Comparison image quality E-1 vs. E-500

Can anyone tell me your first-hand experience with both bodies? I am

curious whether the color rendition, especially in skin tones, in the

RAW files from an E-500 is in any way different than the E-1's

rendition.

 

By way of explanation, I decided against the E-1 about 2 years ago

because of the small pixel count, as I like to and often print

relatively large. I picked up the Canon 20D instead. The Canon

plastic skin processing has finally worn me out. The E-500 looks like

a great deal now, and I am curious whether Olympus messed with the

color and noise parameters in their in-camera processing from the E-1

to the E-500.

 

Thanks in advance.

dpreview.com tested them both comprehensively.

The E 500 is very well received,even by E-1 owners. Pop Photography has an article on it this month. Wrotniak did a detailed analysis after he bought and used it for some time. In case you lost his web site,here is the link:

 

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/e500-rev.html

You may also be interested in scanning this E-1 versus E500 thread in the four thirds user forum:

 

http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=1940

 

Sounds like there is a winner out there, especially at the favorable price. Phil Askey, the nitty gritty reviewer dpreview oracle is given great respect for excruciating technical analysis and camera to camera perspective, still user evaluations are not bad also among competing models (and that is why you asked here). Of course, Olympus,like every competitor among cameras with marginal differentiation (all good) has messed with "parameters." Improvements I think they call them. User say they kept the warm skin tone colors if that is what you are nervous over.

One problem with the reviews that are out there is that they test each camera with the firmware with which they originally went into production with, and then they never update the reviews to reflect improved firmware. In the case of the Olympus DSLRs, the E-1 is over 2 years older than the E-500, and the E-300 is a year older. But Olympus has rev'd the software on the older cameras as they developed improvements for the newer model. While I can't speak for the E-1, I CAN say that the E-300 is a noticeably better camera with the Rev 1.3 firmware than it is with the rev. 1.0. The reviews do not reflect this. Olympus' initial release of the E-300 in particlar had exposure accuracy problems and some weaknesses in the JPEG compression that were improved or completely fixed in the E-500, and these improvements were then rolled back into the rev'd firmware for E-300 rev 1.2 and 1.3 (and, I assume, the E-1 where appropriate as well). As a result, there is alot more similarity between the E-300 and the E-500 with most recent firmware than is reflected in the reviews. It's also a trivial matter to upgrade the firmware on an E-300 or E-500 (The E-1 is trickier). The upshot of this is that nowadays, the E-300 has been end of lifed, and there are currently some great clearance deals on what is, with the revised firmware, a camera that now has basically the identical processor and imaging subsystem to the E-500, plus a slightly better finder, and better build quality, and a couple of extra features, for around $100 less than an E-500. I just bought a second E-300 camera and I paid $370 for an Olympus Demo/refurb with warranty, including the 14-45 kit lens. IMHO, that's currently the best deal in the DSLR market.

Andy, can you tell me,just for my idle curiosity, what you meant by "plastic skin processing." (Or show a sample.) I have read hints of this "effect" from a couple of ex Canon users, and never thought at the time to ask for more specifics. Is it a subtle preference factor? Does it have to do with the way the 20D processes the data in RAW or JPEG or...?

Apparently the Olympus processor does not have it,whatever "IT" is.

Gerry, it's hard to be specific because I found the 20D to be so maddening in how the subject is actually rendered. In strong, contrasty light, skin tones often looked great. I did a fashion show in a loft space with only a series of strong tungsten spot lights as the lighting, and the result was fantastic. On the other hand, I do professional boxing with a mix of lights, and often I get what I consider an artificial-looking skin rendering. In flat light it sometimes appears, sometimes it does not.

 

I shoot mostly in RAW, and yes I can correct the files to get a very nice look, but I really got tired of doing that. If I get the exposure right, I want a RAW file that looks like color negative film. I was not getting that with the 20D, excellent camera that it is. From what I've read and seen about the E series, I will be able to get it from the Oly. We'll see.

Thanks everyone for the response, BTW.