Olympus E-520 announced, previewed
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 13th 2008 2:10AM
posted May 13th 2008 2:10AM
[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]
posted May 13th 2008 2:10AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I need to check back the place I work because I think we have this camera for almost 2 weeks now... I'M NOT SURE.
now this is news, curious how much did it improve or compare with canon and nikon.
Luiz, where do you work? =)
Why the hell didn't all of the 35mm SLR camera manufacturers make a standard lens mount way back when?
Imagine not being restricted to a single manufacturer due to one's investment in glass.
Off topic, I know...
They did. M42 universal mount.
Modern mounts are the result of trying to do exactly what they do - keep you buying from the same company. The profit is made on the additional items. With the digital revolution, we're now seeing some of what the traditional cam co's are afraid of - new companies coming in and stealing some of their turf. Since the giant electronics companies (Sony, Matsushita, etc.) are the ones who are manufacturing the digital imaging electronics that the traditional body makers need for the new market, they're going to have to live with them entering camera industry as end product makers. This, however, is going to cause them to not just stick to the tendency toward making brand specific mounts, they're going to move toward making all the lines more "system" based in attempt to build some sort of automatic expansion. Gotta make that revenue up somewhere.
If anybody, the traditional electronics companies that are entering the still pic market are going to move toward a universal mount assuming an alliance with the non-body-producing lens makers. That would be aimed at the mid and lower range user - seems to me a company like Sigma would be partial to this. This would, in turn, push the traditional body makers to concentrate further on the higher end, to just putting their name on products that are actually built by the traditional elec co's, or just out of the game altogether.
Such are the ruminations of my hypothesy.
The problem for Olympus is that Canon and Nikon have pretty much cornered the DSLR market, and since lens mounts are usually proprietary, a lot of people who have already committed to Canon or Nikon will stick with what they already own: It's a huge reinvestment. But, if Olympus can built a good enough camera to get people to switch, they could build themselves a good market. Olympus has historically built some damn good cameras.
One thing they need to do is drop that damn xD card. At least this camera handles both xD and CompactFlash, but they'd be better off supporting SD instead of xD or at least add SD.
agreed, SD is fast and cheap, just like my mom, and the cards work in more than just a camera or digital photo frame (or PS3) so bring on the SD so I can stick it in the side of my TV
Last I have checked, Nikon and Olympus were licensing info about their lens mounts and only Canon maintained the proprietary status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount#Third-party_lenses - info comes from Wikipedia, tread with caution.
You're talking about third party lenses which have been reverse engineered and are not licensed. There are also adapters to allow you to use lenses intended for one brand of camera on another but again this is not licensed and you lose functionality.
This seems like an incremental update. Olympus does make some nice lenses though. The Zuiko 12-60mm is a popular one. http://xrl.in/4uj
The switch to the E-510 was easy for me, as all my Canon glass was outdated anyway. Even if I had went with a Canon DSLR, none of my 8 or so lenses would ever function fully with the new electronics. I mean, I have some nice lenses in my collection, but all are from between 1974-2001 and were designed for film cameras. They still have value to me, but the new Olympus is now my primary shooter now and I have been more than pleased with the results, features, and affordability. I don't regret the switch and I still love my Canon equipment.
Canon's in-lens IS is much more expensive but the ability to see its effects through the viewfinder more than make up for it. Also, Canon has the ability to optimize the IS to the specific lens.
I'd love to see any decent comparison of in-lens IS vs. sensor IS.
I couldn't find any review comparing the Nikon/Canon vs. Olympus.
My colleague has E-510 and pretty happy with how it works.
Actually, I tried harder this time and found two pictures to compare.
1. Kit IS lens for Canon 450D EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS (last diagram on page) - http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page3.asp
2. Olympus E-510 IS test results (last diagram on page) - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page15.asp
In-lens IS seems to be about twice faster compared to sensor shift. On 1/10 and 1/5 exposures Oly produced correspondently about 50% and 20% usable pictures, while with Canon IS lens on 1/13 and 1/6 produced correspondently about 90% and 60% usable pictures.
Philips. Nice links with good info about expected benefits from IS. However, the results were not meant to be compared, as you did, and doing so results in misleading conclusions.
The Cannon lens was tested at 18 and 55mm, using a frim grip.
The Olympus was tested at 100mm and the photographer shot single handed to exagerate camera shake.
The results are useful, but not in direct comparison to each other. If these tests were to be compared, the only objective way to do so is by comparing the relative improvement each system achieved.
In that case, the Cannon at 55mm and 1/25 sec improved from 20% sharp images with IS off, to 80% sharp images with IS on.
By contrast, the Olympus at 100mm and 1/20 sec improved from 10% sharp images with IS off, to 80% sharp images with IS on.
That would indicate the Olympus IS system actually provided slightly greater stability than the Canon. But nether conclusion is definitive since the comparison was not head-to-head.
Suffice it to say that both systems were quite effective and will be a useful feature to owners of either camera.
Extremely well said!