Roundup: DSLR and Lens-Changing Cameras : Olympus E-520
By
Digital Versus,
published on June 1, 2009
Powered by
Contents
7. Olympus E-520
Wireless Flash
The built-in flash on the E-520 can wirelessly control Cobra flashes (models FL-50R and FL-36R), which are triggered by the light from the main flash itself.
In total, you can add up to three additional flashbulbs, making it easy to create your own little studio.
Olympus' new "Evolt" E-520 is the logical extension of their flagship SLR, the E-510.
There are no radical changes with the E-520, but plenty of subtle upgrades: a bigger LCD screen, for instance, and a new 10 Megapixel LiveMOS sensor, both of which help the E-520 keep up with the stiffer competition in this field.
Handling
Apart from a few small details, the case of the E-520 is almost identical to that of its predecessor. I've also already mentioned the most obvious change: the upgrade of the LCD screen from 2.5-inches to 2.7-inches.
The larger screen benefits from what Olympus calls HyperCrystal II technology, which reflects light falling on the screen back out to increase the brightness. This means you can use the camera even in bright sunlight, even if it is not quite as easy than doing so in other conditions. Compared to most of the other SLRs we've tested, the inclusion of HyperCrystal II means that the E-520 has one of the best screens we've ever seen.
Apart from that, very little has changed on the outside, unless you want to note the fact that the controls are now labeled in blue, rather than green.
Hardware
Holding it in your hands, the case is practical and solid. It's bigger than its main competitors like the Nikon D60; the handle is just as comfortable, and provides a good grip.
The 14-42 mm lens is noticeably shorter and fatter than its 18-55 mm equivalents found elsewhere. Unfortunately, the viewfinder is still quite narrow, and is in fact one of the weaker elements of the E-520's design. As an alternative, you can focus images on the screen, and in this mode, three different AutoFocus settings are available.
The first setting uses the main sensor to measure contrast on an eleven-point scale, but only works with 25 mm, 14-42 mm and 40-150 mm lenses; it also has optional face detection. The second uses classic AutoFocus sensors, requiring the mirror to come down to allow the focus to be completed successfully. The third and final mode is a combination of the first two, but it's difficult to see what advantages it provides.
Focusing directly on the screen allows you to check the kind of readings we're used to seeing on even compact digital cameras (histogram and white balance for example), but it's painfully slow sometimes, especially when light levels drop. However, all in all, the E-520 is a pretty fast camera, but certain functions can take longer than we'd like--AutoFocus and cleaning the lens as the camera is switched on in particular slow it down. Burst mode even shows a modest improvement, reaching a speed of 3.5 frames per second.
Interface
The controls have basically remained unchanged, staying identical while offering a rich but accessible interface. There are plenty of shortcuts to key settings (ISO, white balance, flash, burst mode, AutoFocus and so on …) and most of the settings are controlled using the LCD screen on the back. Some of the menus are a little convoluted, though, and there is no contextual help for the poor beginner who might easily find themselves a little lost.
Image Quality
The sensor inside the E-520 is new to Olympus' line and is supplied by Panasonic, which promises improvements to ISO ratings and dynamic range. In practice, the images produced by this SLR are generally better than those produced by its predecessor. The dynamic range is indeed wider, and is particularly better in brighter conditions, where earlier models tended to flatten out a lot of detail.
As for electronic noise handling, the E-520 is still just a little behind its two big competitors, the Nikon D60 and the Canon EOS 40D. In the open air, white balancing performs well and colors are captured accurately, but inside, under artificial light, colors are a little too warm. The lens supplied with the camera is reliable, producing sharp images with little chromatic aberration.
Although the mechanical stabilization works well, the optical stabilization seemed to give better results, meaning it's possible to get good pictures at 1/6 s, though it's often necessary to slide to 1/15 s to be sure of better quality. Unfortunately, the built-in flash sometimes under-exposes images.
There are no radical changes with the E-520, but plenty of subtle upgrades: a bigger LCD screen, for instance, and a new 10 Megapixel LiveMOS sensor, both of which help the E-520 keep up with the stiffer competition in this field.
Handling
- EVOLT E-520 Black SLR...
Apart from a few small details, the case of the E-520 is almost identical to that of its predecessor. I've also already mentioned the most obvious change: the upgrade of the LCD screen from 2.5-inches to 2.7-inches.
The larger screen benefits from what Olympus calls HyperCrystal II technology, which reflects light falling on the screen back out to increase the brightness. This means you can use the camera even in bright sunlight, even if it is not quite as easy than doing so in other conditions. Compared to most of the other SLRs we've tested, the inclusion of HyperCrystal II means that the E-520 has one of the best screens we've ever seen.
Apart from that, very little has changed on the outside, unless you want to note the fact that the controls are now labeled in blue, rather than green.
Hardware
Holding it in your hands, the case is practical and solid. It's bigger than its main competitors like the Nikon D60; the handle is just as comfortable, and provides a good grip.
The 14-42 mm lens is noticeably shorter and fatter than its 18-55 mm equivalents found elsewhere. Unfortunately, the viewfinder is still quite narrow, and is in fact one of the weaker elements of the E-520's design. As an alternative, you can focus images on the screen, and in this mode, three different AutoFocus settings are available.
The first setting uses the main sensor to measure contrast on an eleven-point scale, but only works with 25 mm, 14-42 mm and 40-150 mm lenses; it also has optional face detection. The second uses classic AutoFocus sensors, requiring the mirror to come down to allow the focus to be completed successfully. The third and final mode is a combination of the first two, but it's difficult to see what advantages it provides.
Focusing directly on the screen allows you to check the kind of readings we're used to seeing on even compact digital cameras (histogram and white balance for example), but it's painfully slow sometimes, especially when light levels drop. However, all in all, the E-520 is a pretty fast camera, but certain functions can take longer than we'd like--AutoFocus and cleaning the lens as the camera is switched on in particular slow it down. Burst mode even shows a modest improvement, reaching a speed of 3.5 frames per second.
Interface
The controls have basically remained unchanged, staying identical while offering a rich but accessible interface. There are plenty of shortcuts to key settings (ISO, white balance, flash, burst mode, AutoFocus and so on …) and most of the settings are controlled using the LCD screen on the back. Some of the menus are a little convoluted, though, and there is no contextual help for the poor beginner who might easily find themselves a little lost.
Image Quality
The sensor inside the E-520 is new to Olympus' line and is supplied by Panasonic, which promises improvements to ISO ratings and dynamic range. In practice, the images produced by this SLR are generally better than those produced by its predecessor. The dynamic range is indeed wider, and is particularly better in brighter conditions, where earlier models tended to flatten out a lot of detail.
As for electronic noise handling, the E-520 is still just a little behind its two big competitors, the Nikon D60 and the Canon EOS 40D. In the open air, white balancing performs well and colors are captured accurately, but inside, under artificial light, colors are a little too warm. The lens supplied with the camera is reliable, producing sharp images with little chromatic aberration.
Although the mechanical stabilization works well, the optical stabilization seemed to give better results, meaning it's possible to get good pictures at 1/6 s, though it's often necessary to slide to 1/15 s to be sure of better quality. Unfortunately, the built-in flash sometimes under-exposes images.
| Olympus E-520 | |
|---|---|
| Pluses | Minuses |
|
|
| THE FINAL VERDICT The E-520 is a fully-featured digital SLR with a whole range of useful additions (image stabilization, good anti-dust enclosure, Live View ...), which produces excellent quality photos. It's just a shame Olympus hasn't been able to improve the viewfinder or the AutoFocus system ... |  |
I've only read 2 pages but these guys don't know what they are talking about. SLRs were not "used mostly by professionals", there have been huge consumer sales of them for decades. Also, the D70 was not "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR", it was a great camera (I wanted one when it came out), but the Canon D300 was clearly the "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR". This review is a low point for Tom's. You guys are really getting a reputation for putting out fluff written by idiots. Get back to the old standards of quality, detailed, knowledgeable articals that made Tom's name rightly famous in the first place.
I've only read 2 pages but these guys don't know what they are talking about. SLRs were not "used mostly by professionals", there have been huge consumer sales of them for decades. Also, the D70 was not "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR", it was a great camera (I wanted one when it came out), but the Canon D300 was clearly the "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR". This review is a low point for Tom's. You guys are really getting a reputation for putting out fluff written by idiots. Get back to the old standards of quality, detailed, knowledgeable articals that made Tom's name rightly famous in the first place.
I'm not the writer of this piece, but I want to make sure we are "on the same page": "For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master. Little by little, they've grown in popularity, with Canon's EOS 300D one of the first truly affordable digital SLRs released back in 2003."
Where did this article mention the D70? Apologies if I missed it but I would appreciate it if you could point it out.
Let's both of us go dig up sales and demographics data of SLRS from the past four decades, shall we? I think we'll probably both find that the majority of sales went to professional photographers. That doesn't mean that consumers didn't buy them in droves--it just means that the majority of sales went to professionals.
We appreciate your feedback and criticism, but if the two comments you made constitute a "low point" for this site, then you are perhaps the most critical reader we've ever had. Thanks.
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
Good overview suitable to the scope of this site. (Professionals and enthusiasts already look elsewhere, and from that perspective it's fine.) Odd mix of cameras though and a bit oversimplified at times, but fine for here. Nevertheless, what supports this statement: "Nikon's D90 ... A direct descendent of the legendary D70, the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR."? I mean that title is undoubtedly reserved for the Digital Rebel (300D), while the D70 was later and more expensive.
"After the Canon E-3 with its slightly disappointing semi-pro ambitions, Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range."
you might want to change Canon to Olympus. As Olympus makes the E-3.
"After the Canon E-3 with its slightly disappointing semi-pro ambitions, Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range."you might want to change Canon to Olympus. As Olympus makes the E-3.
Thank you!
There is a lot more proof reading needed. (100D? ...)
Let's both of us go dig up sales and demographics data of SLRS from the past four decades, shall we? I think we'll probably both find that the majority of sales went to professional photographers. That doesn't mean that consumers didn't buy them in droves--it just means that the majority of sales went to professionals.We appreciate your feedback and criticism, but if the two comments you made constitute a "low point" for this site, then you are perhaps the most critical reader we've ever had. Thanks.Rachel Rosmarin Editor, Tom's Guide
Photography is like everything else in a consumerist society: For every professional there are a thousand people who will spend whatever it takes to act just like a professional. The SLR market has and always will owe a significant section of it's business to the purely consumer market, that is to say people who will never make a dime off the pictures they take. The difference between how people pick cameras coming from the consumer segment vs. the professional segment is something that is apparently lost on your writers. Picking a page at random (which, I felt like, committed about as much research to your article as your article did to Digital Photography,) I find a statement comparing an E-Volt to a Nikon D60 and a Canon 40D and this tells me all I need to know about the article: it's woefully uninformed.
When there are photography review sites by the dozen on the WWW, why does Tom's feel the need to push into this area? I would understand your angle if something were added to the mountains of reviews out there, like benchmarks on how well the camera/interface/software bundle work so that people concerned with PC based photo editing can read up on the pros/cons from each manufacturer.
I do share your affection for the 40D, but you neglected to review it directly-- Curious.
Photography is like everything else in a consumerist society: For every professional there are a thousand people who will spend whatever it takes to act just like a professional. The SLR market has and always will owe a significant section of it's business to the purely consumer market, that is to say people who will never make a dime off the pictures they take. The difference between how people pick cameras coming from the consumer segment vs. the professional segment is something that is apparently lost on your writers. Picking a page at random (which, I felt like, committed about as much research to your article as your article did to Digital Photography,) I find a statement comparing an E-Volt to a Nikon D60 and a Canon 40D and this tells me all I need to know about the article: it's woefully uninformed.When there are photography review sites by the dozen on the WWW, why does Tom's feel the need to push into this area? I would understand your angle if something were added to the mountains of reviews out there, like benchmarks on how well the camera/interface/software bundle work so that people concerned with PC based photo editing can read up on the pros/cons from each manufacturer.I do share your affection for the 40D, but you neglected to review it directly-- Curious.
We appreciate your input, Joebob. Do us a favor and tell us what you mean about the improper comparison of the E-Volt to the Nikon D60 and Cnon 40D--give us a sense of why this is highly inappropriate. That would be extremely useful.
As for why we bother to publish Camera roundups: Cameras are a huge consumer electronics category. We try to cover all consumer electronics categories on Tom's Guide. We don't do camera benchmarks, and in fact, I think we can all agree that this roundup here is not an incredibly thorough review. I'm the first to admit it, but the truth is that we're not aiming for hard-core camera reviews. We're aiming for basic, intro-level stuff. Do you think the basic level writeup is something that's been overdone on other sites? Personally, I don't. There's an audience for it, believe me. I hope that ultra camera-savvy readers of Tom's Guide can a) tolerate the fact that these articles are not for them, and b) not read them if they aren't of interest to them.
Thanks,
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
I've used SLR's since I was in High School 40 years ago, so their use isn't (wasn't) restricted to professionals. I wonder why 2 Canon's, 2 Pentax, 3 Olympus were reviewed, but only 1 Nikon, and I wonder what audience this was aimed at. If this was aimed at people without SLR/DSLR experience, then they missed reviewing some of the more obvious cameras. If the article is aimed at more experienced people then it is of some interest although those people probably already know about the different cameras.
I've used SLR's since I was in High School 40 years ago, so their use isn't (wasn't) restricted to professionals. I wonder why 2 Canon's, 2 Pentax, 3 Olympus were reviewed, but only 1 Nikon, and I wonder what audience this was aimed at. If this was aimed at people without SLR/DSLR experience, then they missed reviewing some of the more obvious cameras. If the article is aimed at more experienced people then it is of some interest although those people probably already know about the different cameras.
Thanks Cadder. Nowhere in this article did we say SLRs are (or ever were) restricted to professionals. We simply made a claim that decades ago, the majority of users were professional (and many many other users were not professional!).
As for the intended audience--it is aimed at novices who are curious about the more-than-entry-level DSLRs out there. Stay tuned for a follow up article this week about the newest entry level DSLRs!
Okay, you say that this roundup is for novices about more-than-entry-level SLRs. What do you call D1000, E-420 and K-m if not entry level SLRs? They are the absolutely most affordable DSLRs on the market currently (plus Sony A200 and Nikon D60).
Like Joebob said, it's truly amazing you are comparing E-520 against D40.
Hi vvi,
So, yes, there are also also some entry-level DSlRs here. Is this a problem? Would you rather see 3 different reviews, broken into separate DSLR categories? We didn't choose to structure it that way.
Like I said to Joebob, I would love to here a concise reason why an E-520 and a D40 should never appear in a roundup together. Yes, they are cameras aimed at slightly different targets, but they are both DSLRs, and for the purpose of this review, that was the only criterion needed to be included in this roundup.
Yet another poor camera article from Toms Guide. It took you until the second paragraph to make your first mistake, sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field, that would be lens aperture.
Things go downhill from there. Super zoom lenses exist for SLR’s and compact super zoom lenses suffer considerably from distortion, chromatic aberration and poor resolving ability. Lenses do not suffer in low light. That would be the cameras focus engine and the sensors high ISO performance. Again, in this field SLR’s are significantly better than compacts.
The terminology used in a number of places in the article is also incorrect. High ISO settings suffer from increased sensor noise, dead pixels are things on monitors, hot pixels are things on camera sensors.
“Canon has yet to develop a system to account for the various chromatic distortions that various lenses are known to produce.” Except for the software that you mention in the next paragraph. The 500D sensor has micro lenses just like the 50D’s and no mention of its HD video capture? Next gripe is the same and mentioned by gyrodec, nuf said. As for the rest of the D90 review, I hope you got paid by Nikon for that advertising, it truly is a wonderful camera but you could have been a lot more objective about the language used. You say the Nikon D90 has to face up to the Canon 40D, but that the poor old 40D is a generation to old. So how does it match up to,… oh I don’t know, lets possibly try compare it to the very real and current canon 50D? The D90 is not the only camera in the review to shoot HD video.
The Olympus E-30 is not the only camera to have a moving screen, how about the Sony A350… Hang on, how about any Sony, why no love for Sony in this little round up of yours? Same for the Pentax KD20 and Canon 50D, you mention them a couple times, but no page for them either?
This is the point where I give up on the whole thing and go to bed, Toms editorial team, you are capable of so much more than this!
Geoman,
Thanks for your comments! I will attempt to get answers for your first four criticisms. I've noticed a lot of you have questions about why we included this camera but not that camera, why we didn't include every camera on the market, etc. The answer is simple: we didn't get review units of the cameras that are missing. We don't have the budget to go purchase every camera on the market to fill up the roundup. You probably want to visit another site if you are looking for the most thorough spec list and deep listing of every single DSLR on the market. You won't find it from us. We test the products that are available to us.
Thanks for reading,
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
Tom’s writers keep insinuating that DSLR’s are for professionals only, but that things might just be changing now. This has not been the case for quite some time, not since the Canon 300D over 6 years ago. I invite Tomsguiderachel to go and do some responsible journalism, please go and research how many D50-D90’s and 300D-500D’s have been sold compared to D2&3’s or 1D’s, then consider whether DSLR’s are for professionals only. DSLR’s are not complicated, if you don’t have a clue how a camera works, turn the dial on top to the green camera icon, look through the eye piece at something you want to take a photo of, press the button that naturally falls under your right index finger, job done. If you want to take better pictures read the manual that came with the camera, you can limit it to the chapters with setting shutter speed, aperture and setting ISO, that shouldn’t take more than an hour or two, and doesn’t require a degree in the physics of light. Just because professionals use DSLR’s does not mean DSLR’s are for professionals only. Tomsguiderachel, please do your job as editor and make sure that articles that are published are accurate, unbiased and of an appropriate standard for Toms Guide.
I may be picking on the wrong person, but you seem to be the only person from Toms following up on our comments and your profile say’s you are editor of Tom’s Guide.
Hi Geoman,
Please forgive me, but I don't see where in the article it ever insinuated that DSLRs are for professionals only. Since so many readers have brought up this point and made this claim, I'm realizing that I must have simply missed that when I read this article. Please point out what page it is on, and then we can get to the sales data.
Thanks. Don't worry you're not picking on me--this is what I'm here for--to discuss these articles with you.
Rachel
Is the D90 Kodak picture black and white? Why?
I do have to say that the D60 should have been included. At the price point it is not a bad DSLR.
OK, I guess it’s time for me to stop picking holes in your guy’s work and give some constructive comments.
Add a little more quantifiable data to the review, it doesn’t have to make the review more complicated, but a bit more data would be appreciated.
Keep review’s and camera comparisons limited to a single market segment, otherwise comparisons aren’t relevant and review just have to much to cover.
I feel that your DSLR reviews are aimed to low, the kind of people who are buying DSLR’s tend to have done a bit of reading on how cameras work and want a bit more of an analytical approach to camera articles.
Personally I’d like to see more quantifiable parts to these reviews like noise or resolution, so if you do a round up article like this I can see what cameras perform best in which areas by the numbers. Sure having a page to each camera with non-quantifiable stuff like control layout and camera feels is also vital, but some hard numbers would be a welcome addition.
In the reply to another comment, something you mentioned was splitting this review into a number of different reviews, and yes I think that should have been done, this also ties in to joebob2000’s comments. You compare cameras in different segments and from different generations to each other, which isn’t a valid thing to do. If these were CPU’s that would be like comparing a 6 year old Celeron to a Core i7 and concluding that the i7 is better. Of course it’s better, but it’s a silly comparison to make in the first place. Generally the DSLR market is broken into entry level, mid entry level, mid level, prosumer and pro levels (ok, people will always argue about the what levels there really are but you get the idea) and comparing cameras between these groups will generally get you criticized. So do roundup articles like this in one market segment at a time.
If people want to step up from compacts to DSLR’s and want a bit more info before they do, maybe Toms guides needs to do some actual guides. Articles like the difference between compacts and DSLR’s and getting more out of your DSLR that could cover things like sensor noise, the advantages/disadvantages of different types of lenses like wide angles or telephoto lenses, like field of view, depth of field and perspective. Help get more information to people instead drop the level of all your articles.
The articles themselves need a bit more fact and spell checking to. I only read the first couple of pages and I’ve already given you the list of errors I found, and I’m by no means an expert in the field and I’m dyslexic, so you should be able to do better than me :-)
For the Professionals comments articles titles like “Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Amateurs Need Not Apply”, paragraphs headed “Professional Use Only?” and comments like “For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master.” You never overtly say DSLR’s are only for professionals but it gives your readers the distinct impression that you think DSLR’s are, or were until only recently for professionals.
Finally if you’re going to leave something out, like the Sony’s in this review, tell us that at the beginning, and give us a reason. I won’t bash you for leaving something out if you have a decent reason for leaving it out.
I hope you guy’s find this a little more constructive than my previous tirades :-)
"Professional Use Only?
For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master. Little by little, they've grown in popularity, with Canon's EOS 300D one of the first truly affordable digital SLRs released back in 2003."
This is the paragraph that is getting people reactions. I too felt it sounded miss-leading or awkward, since I got a Nikon slr N40 in college as a architect student and now a nikon D40 as a hobby as an architect. DSLRs nor SLRs would never still be in business if only professional bought them. Professional account for less then 1% of the population. This is not a major issue, readers like myself are not use to tomguide reviewing dslr like computer.
I been reading Tomguide (or tomhardwareguide) for a while. It was once focus mainly on computer hardwares, some accessories, talks of computer chips and memory like the other site xbit. Also, overclocking cpu and windows' items. Now that tomguide has become bigger it seem to branch into cameras and other electronics like cnet reviews. For hardcore camera's reviews I do check out dpreview and cnet. For computer hardware reviews tomhardwareguide is still one of the best. Laptop reviews: notebookcheck.
It takes time to get a loyal followings for new types of reviews when you branch off a little. The DSLR reviews are comprehensive, but a little different then other DLSR reviews. Also many of these cameras has been out and reviewed long time before this article. Which will lead readers to be subjective.
We appreciate your input, Joebob. Do us a favor and tell us what you mean about the improper comparison of the E-Volt to the Nikon D60 and Cnon 40D--give us a sense of why this is highly inappropriate. That would be extremely useful.
Thanks,Rachel RosmarinEditor, Tom's Guide
At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon; if this is meant as an introductory article to DSLR photography then in my opinion the writer should spent at LEAST half the text on fundamentals and not mention any cameras by name until the second half. Without getting into too much detail, the two key factors for deciding on a camera body (ignoring the lenses and special case photography completely) is High ISO performance and overall Dynamic Range performance. Put in english, this means the best possible picture taken in the dark and the best possible compromise between dark and light in a single picture. These metrics are what set cameras like the E-volt apart from the Canon 40D (which is peerless in the sub-$1000 market) and set the 40D apart from more expensive bodies by Canon, Nikon, and the rest. Beyond that, lenses and a few minor features are all that stand between casual photographers and serious professionals. Of course, the principle of diminishing returns means that professionals are going to need to spend $10,000 or more to take pictures that are noticeably better than someone spending $1,000 on an amateur set-up.
I will venture one more observation and then let you guys get back to work. If you want to tackle the entry level DSLR market you need to tell people what they are getting for their money. Honestly there are plenty of people who ask me about cameras that receive the suggestion "please just buy a point and shoot". One needs to be ready to take advantage of the benefits of a DSLR or they are going to be burning money and not taking any better pictures. Tell your readers what the real impact is of spending $1000 on a DSLR vs $200 on a point-n-shoot, and don't even bother using the word "professional" in an article again until you are reviewing DSLR bodies priced above $1500-- that's where the pros live.
I like Tom's and the writers, I really do. If I thought you were really spewing crap I would have just deleted the bookmark and moved on with my time. I hope that you can take away something helpful from my comments, and find your direction in the brave world of photography.