E-410 Review

[Mr. Pickles]

DPNow has a "on going" hands-on review of the E-410...

In-depth review: Olympus E-410 compact DSLR with live view (Part 1) - Digital Photography Now

[Latinbob]

It looks very interesting so far. Small and light, exactly what 4/3 should be. The E-410 will be a good competitor to the Nikon D40/D40x.

Bob

[Mr. Pickles]

It should be a good competitor. I think it beats the Nikon in features and image quality, but can it beat the Nikon name and their lineup of self-branded and 3rd party lenses?

[Paul Shields]

Not sure how accurate that review is. It says
'Another feature previously unavailable on Olympus' first live view DSLR, the E-330, was any form of enhanced framing aid. The E-410 offers several options, including this grid line display.'

I'm fairly sure the E-330 had a grid overlay, though my memory could be slipping.

Also, although it states that the LiveMOS sensor is superior to the Kodak sensor when it comes to noise - again from my own tests I'd say that the E-330 was marginally better than the E-1 in noise reduction. The E-400 is also marginally better. However, the depth of colour and detail on the Kodak CCD's always look better to my eye than the MOS variants.

I think the E-410 is a bit of 'two steps forwards, one step back'. Live view is great, but no articulating screen needlessly cripples it. I'm sure the LiveMOS sensor is state of the art for what it is, but it's equivalent to an '8mp CCD' (quote from Olympus website). I suspect the 10mp CCD in the E-400 would out perform the E-410 in certain areas. Would be great if someone could do a real in-depth side by side report of the two. Shame Askey couldn't have done an E-400 report at least. I guess we'll never know (from an authoritative Internet source - where the truth is always out there...) just how good or bad that Kodak sensor really is .

[Mr. Pickles]

Actually, I myself don't care how good the E-410 is. I'd much rather have a E-510 than a E-410

I don't think you will ever see a sensor that is as great as it can be. I'd say the increase in resolution of the sensor will be somewhat of a negative towards image quality. Who knows about the "maker" of the sensor. Might be a negative, might be a positive. Might be a wash.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Not sure how accurate that review is. It says
'Another feature previously unavailable on Olympus' first live view DSLR, the E-330, was any form of enhanced framing aid. The E-410 offers several options, including this grid line display.'

I'm fairly sure the E-330 had a grid overlay, though my memory could be slipping.

Also, although it states that the LiveMOS sensor is superior to the Kodak sensor when it comes to noise - again from my own tests I'd say that the E-330 was marginally better than the E-1 in noise reduction.

It could be referring to this particular sensor. But personally I did find the e-330 was indeed superior. Keep in mind that the e-330 ISO rating like the Canon, runs higher than the rated number by about 1/3rd of a stop I think it is. ISO 1600 on the e-330 is actually ISO 2000 of the E-1.

The E-400 is also marginally better. However, the depth of colour and detail on the Kodak CCD's always look better to my eye than the MOS variants.

Quite frankly I don't quite understand this. I think both sensors are pretty good. I have done RAW conversions from the e-300 and e-330 and both behave like their rated megapixels- the e-300 from raw in a little dot here or there may have one single pixel of extra data- what I would expect from 7.5 vs 8 megapixels.

I also found the dynamic range of the e-330 superior to the e-300's (though it was a marginal improvement).

I think the E-410 is a bit of 'two steps forwards, one step back'. Live view is great, but no articulating screen needlessly cripples it. I'm sure the LiveMOS sensor is state of the art for what it is, but it's equivalent to an '8mp CCD' (quote from Olympus website).

I have read more than one interpretation on this, so I don't think it directly translates to an equivalent resolution 8 megapixels in interpretation.

I suspect the 10mp CCD in the E-400 would out perform the E-410 in certain areas. Would be great if someone could do a real in-depth side by side report of the two. Shame Askey couldn't have done an E-400 report at least. I guess we'll never know (from an authoritative Internet source - where the truth is always out there...) just how good or bad that Kodak sensor really is .

Given the noise I have seen the e-400 do, I wouldn't be surprised if the e-410 behaved better. I really think in the end more than the raw sensor depths and what nots, it's the jpeg algorithms the one that matter most, when looking at these.

The only thing I have truly seen the e-300 Kodak sensor has over my e-330 is that the e-330 can get some banding at high ISO's (not always).

- Raist

[Paul Shields]

I just report what I see with my own eyes. I find the RAW images from the E-400 have a similar quality to the E-1 and the E-330 was different. A lot of that may be due to in-camera processing as much as sensor or anything else but it was noticeable to me. I'll be skipping the E-410/510 as they won't quite fill what I'm looking for right now (still on the lookout for an E-330 - just missed one go on ebay for £233 ). Still more than curious about the E-1 replacement though. I hope they're a bit more radical in the sensor design and don't just throw in the same sensor as is in the new models.

[dc2]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

I just report what I see with my own eyes. I find the RAW images from the E-400 have a similar quality to the E-1 and the E-330 was different. A lot of that may be due to in-camera processing as much as sensor or anything else but it was noticeable to me. I'll be skipping the E-410/510 as they won't quite fill what I'm looking for right now (still on the lookout for an E-330 - just missed one go on ebay for £233 ). Still more than curious about the E-1 replacement though. I hope they're a bit more radical in the sensor design and don't just throw in the same sensor as is in the new models.

I read a report the E1 replacement claims to have a 31.6 MP sensor and using the new lenses claims to boast the fastest AF out there .

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dc2

I read a report the E1 replacement claims to have a 31.6 MP sensor and using the new lenses claims to boast the fastest AF out there .

Interesting report DC2 . Care to provide a reference to this 31.6mp sensor? .

[dc2]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Interesting report DC2 . Care to provide a reference to this 31.6mp sensor? .

funny enough I have just read it in a magazine called Digital SLR photography .
I think the mag is quite a new mag on the scene.

[dc2]

Oops my mistake it seems they are taking about a new MF camera on the same sentence they were discussing the Oly.
but the bit about the lenses and AF were correct.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

I just report what I see with my own eyes. I find the RAW images from the E-400 have a similar quality to the E-1 and the E-330 was different. A lot of that may be due to in-camera processing as much as sensor or anything else but it was noticeable to me. I'll be skipping the E-410/510 as they won't quite fill what I'm looking for right now (still on the lookout for an E-330 - just missed one go on ebay for £233 ). Still more than curious about the E-1 replacement though. I hope they're a bit more radical in the sensor design and don't just throw in the same sensor as is in the new models.

Seems like LIVEMOS sensor has more DR than the e-300 Kodak sensor. I also can factually report this having played with the goal of finding that out using RAW files. I also tried over exposing at SAmmys with the E-1 a while back and what I found is the E-1 sensor seems to have a particular richness/tonal in some colors (red in particular), but the dynamic range of the e-330 was definitively better keeping more detail in place when over exposed. This was a very scientific way of doing it, but again, I also can say the Kodak Sensor is really nice.

Anyhow, I can agree to disagree

- Raist

[Paul Shields]

Well I'm no expert and haven't really looked into the differences in DR in quite so much detail. I do agree that the E-1 does boost the red channel a little bit which helps with the so-called 'oly colours'. I just find the images from the Kodak sensor (E-1 or E-400) to be more pleasing to the eye than my experience with a LiveMOS sensor (the E-330).

Having said that - I'm still actively looking to pick up an E-330 again. It's the Paul Shields School of Economics - buy one for £600, sell it for £500 and pick one up again for £299 or less. It's the only way I can justify yet another body, but I do really miss the articulating LCD and (until the E-1 replacement comes around) this is the only way I can get that functionality.

[Paul Shields]

Just had a look at the sample images in the dpnow review mentioned in the initial post. So many over exposed blown-out highlights, and I'm slightly dubious about the noise and focusing in some... Not a very good advertisement for the Oly (or for any DSLR based on that output).

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Just had a look at the sample images in the dpnow review mentioned in the initial post. So many over exposed blown-out highlights, and I'm slightly dubious about the noise and focusing in some... Not a very good advertisement for the Oly (or for any DSLR based on that output).

I actually find the noise well controlled so far (comparing to my e-300, kodak sensor). The overexposure for me is hard to know given they could be exposing for the shadows in those shots or not. What I do see is they are not using the right lenses because I notice a certain like of detail indicative of bad focus

- Raist

[Raist3d]

Paul, I was going to mention that I had noticed before that there's something to the Kodak sensor, now that I try to think back when I first got the e-330. I think there's something about the color/texture, while the e-330 (nmos) had a something with the way it captured the light.

I remember thinking the e-330 captured the light better (more DR), but the e-300 had something with some of the tones....

Perhaps it's a red cast/slant while the nmos has a blue-slant. Red slant is more beneficial on skintones. Blue is more on landscapes I think.

Anyhow, just trying to be fair with what I remember. I do remember though the E-1 burned in overexposure compared to the Nmos. Compared to the e-300 I remember I found about 0.25 EV to 0.5 EV more DR on the 330.

Anyhow, not disputing your experienc per se. Just trying to be more accurate with how I felt when I first got the cameras.

Given there are still a good two months and a half away (make that one month I guess considering shipping/manufacture), I wouldn't be surprised if the firmware was still being tweaked, on the e-410.

- Raist