelevant how good a photographer I am; you are just putting that forward to attack me rather than the technical arguments which you cannot. The 4/3 system wasn't created to offer photographers a superior option, it was created to offer companies a mount other than Canon's or Nikon's. It's short-sighted decision to use a small sensor has doomed it.

[pgabor @ Mar 6th 2008 5:16PM]

Well, I think we can clearly see that this discussion is pointless. You decided that I lost all the "wars" and of course You must be right. I have to say that Canon, Nikon and Sony are all great but this still does not mean that Olympus or 4/3 is not. As You have stated before, 4/3 is doomed simply because of the sensor size and not the image quality. In this case FF is doomed because it is smaller than Medium Format. This must be obvious even for You. Well, image quality does not matter, right? Or if it does than we have to talk about sharpness, colors etc and not just noise.

Again, 70-200 f/4.0 seems to be a good portrait lens for me. Also, it might be a 4.0 in terms of DOF but not in terms of light. And yes, you can compensate it with higher ISO but how are You going to compensate it if you are already using 100 ISO, which is the case in terms of studio photography?

I also do not understand why You are comparing 4/3 to the cropped format. This simply does not make sense for me. You are so weird. First You state that the 4/3 is doomed because of the sensor size and than You try to catch up throwing in the cropped format. Cheater!!!

Well again, the D60 is not much bigger in terms of size than the 420. But it weights 1.5x of it. Also, add the lenses and the size and weight difference will be even more.

I do not mind if You are arrogant. That is Your business not mine. What I do not like is the fact that You make stupid statements. I do not hate Canon, Nikon or Sony just because I am using Olympus. But You do hate Olympus for whatever reason. This does not mean that it is any worse. I think You are a fanboy and not me. If You really cannot see the difference between these cameras and their strengths and weaknesses than it is not necessarily the camera manufacturer, it might be You, or Your limited mind.

Use whatever fits Your needs best, I will do the same. Just do not justify things because of You are a fanboy.

[RobJ @ Mar 5th 2008 12:51PM]

I for one, like small cameras, and this one (especially combined with that 25mm lens) almost makes me want to switch to Olympus. Plus, Olympus has a history of making smallish cameras, dating all the way back to their PEN cameras in the 60s and their OM series of film cameras, so this is very much in keeping with the company's tradition. Ergonomics isn't just about size.

Now if only Olympus could match Nikon and Canon's image quality with the 4/3rds sensor, but I'm not holding out hope for that.

[jon @ Mar 5th 2008 1:26PM]

it looks like a really nice camera, but it lacks sensor shift IS. the 510 is probably their best value right now, still being extremely small for an slr.

[Michael @ Mar 5th 2008 1:57PM]

You guys ever think of hiring someone who knows the first thing about cameras to cover cameras for your site? Just curious.

[craig @ Mar 6th 2008 12:16AM]

How would that expense help them promote Apple?

[mrpoo @ Mar 6th 2008 4:59PM]

By the way, Apple already patented the smallest DSLR, pancake lenses and the general concept of a "camera"

[craig @ Mar 6th 2008 7:50PM]

Haha, I'd like to see Apple's patent for the smallest DSLR. I guess that means you're only infringing until someone makes a smaller one.

Does Apple have a patent on how to determine "smallest" like they apparently do for "thinnest" with the MBA and "smallest" with the iPod shuffle?

I'm sure Apple are the DSLR geniuses of the world. Their device will have only an integral lens and one button and it will have no user-changable flash or battery. It will only sync to iPhoto or Aperture and it will be heralded as the reinvention of the camera. If it won't do it, then you don't need it to be done. It will, however, be known as the most open and capable DSLR ever produced because iPhoto and Aperture ARE photography. Fortunately, it will be available in white, much to the chagrin of Canon L fanboys everywhere.

[craig @ Mar 6th 2008 7:41PM]

"You decided that I lost all the "wars" and of course You must be right."

Your failure to defend a single position has determined that, not any decision on my part. You're free to argue your positions if you wish some additional trouncing.

"I have to say that Canon, Nikon and Sony are all great but this still does not mean that Olympus or 4/3 is not."

It means that 4/3 is the worst of all those competitors. Choose the adjective of your choice to describe that.

"In this case FF is doomed because it is smaller than Medium Format."

No, I've refuted this bogus MF argument before. 35mm digital has always been worse than MF in image quality but offers other compelling advantages just as it did with film. 4/3 offers no compelling advantages over 35mm and has worse IQ.

"Well, image quality does not matter, right? Or if it does than we have to talk about sharpness, colors etc and not just noise."

You are a retard.

"Again, 70-200 f/4.0 seems to be a good portrait lens for me. Also, it might be a 4.0 in terms of DOF but not in terms of light. And yes, you can compensate it with higher ISO but how are You going to compensate it if you are already using 100 ISO, which is the case in terms of studio photography?"

Light sensitivity is never an issue with portrait photography. You'd know that if you actually did it. If it WERE an issue at ISO 100, you'd go to ISO 200 anyway. Now, if you used a D3 your base would be ISO 200 to begin with. With the D3 and its 70-200 f/2.8, not only do you get superior IQ and DOF, you get equal light sensitivity compared to the Oly solution, and with the Nikon there are at least 3 lenses that are preferred for portrait photography over the 70-200. All of those lenses will ultimately be faster on the D3 than the Oly setup you advocate and all offer vastly superior DOF control. This is really a joke of an issue.

I guess if the Oly lens is good enough for you then it's the best portrait lens solution there is, right? Some argument you've got there. I'm sure it's convincing everyone of your original assertion that the 4/3 lens lineup is as complete as Ninon's and Canon's.

How are the 4/3 macro lenses? Oh yeah, they suck. They offer 70mm and 100mm 1:1 apparent equivalents plus one teleconverter. With Nikon or Canon you get 50, 70, 100, 150, and 180/200 plus three different teleconverters and the DX crop factor should you choose one of those bodies. With Nikon you can also use the glorious 70-180 micro zoom. It's an old-fashioned beatdown.

"I also do not understand why You are comparing 4/3 to the cropped format. This simply does not make sense for me. You are so weird. First You state that the 4/3 is doomed because of the sensor size and than You try to catch up throwing in the cropped format. Cheater!!!"

That's because you are a fool. A DX sensor is 70% larger than 4/3 and uses a far broader selection on lenses. It outperforms 4/3 in objective tests and is the closest in size and cost to the Oly systems you claim are so great. Those are the cameras the Oly's are compared to. I've NEVER focused on full frame 35mm, it's simply another option for those who buy into one of the 35mm systems that doesn't exist in the lame 4/3 format.

"Well again, the D60 is not much bigger in terms of size than the 420. But it weights 1.5x of it. Also, add the lenses and the size and weight difference will be even more."

Oh, now switching to weight now that your size argument has exploded? You sure are desperate for something that makes 4/3 look good. The D60 is 24% heavier than the E420---a whopping 91 grams or 2.85 ounces. Get real.

"But You do hate Olympus for whatever reason."

Nope, it's just that 4/3 is clearly inferior. My statements appear stupid only to those who are so ignorant that they think I am wrong.

"This does not mean that it is any worse."

No, 4/3 is worse for all the reasons I've argued, not because I "hate" them. You speak as a fanboy. You have an emotional attachment to your "team" and you resort to personal attacks and lies to make your case. Your opinions are irrational.

[Nomad @ Mar 10th 2008 11:35PM]

Hey Craig,

Out of curiosity, you put Nikon and Canon up on a pedestal, and rightfully so, but how do you consider Pentax? Their reviews are just as good, in terms of IQ. I don't know much about sensor size or their image processor quality, but their lenses also enjoys good reputation. Wouldn't they be in the same tier as those two biggies?

[craig @ Mar 10th 2008 11:51PM]

Probably, but I don't know enough about Pentax specifically to comment on them. I wasn't trying to contrast any of the 35mm DSLR vendors, just contrasting them all in general to the smaller 4/3 format. Nikon and Canon are the largest and most well known, plus Sony will soon join them in offering full frame as well as cropped. That's why I chose those three. I'm sure Pentax could enter the full frame market as well now that Sony is offering sensors to OEMs.

[Nomad @ Mar 11th 2008 5:49PM]

Thanks Craig,

I've attached a link to a very good article on this subject about sensor size, and clearly, size does make a difference.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2007/aug/ht_landscape_photography_frame1.shtml

To all:

If I can expand this topic because all of us wants to know how to size up one model against another, how many other components of a camera affects the overall image quality and would one vendor be strong in one component(s) and weak in another area and thus level the playing field? Thanks for your response everyone I enjoy your comments, thats why we participate in these forums.

[Abhishek @ Mar 16th 2008 10:45PM]

Craig,

I was very well leaning towards the Olympus E-510 (E-410+IS+better feel+few quirks)because I just hated the handling on the XTi and because Olympus had some comparable benefits such as live view (I wear glasses and as much as I love the viewfinder, sometimes not having to slide my sweaty nose on the LCD is a nice), in body IS and last, because I did not have a closet full of Nikon or Canon lenses. 4 or 5 years later, if I shared the same passion for photography, I could move up to a really nice Nikon or Canon with glass which would make me throw away my current entry-level lenses. But after reading this blog, I feel VERY skeptical about the smaller sensor on the 4/3 olympus. If you can, in a very technical yet realistic fashion, convince me to just leave out the Olympus and open my arms to the Nikon, Id be grateful!!

Thanks!

[Mick @ Mar 26th 2008 5:53AM]

The link below is to an article that pretty much helped me decide
that the 4/3 system is comparable to the Nikon/Canon cropped format
cameras (APS-C). The arguments made here are based on science and
analysis of facts, unlike the sorry debate I just read above. Read
his other (non-4/3) articles too about the physics of noise and DOF
etc - very interesting!

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/sensor-size.html

In the UK the e410's only competitor price-wise for a DSLR newbie
like me was the Nikon D40. The e410 offered much more bang for the
buck - my only concern is the price of new lenses. I'm not a pro, so
I'm happy with the twin kit lens (both small, light, excellent
quality offering a zoom range of 28-300mm equivalent). I recently
added a dirt cheap 50mm f1.8 Olympus OM lens bought off ebay and use
it via an adaptor ring. It's great for low light indoor photography.
The new 25mm 'pancake' looks very tempting too.

From reading around, and a little experience, the level of criticism
directed at the 4/3 system is largely unfounded. I expect FF cameras
to out perform 4/3, but not cropped APS-C cameras. There is no
difference IQ-wise. The fact that the e510 has better IQ than the
e410, and the new E3 is better than the e510 rather proves the 4/3
system is evolving happily. It hasn't plateaued as some
lines-of-argument would suggest. The real difference lies in the
limited choice of lenses. I personally do not expect to need/buy many
lenses, but its just a hobby for me. Also read up on the limitations
of Canon/Nikon lenses for digital cameras - not all the lenses out
their work with the newer cameras, so you would have a little
homework to do to establish what lenses are actually available for
your Canon/Nikon. One good thing about 4/3 is that all the lenses are
excellent quality and its easy to know which ones work with your
camera (e.g. all of them). With appropriate adaptors, a lot of lenses
(except Canon for some reason) will also fit 4/3 cameras, but lose
their auto focus features on the way. Handy for using cheap second
hand lenses.

Having said all that, If I were a pro, I would probably go for a
Canon/Nikon for FF & lens selection, but spend a fortune in the
process. As a hobby, Olympus & 4/3 is a relatively cheap, feature
packed, ergonomically satisfying quality introduction to the world of
DSLRs. The e420 proves that there is plenty of improvements coming
down the line too.

Hope that helps.

[David J. Heinrich @ May 12th 2008 4:22PM]

Saying that all else equal, a larger sensor will produce a better picture may be an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to substitute "a better or equivalent picture". When there are millions of photons striking one photoreceptor, it is doubtful that increasing or decreasing the size even by 2-fold has much of an effect. However, let us grant that such is true, that all else equal, larger sensor-size means better picture quality. However, all else is not equal. The E-420 may have the same sensor as the E-3, which compensates for the smaller sensor size by having less space between the photon sensors.