We are trying to develop a community where photographers can come and discuss nature, wildlife and pet photography related matters. We encourage you to enter the forums to discuss this article as well as to share your photographs and experiences in our forums here at NWP.

The Nature, Wildlife and Pet Photography Forum Presents:
The E-520 in Yellowstone: A Field Review by James Morrissey ©2008

Edited by Chanthee Keokhaw

ISO 400, F8 at 1/400 sec, 478mm (equivalent): Bull Elk

I was pleasantly surprised last month when I got home to see a brand new Olympus E-520 dSLR sitting in my apartment, straight from Olympus. I had contacted them a few weeks earlier about the possibility of field testing one of the new Micro 4/3 cameras when they became available. I was not expecting them to ship me an E-520, and the timing could not have been better as I was off to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Park the following week.

ISO 400, F5.6 at 1/1250 sec, 504mm (equivalent): The Face of Grand in the Morning

The kit that Olympus sent me only contained a 14-42mm lens, so I asked them if they would send me a longer range telephoto. Olympus kindly offered me a variety of zoom lenses. I could have asked for several, but I chose their 70-300 F4.5 - F5.6 lens because I wanted to see what I could do on a shoe-string budget. This gives the camera an effective range of 28-600mm with just two lenses. Even better, the package costs roughly $850.00 US as of today‘s writing. To my knowledge, this is the most affordable camera available with such a zoom range on the market. Just for kicks, I searched around the B&H website trying to find combinations from either Nikon, Canon and Sony that would match this price and range. I could not find one.

The first thing I noticed, outside of the need for a longer lens, was just how diminutive the camera is. It is absolutely tiny as opposed to my Canon 40d - this is particularly exaggerated because I have the portrait grip attached to the camera at all times. However, even given it’s small size, it fits quite comfortably in my hands. I will admit that I like a fuller sized camera for balance, however, I did not find the small size objectionable at all. The controls are very clearly laid out. I tend to not read instruction manuals, and this was no exception. I was able to find my way around the camera fairly quickly and intuitively just by working the buttons on the camera. For those few settings I could not figure out using the analog buttons on the camera, I was able to make the appropriate changes using the menu system on the large 2.7 LCD screen on the back of the camera.

One of the features that I was most excited about was the in-camera image-stabilization. When I interviewed John Isaac several months ago, he mentioned that he most often shoots without a tripod or monopod. John is an Olympus Visionary, and absolutely blew me away with some of the work he was able to produce in the E-510 last year. I decided that for this trip that I was not going to attempt to take a page from John and not use a tripod once for any of the shots taken with this camera. Outside of one lens, none of my glass is image stabilized, so having this in-body was going to be a real treat.

Packing the E-520 and the two lenses in my camera backpack with the Canon and lenses was surprisingly easy. Even though I really attempt to travel light, the honest truth is that I always bring too much stuff. I have had difficulty in the past getting on to the airplane (you know the ones…those puddle jumpers that certain airlines use for small airports…) with my Porter Case filled with goodies. I really have been attempting to fly lighter and take as little with me as possible. This means I dumped the case and brought just one camera backpack. The Canon gear is all L glass, and as a result, it takes a lot of space. I was pleasantly surprised to see that I was able to shoehorn the E-520 and both lenses in the bag with my typical stuff. I know that I mentioned it above, but it is amazing to me just how compact the system is. The long and short of it is that I had no problems getting my camera gear into the plane this year.

The trip to Yellowstone each year is an annual pilgrimage that typically includes my father, brother and wife. This year, Chanthee stayed home, but we added one of my siblings. While I will not get into the family dynamics, let’s just say that it is always interesting at family gatherings.

I landed in Jackson Hole a couple of days prior to everyone else. I had business to attend to there, so I needed a couple of days to myself. Once I got my work done, however, all bets were off. It was time to get photographing. The following image of the puff-ball was one of my favorites from the trip. I love the look of back-lit flowers. It is not a technique that I employ often though. We shot this while traveling along the Moose-Wilson Road from Teton Village to the Moose Visitor Station in Grand Teton National Park, looking for Moose and Bear. While we saw none of the above there, we did see some nice foliage and other picturesque scenes. Apparently our experience going up the Moose-Wilson road was compatible with many others who traveled the area this summer, with a marked decrease in wildlife than past years.

ISO 400, F5.6 at 1/3200 sec, 84mm (equivalent): Dandelion Puff

ISO 200, F6.3 at 1/500 sec, 250mm (equivalent): tree line

However, the trip was not lost for wildlife. There were tons of moose this year - more than I have ever seen in the area at once. Every morning, after sunrise (ost of which stank, unfortunately), we would shlep out Gros Ventre and look for the bulls. There were two large ones around the campground as well as a smaller juvenile that was keeping not too far away from a small family. At one point, we saw 6 moose within 150 yards of each other, including the two large bulls.

The area of the campground did not get well lit until about 8:15 AM. In these situations, I was typically shooting center point AF in one shot mode at between ISOs 800 and 1600. The Three Point AF system locked competently in 95% of situations. However, in areas where we were photographing in low-light, low-contrast environments, there were times when it definitely did not want to lock quickly. The camera would start doing the focus hunt dance until it locked. The 40d did not have this same problem, however, to be fair, the lenses I was using on the 40d were 5 times as expensive as the 70-300, so I do not have an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, the body is significantly more expensive. When the camera did lock, it was dead on…which was most of the time. The buffer of the camera kept taking photos as they rattled off. The specs state that the camera shoots at 3.5 fps for a max of 8 frames. It is definitely a lot slower than the E-3 (the 520's big brother), and the mid-range offerings from Nikon and Canon. However, it is not much slower than the Canon 5d Mark II that I am about to spend 6x the amount of money on. I did not find the buffer to be a limiting factor at all during these photo sessions. I don't even think I tapped it once actually.

When I finally got home and had a chance to look at the photos, I was generally very impressed with their quality. I love the Olympus colors, and the images were clean and detailed up to ISO 800 (probably 85% of the shots that I take). Shots at ISO 1600 though did exhibit quite a bit of noise in the shadow areas of the image. The images at ISO 1600 also did not have much room to push in PS after the fact, but they got the job done and were still very usable for most practical applications. I blew up and printed a few of the images of the moose, all taken at ISO 800 and 1600, to 11x14, and I felt that they were very good. I would not hesitate to use the camera at ISO 1600 if I needed to. I think that the key to success here is being able to nail the exposure in camera.

I shot all of these files in RAW and converted with Capture One, my RAW converter of choice. The following photographs of the moose were taken at ISOs 800 and 1600. This first shot was taken at ISO 1600. The image looks pretty solid to me over-all, though there are some signs of what looks like banding in the shadow areas of the fur in the form of horizontal lines. However, for normal viewing, I really don't find it at all objectionable. I notice it only because I am really looking critically at the image. I later re-processed the same 1600 ISO shot in Olympus Studio 2. I believe that while the rendition of colors was definitely different that there was not a significant impact in terms of image quality when it came to noise.

ISO 1600, F5.5 at 1/125 sec, 504mm (equivalent): juvenile bull moose in Gros Ventre Camp Grounds

The following shot was taken at ISO 800. An exposure like the one that I am showing below of the juvenile bull moose is quite difficult to pull off. You have a great dynamic range between the shadows and the light that reflects off of the antlers. This is one area where I found that the Olympus had some difficulty. As you can see in the shot below, the poor moose’s rack appears to be almost radioactive at the edges, even though the rest of the image looks dead on. I am fairly positive that had I been able to take the photograph at a lower ISO that I mayu have been able to keep the entire light range as the lower ISO registers generally allow for greater dynamic range than the higher ISO registers. According to the website DXO Mark, the E-520 loses about 2 stops of dynamic range from base ISO to 800. On a positive, you may note that image noise looks much better controlled than in the ISO 1600 shot.

ISO 800, F6.3 at 1/320 sec 600mm (equivalent): at juvenile moose in Grand Teton

For comparison, I have included this shot of a different bull at ISO 400.

ISO 400, F7.1 at 1/400 sec, 600mm (equivalent): bull moose

As I mentioned earlier, all of these shots were taken hand-held. No tripods, no monopods, though I did occasionally attempt to brace myself next to a tree. I love the in-body image stabilization. Now that Sony has done this with their full frame sensor, I hope that Nikon and Canon decide to follow suit - though I will believe that when I see it. The in-body image stabilization is quite effective. I figure I was shooting between 2 and 3 stops below what I could typically have hand-held with a non-stabilized body. For example, the image of the moose at ISO 1600 above was shot at 1/125th of a second at 500mm (EFOV). The rule of thumb when shooting with a camera is that you need 1/the focal length in order to get a sharp image.

The foliage was magnificent this year. The yellows and oranges were rich and saturated. The following photograph of the tree line on fire going up the hill was one of my favorite shots of the trip. Beautiful colors and the nice diagonal pattern of the trees attracted me.

ISO 200, F5 at 1/400 sec, 240mm (equivalent): Autumn Leaves by Oxbow Bend

We even lucked out and had some phenomenal mid-day lighting. I love it when the storm clouds are coming in strong, and the sun is beaming hard light from a different angle in the sky. It creates amazing effects. The following shots were taken in mid-day. On some of them, I used a Singh Ray neutral density filter to exaggerate the effects of the dark storm clouds and further isolate the oranges and yellows of the tree line. When using ND filters (again, entirely hand held) with the camera, I would use the LCD display as a means of figuring out where I wanted to place the filter. I found using the large LCD display easier for filter placement than I did by attempting to use the viewfinder. On another note, it would be great if the E-520 incorporated teh same movable LCD panel that the E-3 and upcoming E-30 have. It is a really handy feature. I would be happy even if it just flipped out a bit, like I used to do with my old Olympus E-10.

Anyway, I went back and forth as to whether or not these images actually worked. I finally decided that I like them enough to show them - though I realize that not everyone will find them appealing. Have an idea on how to post process them differently? Take a stab and post it in the forum!

ISO 200, F6.3 at 1/800 sec, 78mm (equivalent): Mt. Moran

The last day we were in Yellowstone, we wanted to get back early as my brother and I were leaving early. To save money on the flight, I was flying out of Idaho Falls, about an hour and a half from Jackson Hole. As my flight was at 6 in the morning, we were going to have to get up early in order to make it in time. As a result, we went out to the Thumb Geyser Basin.. The light was harsh, and I did not get anything beautiful, but it was pleasant to pass the time. However, there was a herd of elk in the pine trees, and I had the opportunity to take a few shots of these beautiful cows. The images were taken at roughly 1/50th of a second - again, hand held, at ISO 400. I just love that in-body stabilization feature. It works amazingly well. I never could have hand held this with my Canon and 70-200 F2.8 lens on it.

ISO 400, F8 at 1/50 sec, 228mm (equivalent): Cow Elk 1

ISO 400, F8 at 1/50 sec, 228mm (equivalent): Cow Elk 2

ISO 400, F8 at 1/50 sec, 208mm (equivalent): Cow Elk 3

Over-all, if you can not tell already, I really enjoyed this camera a lot. By the last day of the trip, I was using the Olympus pretty much exclusively. I had gotten very comfortable with the camera and how it felt. There is no question that if I were starting fresh, and looking for a smaller body/lens set-up that I would consider the E-520 at the top of my list. The price point really cannot be beat, and the feature set is extensive. The images out of camera are just spectacular, and I needed to do very little work in Photoshop to make the the way I wanted to present them. My only gripe with the camera is the noise that it generates when shooting over ISO 800. The system makes a lot of sense, and I would really like the opportunity to try the pro body for more than a hot minute along with a couple of those super-fast F2 zooms. I believe that I could get used to the 4/3 system very quickly.

This last image that I want to share is a text book shot of Oxbow Bend at Sunset. The sun was literally spilling over the edges of the mountain, making it look like it was smearing the light into the sky. This shot was probably the one exception that I made when I said that I was not going to put the camera on a tripod. LOL, some rules ARE meant to be broken, aren't they?

E’nuff said.

1 sec at F10, ISO 100, 14-42 lens at 18mm (equivalent): Oxbow Bend Sunset

If you have a story about your photographic journeys or want to write about a product you are using and would like to share please contact us.