Olympus E-600 reviewed, lives up to its billing as a top-notch entry-level DSLR
By Tim Stevens 
posted December 4th 2009 9:02AM
posted December 4th 2009 9:02AM
posted December 4th 2009 9:02AM
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.
Olympus DSLRs provide excellent value for the dollar. A couple of months ago I bought an E450 with a two lens package refurbished for $450. I love it. It's compact and densely packed with manual controls over the image. The .jpgs coming out of the camera are astounding.
There are some weaknesses about the 4/3rds system, but here are some strengths you might not know about:
1. Since the 4/3s sensor is slightly smaller than an APS sensor in other DSLRs, the focal length of the lens reaches farther than with other cameras. The 150mm lens with my kit becomes 300mm at the 35mm equivalent. This means with a smaller piece of glass, you can zoom way in to capture a far away subject.
2. Since the sensor is slightly smaller than other DSLRs, it doesn't have as much surface area to work with with low light. However, a lens with a wide-open aperture will let a lot of light in for the camera, and your picture can keep more of the subject in focus because the smaller sensor allows a greater depth of field. The sensor is still big enough to isolate a subject with the creamy bokke that everyone likes. Especially with a good lens.
3. You can mount legacy 35mm lenses on it with adapters. The distance from the glass to the sensor is shorter than other systems. I put a manual focus, manual aperture prime lens from the '70s on my camera, and it works great. The old lenses aren't as sharp as the new ones, but they definitely give the pictures more character.
@LloydChiro
I was shopping for my first DSLR back in August and I boiled my choices down to the D5000 and E610. I ended up going with the D5000, however I was very tempted by the Olympus since it offered almost the same performance for quite a bit less. Not to mention that the autofocus motor is built into the camera, not the lens--which I think is a huge selling point. Also the articulating LCD on the 610 is fantastic--not so much on my D5000.
That being said, I must say that your first strength of your E450 is a little misguided. Sure its great using a standard telephoto lens and getting the 1.6x magnification due to the sensor being smaller, but the huge negative here is that you'll get quite a bit of sensor crop from using these lenses. It doesn't really make it a negative, but to me it outweighs the positive.
Also you might be shooting raw already, but if you aren't I highly recommend starting to shoot raw format over jpg. Gizmodo had a good writeup yesterday http://gizmodo.com/5417220/with-an-eye-to-the-future-try-raw-photos-today
@Rick James Thanks. I'll look at that article. I don't like to shoot RAW because I like the lightweight workflow of straight from the camera JPEGs. Plus, and maybe I still have a lot to learn, but I can't get my RAW photos to look as good as the JPEGs that come straight from the camera (the camera allows you to shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously.)
I've never heard of sensor crop with these cameras. I've only heard of there being lens crop. The 4/3 sensor only uses part of the glass on a lens made for a full frame camera, thus the lens needs to be twice as sharp to perform as well as a lens made for 4/3s cameras.
@Rick James I just read the article. It's got some good points. If I'm shooting something I think will be memorable, I'll put it in RAW+JPEG mode.
Another cool thing to do with RAW files: You can slightly overexpose a RAW file and process it into an HDR photograph without using a tripod. This means you can take a portrait of someone moving around, and really make it pop with HDR processing. http://abduzeedo.com/awesome-hdr-portraits
@LloydChiro
I meant lens crop--I apologize. I personally find it a nuisance since it makes it a little more difficult to frame your photo since you can't really rely on the viewfinder to accurately show what is cropped and what isn't. Also lens crop can be a problem with some wide-angle lenses as the lens crop can cut out some of the wide-angle distortion. But again, it really isn't a deal breaker here.
Anyways, RAW does have the disadvantage of not being 'finished' right out of the camera, but it gives you lots of flexibility if you want to learn some post processing. However, the biggest turn off for me is since jpg is lossy, I don't like the fact that everytime I edit the photo and re-save it loses image fidelity. Just some advice if you do use jpg, I recommend after any photo editing saving it as a lossless format such as Tif.
Nikon.
can it record hd videos?
@mikmik111
No
@Wolfticket well that's unfortunate.
Shall i buy this or a Canon 500d... sorry if im being daft. im new to photography
@Davo I went for an Olympus (see above), but if I were to do it again, I think I would get the Pentax K-x.
@LloydChiro I also went for an Olympus, the E-500, a couple of years ago now. I think it is a much better camera than the Canons and Nikons I could have got for the same price.
@Maxwell Agreed. For the cost of a mid to high-end point and shoot, it's an outstanding camera system.
Maybe it's time to upgrade my old E-20n.
Should I buy this or the Pentax K-x? I'm looking to buy my first DSLR at around this price range.
@briguyd
Hey dude I had same question
@laxic I think I'm going to go with the Pentax K-x. The lack of video recording on the Olympus is a turn-off, and the K-x is now about $550 on Amazon.
@briguyd Like I said above, I've very happy with my Olympus, but if I were buying again today, I would go for the Pentax K-x. The Pentax has better dynamic range, and can shoot movies, which is important to me, but not so important to others. The Pentax two lens package with the 300mm telephoto lens looks really sweet.
@briguyd
I just picked up the Pentax K-x this week. I'm pretty sure the Pentax is the better camera, but it is more expensive.
@HotBBQ Actually, I've seen the K-x for $550 on Amazon and a few other places, so it's actually about the same price now (haven't checked prices for the Olympus, but I doubt it's dropped more than $50 in price).
@briguyd
You can pick up the body and 18-55mm lens for about that, true. The cheapest 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit I was able to find was $642. I ended up getting the body, the 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses, and a four year extended warranty for $900.
@briguyd
and @ everyone else
Pentax K-x it is! Maybe I can find it in navy and includes 300mm or get that separately.
Thanks for all the comments guys!
Guys help me out this or Pentax K-x? (in navy :)
I wonder how long 4/3 will last... I rather recommend any entry model from Sony or Pentax because both system have IS built-in the body and not to mention a much bigger sensor.
If it were me, I would get the K-x.
Pentax K-x has the following advantages:
a) Proper APS-C sensor, which means better low-light capability (K-x is renowned for that and beats cameras twice as expensive), better dynamic range and better depth-of-field control
b) More choice of lenses without using a converter, including thin pancake lenses
c) Built-in image stabilization giving even better low-light capability
d) HD video capability
The E-600 is:
a) 65 grams lighter body-only, even though it is slightly larger in physical dimensions.
LloydChiro discussed the crop factor as a zoom range extending advantage. I might as well just crop my pictures and get a similar effect. On the other hand, it is tougher to get good ultra-wide angle landscape lenses for the 4/3 cameras like the Olympus due to the crop factor.
The K-x runs off AA (rechargeable or not) batteries which weight a bit more and are less reliable than proprietary Lithiums... they are however way more common, easier to procure in the middle of nowhere and cheaper.
I'd take the Pentax over this one any time.
"c) Built-in image stabilization giving even better low-light capability"
Erm, notice the big "image stabilization" logo in the corner?
Also in its favor Olympus has the best sensor dust-busting system in the industry.
@juu The sensor doesn't get cropped with the long zoom range. The sensor uses a smaller area of the glass, so you are using less glass for that longer zoom. You're still using the whole sensor. The downside of this is that the glass needs to be sharp enough to work with the system, twice as sharp as with 35mm cameras.
But, I agree. I think I would go with the Pentax K-x.
@Plothole
Yes, I missed that logo, You are right, that is no advantage to either system.
Regarding dust removal - I know Olympus were the first with good dust removal technology but are there any tests to show they are still better? Not saying they aren't, just wondering.
@LloydChiro
What you write is correct.
My point was different but I find it hard to explain here. Basically, if you crop an image taken with an APS-C sensor in order to make it appear having the same "zoom length" as an image taken with a 4/3 sensor using the same focal length then you will have ended up using a 4/3-sized portion of the APS-C. Which in some sense is worse, and in some sense the same.
Forgot to add... in my opinion the only reason to get a 4/3-size sensor camera is to actually get a small camera in the end, something like the Panasonic GF-1 or the Olympus PEN Micro 4/3 cameras.
However, they are currently expensive and their auto-focus and viewfinder leaves something to be desired. In a year or so they will probably get more affordable and thus more viable options.
The Olympus E-600 is neither here nor there. It has the small 4/3 sensor, but is still a DSLR-sized camera, even if a small one.
@juu
The Olympus cameras can be had for really cheap, though. And for the small entry price, you get an outstanding camera.
(just maybe not as good as the Pentax...)
I don't know about you guys. But I have an Olympus E-410 and the noise at even 400iso is ridiculous. The white balance and any other preset is horrible. But that's a couple generations back.
@questionexclamation
The smaller 4:3 sensor has unfortunately always left these cameras about a stop behind in terms of noise. So while the newest ones manage a pretty good ISO800 ISO, the newest APS-C sensors are doing the same with ISO1600.
Except perhaps in natural lighting, auto white balance and WB presents tend to be more or less useless on any brand of dSLR.
Looks like a winner, to me. Can anyone tell me if this camera is much better than my Canon S5 IS?