E620

[rob_ruttan]

<p>O.K., folks...thanks in advance for your patience! I was out shooting a while ago with my Oly EVolt 500; I was with a friend who was shooting with a Nikon D300. When we looked at our results, hers were staggeringly better than mine. Oftentimes we were shooting with very similar settings, at least assuming that 'specialized' settings (in particular, the 'landscape' are similar between the two cameras. Anyway, she was getting much better "sky" than I was...I was getting flat white, she was getting blues, clouds, etc.. (It was a sunny day with lots of big bright white clouds floating around). <br>

Since then, I've been scheming various ways of stepping up. One alternative I'm considering is a different Oly body, and the E620 looks the most affordable (the E3 and E300 are also on my radar, but price is an issue!). Question is, I guess, am I really going to get better images with 'fancier', more expensive camera bodies? <br>

Olys were a mistake for me in the first place. I didn't do enough research I guess, but I don't like how the 4/3 system seems to work (or not!) at higher ISO. The EVolt 500 is useless in anything but pretty decent light, although I do like the lenses. I simply can't afford to make a wholesale switch to Nikon or Canon unless I find an unusually good deal on ebay.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>I have a 620, colors are beautiful, photos are sharp, noise is nothing short of horrible. Noise Ninja becomes your best friend, even at 400iso. It's a very nice camera for outdoors, indoors not so nice. Also, without an external flash, low-light situations the camera hunts, and hunts, and hunts.<br>

Also, IF you use live view, the rotating screen is quite nice, and you would get image stab. That alone is worth upgrading. I would base it all on where you take your pictures, if outside, then the 610 is perfect, inside, think about something else (or get two different camera brands..........</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>The E-500 and the D300 are like comparing apples to motorcars. The E-500 is 4 generations old now. If you can afford it, I'd go with the E-30 and be done with it, it's a lot of camera for the money. It's a $300 difference right now. Also, get a 14-54 when you can afford it, it is a lot better than the kit lens for low light focusing.</p>

<p>One thing that gets to me - I have never had the problems people are having with focus indoors in low light. I have an old E-330 and regularly use MF lenses on it, and don't have any issues at all. When I use the kit lenses, yeah, it's a little slow, but not painfully so. As far as high iso goes, once again, iso 400 seems just fine to me, 800 gets noisy, but unless the image is a really high contrast scene, it doesn't seem to bother me.</p>

<p>I think you made a typo, you don't want an E-300 :), although it's not a bad camera either, just ancient in digital terms.</p>

[robwilson]

<p>Don't forget that lenses are an issue as well. Your kit lenses are likely to considerably inferior to what your friend is using. For the record, I use an E3 mostly with the 12-60mm SWD lens and the results I get are at least as good and often better (particularly at lower ISO) than my fiance's D300 with Sigma lenses.<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

 

[porter]

<p>I quite like my 620. I had a 520 before and after upgrading I have noticed a difference in the f stop range the camera is able to capture in a single exposure. Skies aren't blown out anymore and I find the high iso performance fine so long as you expose to the right a bit.</p>

<p>Go ahead and check out my pictures and others in flickr groups to see what you think.</p>

<p>Btw I now have the 12-60 swd lens and it really changed how well the camera performed (but it still hunts for focus in low light :P )<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickporter/</p>

 

[porter]

<p>BTW I love this camera with the battery grip. Fixes the normal sized hand/small sized camera issue :)</p>

<p><img src="http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e393/pporter1/Photo22.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[machts gut]

<p>The D300 sure is the better camera, but me thinks it's probably more an issue of exposure and/or postprocessing, when your sky is white. Do you shoot RAW or JPGs? Try RAW, bracket your shots and see if you get better results this way. One needs not alweays spend much money to get better results.</p>

[david-w]

<p>Some people may say the D300 is a "better" camera The truth is, at normal ISO settings (100-400) the E500 is capable of giving output at round about the same level. Differences will not be on a level that you'll notice at most print sizes or viewed to fit on a screen. If anything, the colour quality on the E500 is better but that's just my opinion.</p>

<p><em>Anyway, she was getting much better "sky" than I was...I was getting flat white, she was getting blues, clouds, etc</em></p>

<p>It sounds entirely an issue of exposure. If you overexpose an image that's what you'll get because the sky becomes too bright for the camera to capture.</p>

<p>You may think you're using the same settings as the other person, but in any kind of automatic exposure mode both cameras will "think" differently and give you different results. There are also differences in the way cameras meter the light, and differences in the base sensitivities of the sensors. It doesn't mean one is better than the other necessarily, it's just that you have to get used to what you have and make it work for you.</p>

<p>You can quite easily get your skies back by either using full manual exposure and adjusting the aperture/shutter speed until you get the look you like, or you can use exposure compensation (the +/- button on the camera) to tell the camera you want the exposures to be a bit darker and retain the information in the clouds. Try setting it to -0.7 in those situations.</p>

<p><em>Question is, I guess, am I really going to get better images with 'fancier', more expensive camera bodies? </em></p>

<p>Considering the problem is with exposure rather than the camera, no. The D300 may expose on the dark side to retain cloud information, but as I mentioned the E500 can be set up to do exactly the same.</p>

<p>The main advantages of the D300 are in terms of speed, build quality, fast autofocus etc, since it's a camera aimed more at professional use. But the image quality of most DSLRs currently available or built within the last few years are pretty much similar.</p>

<p>The thing which will improve your images the most is improved technique.<br>

David</p>

 

[david-w]

<p><em>I have a 620, colors are beautiful, photos are sharp, noise is nothing short of horrible.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

If anything I'd say the E620 has the least noise of any Olympus camera so far except the EP-1, and it's really close to the competing Nikon and Canon models.</p>

<p>If you're getting lots of noise, either turn off auto gradation (which introduces LOTS of noise) or turn down the sharpening / turn up the noise filter.</p>

<p>Also bear in mind the 12mp images appear to be much more 'magnified' on your screen than say an 8mp image. If you downsize 12mp to 8mp you'll notice the noise has actually improved over previous generations of cameras (and that includes Nikon and Canon, it's a huge step above my 20D/30D).</p>

<p>D</p>

[luisarguelles]

<p>BTW, about noise, I'm thinking about upgrading from an E-510 to the E-620. Is there a difference of two stops in noise between these cameras? That is, the E620 at ISO 1600 shows more or less the same noise than the E-510 at ISO 400?</p>