Olympus Evolt E-420: smallest, lightest, possibly most retro DSLR

There's certainly something to be said for the Olympus E-420, which only takes up 5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1-inches and 13.4 ounces in your bag -- but that totally 80s body style is getting tired. Would it really have killed them to update the look from the E-410 and the rest of the line? Still, it's not the most expensive DSLR you've ever met, and it does have a 10 megapixel sensor with live view, 2.7-inch display, and ISO up to 1600 (meh). Come April or May (depending on where you live) expect to drop $500 for the body, $600 with an ED 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko lens, and $700 with an ED 25mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens.

[Robots, Take Over, Please @ Mar 5th 2008 2:09AM]

80s-style body? Are you kidding?

Looks good to me!

[Liam @ Mar 5th 2008 6:19AM]

It looks yummy.

[AbbydonKrafts @ Mar 5th 2008 9:51AM]

I love the look. I had a blast with my dad's 80s 35mm SLR camera for the longest time. The styling just fits the hand better. The newer ones tend to exaggerate the right-hand grip and actually make it harder to hold. Also, I like that the styling on this makes it look more like a 35mm SLR instead of a piece of futuristic equipment.

[Geir E @ Mar 5th 2008 6:16PM]

nice exterior but the inside is still a four thirds which will always be four thirds. if you buy into canon, nikon, sony or pentax you a bigger sensor to start with, and in the future you have full frame probably fairly affordable. at that time, olympus owners still will have their four third sensor cameras and still get the quality that is between a p&s and the rest of the dslr world.

[Bull @ May 16th 2008 7:07PM]

looks like 50th style to me.

if it's got IS , I will buy it. I like the retro look at cheap cheap price.

[jollyllama @ Mar 5th 2008 2:43AM]

I might be in a minority around these parts, but I would love to see some DSLRs return to late 70's and early 80's designs. All the molded plastic in my Nikon D50 (or any other modern Nikon/Canon) looks really cheesy next to my old Pentax Super Program. Here's to a digital Nikon FM2 in 2008!

[Mr. Fuji @ Mar 5th 2008 3:00AM]

the house of cannikon weeps...

[Firebird @ Mar 5th 2008 3:06AM]

Really? I thought the house of canikon would simply light a spliff and not give much of a damn. Not that I'm hating on the E-420 or Olympus at all, my dslr is an Olympus and I don't drink any canikon koolaid, but, I mean seriously, is the E-420 a big deal? Tis a nice entry dslr, not a showstopper.

[Ethyriel @ Mar 5th 2008 3:14AM]

I see it as more of an assault on the Sigma DP1. It might not be quite as small, but with the pancake it's pretty damned tiny with the same functionality. Yet you still have the option of interchangeable lenses. Plus it doesn't have all the crazy chroma noise of the Foveon sensor.

I've been wanting large sensor compacts for a long time, but a combination of being underwhelmed by Foveon's tech and the shrinking of SLR's changes my perspective a bit.

I haven't actually compared the dimensions yet, though, so maybe I'm overstating things.

[linuxamp @ Mar 5th 2008 3:39AM]

E420? Guess it's for the ravers and potheads.

[Dankoozy @ Mar 5th 2008 3:45AM]

Smallest, lightest and it still takes CompactFlash. that should show the other manufacturers that there's no need to use inferior, slower proprietary SD cards to make a small DSLR. I'd buy one but I'm happy with my E-500

[Liam @ Mar 5th 2008 6:21AM]

I think most people these days would take the SD cards instead, though. They're just more practical, not to mention more widely supported.

[bebop @ Mar 5th 2008 4:07AM]

I think the gripless bricks of the early 1980s are far more appealing than the melted grapefruits of 2008. I'm also totally stoked about a 50mm eff. pancake prime offered as a kit lens. Pity that the E-400 series doesn't doesn't work for me ergonomically. Weird angles in all the wrong places.

[joe @ Mar 5th 2008 4:23AM]

I'm diggin' the style, I may just show this to a friend of mine looking to get into DSLR for fire-scene photography. I'm impressed by the liveview, and rather large screen.

Why buy Canon? Superior glass, my 40D with L-series lenses is just how I gotta roll. (40D until I can afford/justify a full-frame DSLR)

This Olympus looks sweet for those who wish to stay entry-level for a while. Bitchin'

[happy_penguin @ Mar 5th 2008 4:37AM]

I like the looks of it too. I'd really like to see something like a Canon AE 1 style DSLR. That would really be cool.

Ryan, you're a knucklehead! ;)

[Crayola @ Mar 5th 2008 4:48AM]

The design is hard to stomach, spin my head right round, baby, that's right round like a record, baby, right round, round, round. dizzy...

[trumpton @ Mar 5th 2008 5:38AM]

I like these Olympus retro looks. It's a shame that the bodies don't come with 1970s style metal casing (my old OM2/OM1s were built like rocks), but the E410/420 cameras are nice little low cost numbers.

[ralf @ Mar 5th 2008 5:40AM]

@joe:
The 40D and soem L glass is good, but L glass is not superior in general. Have you had a look at the pro and ultra pro Glass from Olympus?

It is likely that canon suits YOU better, but it is not superior in general.

The advantage of this camera over the 40D:
- Autofocus in full-timelive view available
- lighter & smaller, thus ,more portable
- tiny pancake lens ( 25mm 2.8)

again not in general better or worse than the 40D, just a different tool, for adifferent task..

[L. M. Lloyd @ Mar 5th 2008 6:15AM]

I'm just curious, what is the point of getting an SLR if you are going to focus while looking at an LCD? I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just really don't get it. On my 5D, the only thing I ever use the LCD for is looking at histograms, and that is exactly how I like it. The whole reason I shelled out for an SLR is because it drives me nuts trying to guess if a shot is in focus looking at a tiny LCD.

[ralf @ Mar 5th 2008 7:31AM]

Hi L.M. Llyod
one reason to go for an SLR is the bigger sensor, it is ussually not available in a P&S.

It is also nice to have live-view and sensor autofocus in addition ( not in stead of) the prism.
Why?
- the viewfinder is not WYSIWYG. You can not accurately judge DOF in current dSLR ( esp. with fast lenses)see e.g. here: www. dphotoexpert. com/2007/09/21/live-view-versus-the-cheating-dslr-viewfinder/ ( remove spaces), However, I believe with the canon 5D you can fix part of this with different focus screens
- the focus point can be put where evere it is needed in the frame ( as with P&S), dSLR AF-sensors are always at fixed positions

However I thing the main reason this stuff is produced is marketing: people are used to look at the lcd for framing from P&S, and miss this on dSLR

[Raghu @ Mar 5th 2008 9:19AM]

@ L.M. Llyod

One of the reasons people use SLRs is the choice of lens that don't make sense on a fixed lens camera. The live view is a technological innovation that had several implications especially around the auto-focusing mechanism. Believe it or not, even most pros use autofocus to a large extent today, falling back to manual only for low light, low depth still life and other special circumstances. While using the autofocus, the live view is a great framing tool.

[L. M. Lloyd @ Mar 5th 2008 4:56PM]

Ralf, thanks for the article. I guess I can see the rationale of that. You are right though that if you use fast lenses, then you can get special screens (both first-party and third-party) for the 5D that rectify these issues in the viewfinder, and they work quite well. I guess I can also see using live view if you are shooting time exposures with the mirror locked up as well. I suppose I just have an initially bad reaction to it, because 90% of how I see people using live view is watching tourists walk around using their SLR as a fancy point and shoot.

[Wolfticket @ Mar 5th 2008 5:59AM]

Really likin' the style and the kit lens choices. Now if I can just get my head round the "not Nikon/Canon" thing it might be a deal (although the 450d is looking nice... damn, fail)

[nDee @ Mar 5th 2008 6:09AM]

You can tell it's an Olympus even if they tear off all the labels and paint it black, it simply looked awkward.

[spam_from_engadget @ Mar 5th 2008 7:21AM]

Smallest? Maybe, but not by much. My Canon 400D is slightly narrower, and only a couple of milimetres taller and deeper.

[kadajawi @ Mar 5th 2008 9:46PM]

Hm... what 80s style? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM2 This is how a proper 80s camera looks like, and it's by far more attractive than the Olympus.

Also, why should a camera be so small and light? Ok, I guess for bringing it along all the time that's a nice thing, but for taking photos I like it bigger.

[kadajawi @ Mar 5th 2008 10:06PM]

Oh, and I forgot about the Panasonic L1 which looks very retro, or the Leica M8 and Epson R-D1, though they are not DSLRs.

[fonebone @ May 8th 2008 3:06AM]

I've got smallish hands and I travel to outback places a lot, so the 420 appeals to me for that reason (size/weight/quality). I was also a fan of the Pen F, back in the day . . .

So, I'm just buying this thing now (May 2008), along with the standard (24-48?) lens for starters. I'll play with it a bit, but I'm already thinking about the higher grade 12-60mm (do I have that right?), which sounds really sexy, but costs $800.

I should say: I moved here from a Panasonic DMC-LC1, which I thought was a spectacular camera. And although I was very satisfied with the clarity and speed of the Leica lens, I didn't like the fact that it was not interchangeable, and more importantly that it wouldn't go wide enough for interior architecture shots (or big exterior panoramas). Hence, I'm hoping the 12-60mm Olympus lens (which has good reviews against it's Leica counterpart) will do the job for me.