Hi James!

I was waiting to comment on your field review of the Olympus E-520 until you posted a notice about it. Since it has been up several days now and I have not seen it mentioned by you or anyone else, I wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed it. My experience with the 520's predecessor, the E-510, mirrors yours with the E-520.

I agree that Olympus has produced some surprisingly good, very light weight, and inexpensive Standard Grade "kit" lenses. As you know, in the right hands, they are capable of producing some good quality images. The 70-300 mm zoom which you tested, has been very well received in the Oly community, despite it's limited low-light performance. With Oly's 2X "crop factor" the Zuiko 70-300 mm zoom gives you a lot of reach for a little cost in both dollars and weight. The new Zuiko 9-18 mm wide angle zoom is proving to be very popular as well.

Of course, as you mention, there is a price to be paid. Less than stellar high ISO performance and limited dynamic range trouble some users. I do not shoot professionally and most of my shots are taken to memorialize family activities and travel. I have never actually printed anything larger than 8 X 10. As a result, neither of these shortcomings bother me much. O.K., the blown highlights thing does get a little irritating sometimes. Probably because I do a lot of shooting in Arizona's mid-day sun.

In any event, I wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the article. Thanks!

Jim

Hey Jim,

Thanks so much for the kind words. I did not initially publish something in the forums as I had sent it out in the monthly newsletter. I have received a bunch of e-mails about the review - all very happy with it. Some of the e-mails came from relatively unexpected places (LOL, isn't that cryptic) too.

I am hoping to possibly get an E-30 for mis-January...though I will believe it when I see it. :P

Cheers and thanks again!
James

Your review was - something else
After reading a lot of camera and lens reviews on Internet, yours were informative in an other way. No meaningless technical information, but an opinion from a skilled photographer. I have been using Oly cams for the past 16 month and i recognize many of your points in the review.
I changed to Oly for two reasons; SWF and the lenses.
I have the 90-250mm pro lens, but seems to take the 70-300 more often on trips due to the small size, and acceptable quality it provides.
If anyone would like to see more ex. taken with that lens I have a test folder here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/steenbnielsen/Olympus70300mmTestPicts#

Thanks a again, it was nice to get some kind of confirmation that Oly isn't too bad after all.

//Steen

Hi Steen,

Thank you very much. When I wrote the review, I decided that as the camera had been out for a while that it made absolutely no sense to attempt to do a 'nuts and bolts' review that places like DPReview do. Not only had it been done, but honestly, they have resources and time to dedicate to doing this that I just don't have.

LOL, I hope that the moral of the story, after reading it though is more than 'Oly isn't so bad after all' though. The camera did what I needed it to in every single place. Yes, the camera has had some challenges, but honestly, they all do. The question is - does the tool (the camera) get the job done? The answer for me was a definite 'yes.' It has a feature set that I don't see in any other camera in the price-range. Where it has challenges (like high ISO noise, a problem that Oly has had since before 4/3 and some DR issues), it also has places where it surpasses. For example, a truly affordable SLR system with a huge focal length. The in-body stabilization is also great - something I wish the Big Two would incorporate on their own.

I think the thing that has been a double edged sword is the very format that Olympus has chosen (the 4/3 format). A lot of folks have been complaining since it first came out that the chip size was too small to generate high quality high iso images. Based on pixel size along, I do not believe that to be true. For example, the E-520 and the Canon 50d have exactly the same pixel size. The 50d has - at least relative to the 40d, about the same image noise with a chip that has 50% more pixels. It leads me to believe that the problem is not inherently the chip format, but either the software or the person developing the chip.

James

HELP!!! - Sorry Guys Have since found it - Please ignore.

Where can I find the Review - Olympus kindly exchanged my E-510 (lost in-transit for repair) for an E-520 and I am off on a Kruger Park trip (South Africa - in case you don't know) shortly and would appreciate a read of it.

Many thanks - Dave Heard