What's wrong with the E520

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I'm curious. I just bought a rarely used Olympus E520 because I wanted a DSLR to use my OM lenses with. A few years back I owned an E500 so I have had experience with Olympus four thirds cameras. I find the viewfinder small and the image quality at high ISO is sketchy, but I like the Olympus color a lot more than my current camera (a Nikon D40). The ability to use my OM lenses (and my Konica 50/1.7) is really nice so I am generally happy with the trade-offs.</p>

<p>I am however surprised that the E520 seems to get very little attention and respect. I've read the reviews and while it wasn't rated as high as the Canon Rebel or equivalent Nikon it seems to me that the difference between the E520 and it's "betters" is pretty small. </p>

<p>I can see why the new Olympus EP1 and EP2 get most of the attention (they quite nice). In the Olympus DSLR camp the E620 is the flavor du jour. I guess because the E520 is old news it is forgotten but I happen to think it's a pretty nice little DSLR. The size is nice, it seems well made and if the images are as nice as my old E500 it'll be a fun camera to play with. Attach my 35-70 3.5/4.5 or my 50/1.8 OM lenses and I should be able to get some decent shots. I think I even have a DZ 35mm 3.5 macro sitting around somewhere. As I recall that lens is VERY sharp.</p>

<p>I 'll have it in about a week and I'll put it through it's paces but despite it being a lowly E520 I am pretty excited to get it. Anyone out there have one and like it? Just wondering.</p>

<p> </p>

[w_dunbar]

<p>Well I have the E520 and although it's no Nikon, I like my camera. I got the Olympus "package" - the camera body and two lenses and I thought that was a great deal. And I am very happy with my Oly. It does everything I need and it's priced within range to be affordable - both the camera and any lenses I might want.<br>

I have owned Canon and Minolta 35mm SLR cameras and my E520 can keep up with them both. I had the chance to opt for the higher quality (and price) E3, but for the price and for the price of future purchases, the E520 couldn't be beat.<br>

So the E520 may not be the biggest kid on the block, but it can hold its own and can do so a lot less expensively.</p>

[anthea50]

<p>Kevin</p>

<p>I also have the E520 and I simply love it! I only went to digital about 8 months ago, I have an Oly OM10 that I have had for some 20 years, but I have a Tamron lens on that camera, so I don't have any old Oly lenses to try on my 520.</p>

<p>With my 520 I currently have the kit lens (14-42), the 35mm macro, an extension tube, and the 40-150. I wanted an entry level DSLR, one that had full manual options, and I didn't want/need lots of extra 'fancy' options. I wanted a good, smallish, easy to use camera, and good value for money. I must say that I would highly recomment the 520 to anyone with a similiar needs/wants as me.</p>

<p>I love the colour, quality and useability of the 520. The macro lens in particular is brilliant, once you find out how to get the best from it (not a fast lens), I basically keep it on the cam all the time, it is very usefull for general shots as well.</p>

<p>Negative points are, as you've pointed out, the tiny viewfinder (another reason to use fully manual settings so the only thing you're doing is framing/focusing - not trying to read microscopic settings); and yes it is noisy on anything over 400 ISO. But, as I said, I get around the viewfinder issue by not bothering with trying to see any settings, and I try very hard to keep the ISO at 400 or below. If I can't though, and I want the shot, I just suck it up, for the type of shots I take, I'm not that bothered by noise.</p>

<p>So I say enjoy your new purchase! You will have alot of fun with it, I'm sure!</p><div></div>

[kevin_dixey2]

<blockquote>

<p>Well I have the E520 and although it's no Nikon, I like my camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, as a Nikon D40 user (and having used a Canon 10D in production for about 2 years) I can say that the Olympus E500 was better IMHO than then Canon and pretty much even with the Nikon. I expect the E520 will be similar to the E500. The addition of IS in the body and Live View will be interesting. </p>

<p>I have always wondered about the fascination with high ISO performance in DSLRs. I mean how often do you use that? About the highest ISO film I shoot regularly is ISO 400 Tri-X. I have a roll of ISO 1600 Fuji around that I bought a while back. I have never used it. Clearly High ISO is important to some people and in that case I suppose something like the Canon or Nikon is the best choice but up to ISO 400 I found the E500 to be equal to the Canons and Nikons of the same period. I suspect the E520 will be the same. The point of using high ISO for me is to be able to hand hold a shot where I need to use a slow shutter speed. IS should be quite a help in that situation. I also tend to take a tripod when shooting in situations like that (film habit). For me at least the image quality at high ISO is not so important.</p>

<p>A more pressing issue for me is the small viewfinder. I wear glasses and like to use MF lenses so that tiny viewfinder will be a problem. I think the first thing I am going to do is buy one of those magnifying eyepieces from eBay. The TENPA 1.36 viewer seems to well thought of among Olympus owners on the fourthirds.com forums.</p>

<p><br /></p>

[rdm]

<p>Hey Kevin can you or anyone tell me if their camera records any exif data when using these adapted MF lenses, and can you tell me what settings are recorded?</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I'll check when I get the E520. I don't recall from when I had the E500. I'll get it in a few days. </p>

[rdm]

<p>thanks</p>

[sandor_a._feher]

<p>The E520 is great camera, the E500 is better but no stabilizer, IHO CCD sensors have a better bokeh (sweeter) then MOS sensors. The E520 is MOS, the E500 is CCD sensor. Draw your own conclusion. I do also runing Nikon and Canon system and having field experience.</p>

[jim nichols]

<p>Dan,<br>

I have an E-1 and an E-510, both of which I often use with manual Leica-R lenses. The camera BODY EXIF data is recorded, though no lens data is available automatically. I seem to recall that the E-510 had a way to manually enter lens focal length, but mainly to fine tune the IS system.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>dan Mar - as stated above, the EXIF data is captured for the body but not for the lens. I se Aperture for the Mac so I can manually enter it but I don't see where I can enter it on camera.</p>

[rdm]

<p>Oh, OK. So entering the lens focal length is only for IS reasons but not recorded in the EXIF data. Thats strange, I wonder why they didn't allow that info to be added to the file since you can input it into the camera. Oh well. I thought it would be like my friends digital camera, where he uses adapted OM lenses and it records Aperture but not lens focal length. SO i guess never will be gone the day the photographer doesn't need to carry the notepad. I'm sure someone someday will make a camera with that feature tho.</p>