slr & digital!

image.php
OLY 420 sensor performance is criticized in reviews fwiw (poor detail resolution Vs other DSLRS with same MP). Reviews are BS, of course, but... also, it doesn't seem in reviews to be smaller than smallest Canon DSLR.

DMC-L1 weighs a ton, Is bulky, doesn't come with normal lens, wide lens (shorter than 25mm) is wildly expensive, has bad viewfinder, underperforming sensor etc etc.

k20D...Direct rival to D300 unless one is a pro sports photog..With any of my 3 pancake lenses (my fave is 21/3.2) it's smaller than DMC-L1 (though heavier), has brilliant prism viewfinder, fast RAW, both autofocus and manual focus are excellent with 21 and 70 in extreme low light (I don't know performance with zooms, 35/2.8 hunts in that light) is dust/water resistant, has useful 3200.

K200D is lighter and cheaper than K20D, lesser sensor (like midprice Canon/Nikon), still beats OLY / Panaleica detail resolution and finder.

All IMO, personal impressions etc etc etc

Oly and DMC are nothing like rangefinders, not even really good DSLRs. The brilliance of Pentax prism and availability of perfected pancake lenses were necessary for me... neither Leica nor Epson have ever made acceptably rugged digitals, though M8's form factor would be tempting if a better company (ie Asian) made it.
 
Last edited:
JTK said:
OLY 420 sensor performance is criticized in reviews fwiw (poor detail resolution Vs other DSLRS with same MP)
Click to expand...

The Dpreview.com is critical in this regard but many others have been quite positive about resolution. I'll see for myself though!
Bottom line: If I have to sacrifice a little detail to get the smallest size DSLR possible then so be it. I'll live with it!
 
If your looking for a small light weight digital slr that you won't have a fortune tied up in check out the E500 with dual kit lenses on KEH. I bought one about a month ago and I love it. It was listed as like new minus which means it may not have a box. But mine came with everything and the lenses were still in the original sealed packs. The Zuico lenses are rated very high for kit lenses and the black and white mode with the built in filters is spectacular. And the 4/3 system gives corner to corner sharpness. That and the fact that I got everything for under $500 made it even better.

Mike
 
I played with an L1 and it was huge, clunky, terrible terrible viewfinder, but a very nice lens. I'd much rather carry a more overall capable camera though if I'm to lug around something that size/weight.

The Olympus DSLRs are pretty slick as long as you're not too worried about low light performance.
 
Resale hurts bad on the L1/OlyE300.....

Resale hurts bad on the L1/OlyE300.....

The flat top mirror viewfinder system was not well received by the buying public. Not only is the L1 big and the Leica lens big, but the flat top hurts at resale time. That's why Oly and Panasonic both move to a standard prism look on the viewfinder, not to mention the improved view in the viewfinder.

I loved my OLY 300, but it hurt $$$$ to sell it. I have heard the Pana L1 has the same problem.

The 420 is small and getting good reviews with the new features added, but I have talked with two photographers who passed on it because of the lack of sufficient grip.

I decided to go with an Oly e510 for various reasons... one being the significant price drop because of the rapid intro of the X20 Oly SLRs.

To me, a nice combo would be the Oly e520 and the Leica lens from the L1/L10. However, the in lens Image Stabilization does not work on 4/3rds bodies other than the L1/10
 
kuzano said:
To me, a nice combo would be the Oly e520 and the Leica lens from the L1/L10. However, the in lens Image Stabilization does not work on 4/3rds bodies other than the L1/10
Click to expand...

The Oly E-510 and E-520 have IS built into the body, so, you can just turn off the Leica lens IS and let the camera body do the job.

I have the E-510 with the Zuiko 14-54 lens and I am quite pleased with it.

Jim N.
 
JTK said:
image.php
OLY 420 sensor performance is criticized in reviews fwiw (poor detail resolution Vs other DSLRS with same MP). Reviews are BS, of course, but... also, it doesn't seem in reviews to be smaller than smallest Canon DSLR.

DMC-L1 weighs a ton, Is bulky, doesn't come with normal lens, wide lens (shorter than 25mm) is wildly expensive, has bad viewfinder, underperforming sensor etc etc.

k20D...Direct rival to D300 unless one is a pro sports photog..With any of my 3 pancake lenses (my fave is 21/3.2) it's smaller than DMC-L1 (though heavier), has brilliant prism viewfinder, fast RAW, both autofocus and manual focus are excellent with 21 and 70 in extreme low light (I don't know performance with zooms, 35/2.8 hunts in that light) is dust/water resistant, has useful 3200.

K200D is lighter and cheaper than K20D, lesser sensor (like midprice Canon/Nikon), still beats OLY / Panaleica detail resolution and finder.

All IMO, personal impressions etc etc etc

Oly and DMC are nothing like rangefinders, not even really good DSLRs. The brilliance of Pentax prism and availability of perfected pancake lenses were necessary for me... neither Leica nor Epson have ever made acceptably rugged digitals, though M8's form factor would be tempting if a better company (ie Asian) made it.
Click to expand...

Bull****.


The e-420 has hugely enough resolution. It has much more resolution than the much loved epson r-d1. The reason dpreview made it into such a big deal is because they aren't shooters - they're pixel peepers. All the care about is which resolves more lines on a test shot of converging parallel lines. They also complained about the Anti Aliasing filter on the e-3 being too strong. HOWEVER, the e-3 was recently accepted into GETTY images as being one of their recommended/accepted Dslrs. They said this was because the camera files can be up-rezzed a huge deal while still staying intact. This is BECAUSE OF THE STRONGER AA FILTER. Nothing else.

When shooting things besides test charts, the e-420 and all of the E line is a much better camera/system than most photographers are.

I have an e-410 and it with it's kit lens nearly rivaled the resolution of a canon 5d + 17-40 f4L. Best thing was the oly kit lens was sharper in the corners, with less light falloff.

If you put an e-420 up against a k20d or a d300 or even a canon rebel, it makes them look like mammoth clumsy machinery. If I could be bothered I'd post up a pic of my (soon to be departing for an e-3) d300 and my e-410. It's around half the size - maybe less.
 
I owned a E-400 for a while and was very pleased with the results. The Camera is very responsive and fast enough. Low light ability with the 14-42 kit lens is disappointing. Because of that I added the very good 14-54. And it's so perfectly small.
Problems were the high noise level and the 4:3 aspect ratio. The new 410 and 420 are much better regarding the noise level so I would not call this a problem any more. But I could not get used to the 4:3 aspect ratio. I just don't like the format and cropping to 3:2 is a pain and not always possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom