E-420 - what would I be missing?

[wellinghall]

<p>I've got a couple of OM-2ns and a range of Zuiko lenses from 28mm - 300mm, and I love them; but I would like to try the flexibility and instant feedback that digital offers.<br>

I've been thinking about the E-420 with 14 - 42mm and 40 - 150mm lenses. Now, I fully realise that this isn't Olympus's top-end body, nor will I be getting the best possible glass to go with it ... but will it do for me? Should I save up for a bit longer, and get either a better body, or better lenses? I am fully aware that even in my wildest dreams, I will never be a great photographer.<br>

I enjoy a range of photography - landscape, wildlife, and informal portraiture.<br>

Any advice would be much appreciated.<br>

Andrew</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>Have you held one? They are really small. The 14-42 is so-so. The 40-150 is actually pretty good. There is no Image Stabilization in the 400 series, but since you shoot an OM, that might not matter to you. You will like not having film costs and immediate feedback. The camera is fully manual if you want it to be or you can use aperture, shutter, program or scene modes to your liking as well. It is not that great in low light. You will need an adaptor to use your OM lenses and they will not meter, nor will they autofocus and the viewfinder on the 420 is rather small. I think 95% coverage. Since the E-620 came out, the E-520's price has plummeted. You might want to see if you can get your hands on one of those. </p>

[davidlong]

As to your actual question (how is the E-420 and the kit lenses), they're nice, and about as compact as you'll get in DSLR-land. I imagine you'd probably like them. As Rich mentioned, low light is the main weakness when compared to other DSLRs. Compared to film though, almost any DSLR is fantastic in low light. For wildlife, I guess if you manage with your OM 300mm, you'll do about as well with the E-420, but most people want longer. And if you're going to do a lot of long-lens work, I think something like the E-520 with in-body stabilization would be a significant benefit.

 

OM lenses meter fine on E-system bodies. The auto-diaphragm won't work though. And they certainly won't AF, but then again, they didn't AF on your OM-2n either ;-). Still, I wouldn't generally recommend them. The OM's I have are much nicer to use on my OM-2 than they are on my E-1.

[ilkka]

<p>420 is really small. I tried it and decided to get the slightly, but significantly, bigger 500 series body. The kit lenses are optically good but pretty roughly made with plastic lens mounts etc. OM lenses can be adapted and work well but in my experience longer lenses adapt much better than short. It may have something to do with the light coming at an angle from wide lenses, and that does no go so well with the 4/3 sensor. My suggestion would be to firstly try the 400 series camera to see whether it is too small for you. If it is, to consider either 510/520 or the new 620 which is about the same size. Instead of the kit zooms, I would suggest the 2.8/25 pancake lens and an adapter for your existing OM lenses. That should get you started at minimum expense. After a while you will know whcih of your lenses are okay and which you would like to replace with 4/3 versions. In the wide end the 9-18 is great for its price. In the longer end the 70-300 zoom is very good value, but your OM300 might well be enough. And the 2/50 is a very good lens if you need macro or short and fast portrait lens. If you have the OM 50 macro, maybe you would not need this either. It works okay in my E bodies. I would not bother to get the original OM to 4/3 adapter unless you can find one really cheap. The Chinese made adapters that are widely available seem to work just as well. </p>

[jim nichols]

<p>I went through the same questions when I considered going to digital, and purchased an E-510 and a ZD 14-54 lens as my starter kit. I selected the 510 over the 410 because of its better grip in my hand, and the 14-54 over the regular kit lens because it is better optically, though more expensive. I have not been disappointed in my choices.<br>

I have purchased adapters for M42 to 4/3, and Leica-R to 4/3. I have tried several of my M42 Pentax lenses, and they work ok. The best was the widely available 55/1.8 Takumar, which focuses nicely on the 510. Because I wanted to try Leica glass, I now have the Leica-R 28/2.8 and 50/2.0 and enjoy the quality that they provide.<br>

I don't think you can go wrong with the E-510.<br>

Jim N.</p>

[dg1]

<p>I use OM lenses on a Panasonic dmc-L1 body. You might want to consider the L1, like-new bodies are frequently available from 4/3rds users who buy the kit to get the Leica D 14-50mm f/2.8 zoom. <br>

The opposite happened to me, as I bought the kit and found the body to be great to use. It has a regular shutter speed dial and with the manual lenses can be used exactly like a manual film camera, and that might appeal to you. The image quality is very good, better to my eye than the Olympus E-410 which I also had. The downside is that the viewfinder will be disappointing when compared to your OM camera. But that's true pretty much of any dSLR you'll buy, nothing comes close to the OM viewfinder. <br>

The L1 is just an alternative you may want to consider. </p>

 

[lili_elrod]

I started my Oly DSLR experience with an e410 two lens kit. The 14-42 to may be ho-hum by some standards, but DPReview and my own experience have shown it to extremely good., it totally lays waste to both versions of the Pentax 18-55. For the cash it (just over 400$ at the time) it cnnot be beated in the bang-for-buck standard. Add the little 25mm 'pancake Zuiko and the kit is very close in size to the Powershot G9/10 and far faster with a Useable OVF and better hi ISO (compared to the Canon G's).

 

It is the only DSLR that comes close in size and weight to my lamented OM-1.

[Brian]

<p>I agree with Lili re the 14-42. I know it's the done thing to trash 'kit' lenses, but like most users, I was totally impressed with this lens. You can call it so-so if you like, but you'd better explain what your benchmark is for a standard zoom lens, because they don't come much better than this one.<br>

So to answer the OP - the 410 and kit lenses is a darned good set-up, and won't disappoint.</p>

[ilkka]

<p>Olympus kit lenses are, and have always been, optically very good (just like all Zuiko digital lenses). But they used to be much better in mechanical construction. The new kit lenses are very plasticky with even plastic lens mounts. That is the reason I am avoiding them, not because of optical quality. If you want a small and light lens and do not change lenses very often, then by all means consider them. </p>

[wellinghall]

<p>Thank you for the advice, everyone.<br>

David, this may be a stupid question, but what is the auto-diaphragm?</p>

[ilkka]

<p>Auto diaphragm is a mechansim connected to the aperture inside the lens. Let's say you have a 1.8/50 lens and set it on F8. In your OM camera the aperture stays wide open until you take the picture. You can view the image through a wide-open aperture making the image brighter and making focusing easier. When you mount the same lens on a DSLR you lose the auto aperture and the lens stops down to what ever aperture you select. F8 would make the finder a bit dim and DOF is also wide making it harder to focus accurately. To overcome this you need to manually change the aperture, first open it wide for focusing and composition and then to remember to stop it down just before making the exposure. Most of us just use a suitable fairly wide aperture and don't bother about it, at least most of the time. </p>