Hey there EVOLT E-520, we nearly forgot you ever existed! Just over a month after Olympus' latest DSLR
first broke cover, one particular individual has managed to corral one from an Austrian shop and snap a few stills. Reportedly, he's planning to write up a full review, but judging by the way the initial round of shots went, we're not so sure he's going to keep it long enough for all of that. As Tam Hanna so bluntly put it, the "autofocus system of the E-520 is the worst [he had] ever seen on a digital camera." Of course, we suppose it could grow on him with time, but just look at the shots in the read link and you'll probably agree that said scenario isn't very likely.
Update: Tam wrote in to inform us that this particular camera was defective. Guess that explains a lot, huh?
posted Jun 19th 2008 at 11:03AM
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
onin @ Jun 19th 2008 11:20AM
I was waiting to get this camera but I got the Pentax K200D instead. all in all I'm am very pleased with the K200D but I haven't tried it on night time shots like this guy.
Temple @ Jun 19th 2008 12:18PM
I wouldn't judge based on this review (not to say the K200D isn't a good camera), but this is review.
Honestly, it looks like the person reviewing didn't even know how to use a DSLR. Its from a PALM OS blog afterall.
First off, he's shooting at low light at night at ISO 100, without using a tripod, and is complaining about not being able to focus. Its not a focusing issue!, its a shutter-speed and hand-shake issue.
Also, his kit lens is out to 150mm in the second set of pictures (which is a 300mm equivalent focal length in the 2X crop four-thirds sensor in the E520). Which means his shutter speed should be between 1/150-1/300th of a second. Sorry, but its not possible to focus with ISO100 hand holding the camera. He clearly had set to "P" auto mode and allowed the camera to set the shutter speed for him. His night pictures are basically showing hand-shake and user error.
Jeff @ Jun 19th 2008 5:12PM
I'm not sure where some of you are getting that he's not using a tripod (or as some say, that he's actually hand-holding the camera). He says, specifically, that he's using a "stand", whatever he means by that, but he's European so maybe there's some different terminology they use over there.
It's clearly *not* handheld, however, as each set of shots he's showing is at the *exact* same angle, which is 100% impossible when handheld.
Now, some of the blur could still be due to shake, depending on what this "stand" is that he's talking about. But his problem is not that his shots are handheld, and you'd have to be even more of a novice than he is to think otherwise. If these shots are handheld, then he is clearly the best photographer the world has ever seen. No photographer can be this consistent when handholding in low light situations.
As for taking shots at night, it is still a 100% valid criticism to say that the AF system does not work well in low light. 100% valid. Some cameras handle this situation better than others, so it is a definite consideration. Probably, the E-520 does do better in bright light - but it clearly doesn't seem to do too well in low light. And that's something most photographers would want to know.
(It didn't do too well on his bonsai tree either, and there don't seem to be any obvious signs of camera shake in those shots. And again, the camera is definitely on some sort of stable surface judging from the consistent angle.)
Is this a scientific test? No. I'd never base a decision on whether or not to buy this camera on this review. Wait for the review at DPReview instead.
But is there some useful info to be gleaned here? Probably. And a lot of the guy's critics obviously know less about photography than he does.
vince @ Jun 19th 2008 11:24AM
please post the read link...
John Sullivan @ Jun 19th 2008 11:27AM
Click on the picture...
Megan Boris @ Jun 19th 2008 11:32AM
Megan Boris-
What are the main features of this camera that make it so outstanding? How does it do with landscape/scenic shots?
awlllwa @ Jun 19th 2008 12:16PM
Megan-
Olympus cameras do outstanding landscapes. Its one of there fortes, and it and area that i think they step ahead of the competition. The color reproduction is top notch. Sadly i cannot find any preliminary review that include a good gallery of landscapes for the 520.
But here is a sample gallery of the 420
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051601olye420samps.asp
The people on the Olympus forum have found this review, see what they have to say about it.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28338121
ronzo @ Jun 19th 2008 11:37AM
ick
Richard @ Jun 19th 2008 11:38AM
Megan - the main feature is an in-body image stabilization system (so every single lens you use is stabilized), a newly revised sensor that improves on dynamic range and reduces noise, and the small and light form factor of the 4/3 system body and lenses. You can get some excellent glass for good prices. The 520 is a good competitor to the newest Nikon and Canon offerings, probably offering worse high-ISO performance, but offering better value and some excellent kit lenses.
Richard @ Jun 19th 2008 3:07PM
As for this "user review," I think it needs to be taken with a HUGE boulder of salt. He complains about the autofocus (something that has never been a problem for the E series cameras), and posts some night shots from the zoom lens. The 40-150 is normally a sharp lens (for the price), but it's not the fastest. I think the max aperture is 4.0. Shooting AT NIGHT at a distant subject at 4.0 is going to give long shutter times. Did the poster even consider why the shots become sharper at high ISOs??? Maybe because the shutter times were dropping and there was less camera shake? Look at the trails from the car headlights - he's probably shooting at 1/8 or 1/4 second... The author says that the camera was supported somehow, but this looks like a clear case of shake. Was he using the image stabilization? I highly doubt that this "review" is worth anything at all... It's either a flawed methodology, an incorrect assumption about the cause of the problem, or a defective sample (which would be bad luck).
AT has some good camera folks, it's a shame to see this case of flawed product bashing get posted without any actual analysis. I doubt that the author of the review would be happy with the "autofocus" of any camera under these conditions. Just my two cents...
awlllwa @ Jun 19th 2008 12:12PM
I own the e-500 and e-420, and I like them both. (the e-520 is nearly the same as the e-420 but with the added bonus of Image Stabilization at the cost of extra bulk).
But, if your going to do a review of a camera in low light and hand held then the results are worthless. It preforms beautifully in good lighting with the kit lens. But if your going for low light shots then you either need to use a tripod or get a faster lens, or both.
I use these cameras everyday where i work, there small and easy to use and learn. I rarely use any of the presets or auto modes, and maybe that's where the difference is. But if your going to buy a DSLR then you should at least learn how to use if first before doing a review.
Some Kid @ Jun 19th 2008 11:51AM
if this is the EVOLT, does that mans it uses a lot or a little power?
Adam @ Jun 19th 2008 12:15PM
Are there different auto focus settings on this camera? Im curious to know since you can clearly (no pun intended) see that the leaves aren't the focal point on those images. Different areas in the photo are focused a bit better... soap bottle etc. Im not defending the camera but definitely go to the store and use it a bit if your interested since this review most likely isn't creditable. One the other hand, if you really want a lower end camera thats easy to use and a great teacher, grab yourself a Canon G9 and you won't regret it.
cesium @ Jun 19th 2008 12:00PM
Not surprised at all. We have an e-500 and its a pretty crappy dslr. Our canon P&S takes better pictures than it does.
Minilap @ Jun 19th 2008 12:32PM
Kido, go back and listen to your cheesy dance music.
willcoffin @ Jun 19th 2008 12:13PM
Who thinks he had AF turned off on the lens.....
Za @ Jun 19th 2008 12:55PM
On the Evolt kit lenses, you turn AF off through the menu on the body, not on the lens itself.
awlllwa @ Jun 19th 2008 12:18PM
Megan-
Olympus cameras do outstanding landscapes. Its one of there fortes,
and it and area that i think they step ahead of the competition.
The color reproduction is top notch. Sadly i cannot find any
preliminary review that include a good gallery of landscapes for the
520.
But here is a sample gallery of the 420
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051601olye420samps.asp
The people on the Olympus forum have found this review, see what they
have to say about it.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28338121
Megan Boris @ Jun 20th 2008 7:24AM
Thanks for the reply and the examples from the 420, they were pretty spectacular. Looks like I'll be looking into a camera purchase soon.
EagerDragon @ Jun 20th 2008 5:59AM
I think this guy is an idiot.
What I see is camera shake. Each picture should have stated if on a tripod or not, what he focus on, type of focus used (spot, average, custom), F-stop used and Shutter speed.
Also it is not possible to judge how well lighted the subject was. The contrast of the image and the amount of light may or may not have an effect.
I think he was handholding using a relatively low shutter speed with IS turned off and also unsure as to what he was focusing on.
Amateur.
LumixLover @ Jun 19th 2008 12:49PM
Please remove this embarrasing review. That this is linked to by engadget really does a disservice to engadget and it's readers. I have not read such a terribly executed review in a long time. Who did the palm os developer-douchebag blow over there to get such an undeserving plug??
spyker @ Jun 19th 2008 1:20PM
Does any one else get that feeling that this guy just doesn't know how to use a DSLR? I've been very happy with my E-510 and I've taken tons of pictures with it. He probably just needs to mess with the settings and get off auto mode :P.
Obscurare @ Jun 19th 2008 1:33PM
WOW... I have to say that everyone has said it all. How can someone who doesn't know how to use a camera be allowed to post a review on a camera? Pathetic attempt at talking about something they know nothing about. User Error has never been truer than here and now.
Marc Rogoff @ Jun 19th 2008 1:55PM
This is about the most ridiculous review I have ever seen engadget post. I am a pro photographer using the top end of Olympus's offering and have the E410 for travel which has superb focus. The reviewer should not be testing focus at night and is apparently not prone to reading the manual. There are too many flaws in what he has said that make this genuinely the most pathetic review I have ever read. Its a shame that Engadget is as widely read as it is because it is doing an injustice to waht is actually a superb piece of kit.
Marc
DeepKeeper @ Jun 19th 2008 1:56PM
Looks like a fake... IMHO. Olympus's cameras are well known for outstanding quality.
Or... Is he an idiot?... um... don't know how to speak it more politely... a man with a different type of thinking?)
FotoGenetix @ Jun 19th 2008 2:16PM
my first DSLR was an E-500, image quality was exceptional, great colors but the 3 point AF sucked and horrible AF time. needless to say i if i would of done it again i would of bought a rebel back then instead.
Raist3d @ Jun 19th 2008 7:49PM
It's pretty sad that Engadget is linking to a "review" of someone who clearly doesn't know even the basics of using a DSLR. I couldn't help but chuckle how he blamed the kit lens for blurring the pixels when zooming in at night. This harms the reputation of Engadget as it is pretty obvious the "reviewer" has absolutely no clue how to use this camera - or any camera for that matter.
Wwhat @ Jun 19th 2008 2:42PM
I don't know anything about this camera, but I don't believe those sample shots were made with a DSLR at all, sooner with a $99.- budget sony.
Look at the barrel distortion, look at the quality and sharpness, if that's a DSLR (and I know the EXIF says so) then I'm guessing he replaced the lens with a throw-away lens or some children's plastic magnifying glass or something.
Amin Sabet @ Jun 19th 2008 2:57PM
Those shots are in no way representative of what you can expect from the E-520. Really surprised that this got picked up by Engadget!
-Amin
http://www.seriouscompacts.com
Ramunas @ Jun 20th 2008 4:38AM
Dude reviewing it needs to learn how to use a dslr, the review is clearly invalid.
PeterBowden @ Jun 19th 2008 4:06PM
Here's what the predecessor to the 520, the e510 can do
handheld at 1/10 sec.
That's not a review and is slanderous at the very least.
http://www.pbase.com/peterb/image/98463258
Alex R @ Jun 19th 2008 3:31PM
Yes, this guy is a novice and knows next to nothing about photography.
Skip.
richardd @ Jun 19th 2008 4:13PM
The only thing distorted is the so-called review. They are 8 second exposure s hand held !! and probably on the wrong settings. Can we have some real reviews for balance or a disclaimer please!!
Coming up next .. my iphone sound crap under water.
Will @ Jun 19th 2008 5:08PM
The reviewer is almost as slow as the shutter speed he was using.
Don't expect to make full second long exposures with a handheld photo.
This review is trash.
itai vonshak @ Jun 20th 2008 4:12AM
just used this camera in japan
the AF was outstanding !
either the guy or the camera are defective ...
pcblade @ Jun 20th 2008 2:27AM
I think that blind people could make a better and more valuable review than this.
Photography could be reduce to a very dumb but enjoyable experience, but please, let only people who know and understand what they make publish some review.
Engadget site should not relay so awful information for the sake of their readers.
BobTurbo @ Jun 19th 2008 8:25PM
Welcome to the internet, where people who have not even the slightest idea of what they are talking about, claim to be experts.
Markus @ Jun 19th 2008 11:07PM
Cripes, Google satellites take clearer shot of earth from space!
TamHanna @ Jun 19th 2008 11:33PM
HALT! HALT!
The camera was DEFECTIVE AND HAS BEEN EXCHANGED BY A REP. The new cam works LOVELY!
My web site currently is down due to some ass DDOSSing me. I will post a gallery of new shots soon!
Best regards
Tam Hanna
P.S. The cam WAS on a tripod all the time
A1 @ Jun 20th 2008 8:16AM
Sure it's a DDoS and not just the Engadget effect?
Alex Moyler @ Jun 20th 2008 5:43AM
Olympus are still shite, whatever happens. I've played with them at work and they're horrible and badly designed. Manual focus in the menu? 4/3 system? An Almighty epic failure.
And yes, cue flames.
Alex Moyler @ Jun 20th 2008 5:14AM
Olympus are still shite, whatever happens. I've played with them at work and they're horrible and badly designed. Manual focus in the menu? 4/3 system? An Almighty epic failure.
And yes, cue flames.
Smarter @ Jun 26th 2008 8:06PM
An amazing array of opinions and thoughts and even though I think that most comments are for the sake of conflict. Most owners of Olympus cameras are very happy with their purchase as are the owners of \"the other brands\".I have sold cameras since 1995 and people who are \"stuck\" on a brand will stay on that brand for years unless they encounter a service issue in which the line \"I WILL NEVER BUY YOUR BRAND AGAIN\" will rear its ugly head. I use Olympus and I actually teach photography privately and to large groups and have a range of photos that I have printed from a 3 year old Canon i865 4color printer and the most common comments about the photos is how nice \"the colors\" are. I am a SHQ JPEG user, using either P or A mode and love the inevitable question I get asked. Do you use Canon or Nikon?
Tom @ Jul 6th 2008 9:48PM
Olympus is getting rave reviews lately. Latest issue of Pop Photo raves about the 520, saying it more of a Junior E-3 than an updated 510. And American Photo picked the 420 as a 2008 Editor's Choice.