Olympus Evolt E-330

That price isn't going to help sales, live preview or not.

This camera is the bomb diggity. I plan to buy it as soon as I get a chance to see it. For sure!

That ultrasonic dust removal system is very smart. I hope to see it on other cameras.

It looks to me like the Optical Porro finder that appeared in the E-300 was designed from the start with live preview in mind, and the E-300 was just a test-bed for the system.

It's not the cheapest DSLR around because it's not MEANT to be compared with the Digital Rebel or the Nikon D50....that's what the Olympus E-500 is. Try comparing like models- it does make a difference.

I'm beginning to think Olympus has lost it. At least they've lost their sense of timing. Why now? Too little, too late, too expensive.

Your are talkking about the Nikon D60??? I assume that you meant D50? ---------------------------------------------------------------- No one noticed the OFF centered built-in FLash? and even worst... the off-centered hotshoe?

Off-centering a flash is a good thing for light quality. It's just the the traditional SLR with center hump don't really allow the hot shoe or built in flash to be anywhere else.

People who use flash seriously (PJs, wedding snappers) all either use Metz (or others) hammerheads or stick their same-brand flashes on third party flash brackets.

Doesn't look like this thing would be my cup of tea, but live preview is what a lot of people are asking for on DSLRs and you can't say Olympus isn't innovating.

Also not sure if this is meant as "entry level" at all. Only when real reviews with good data on image quality and handling will we know what it is.

"The Olympus Evolt E-330 is the first DLSR with a live LCD preview".

I believe the Canon EOS 20Da had it first, but maybe I'm wrong.

You're both right and wrong.

The EOS 20Da has a sort of kludged up live preview, but you have to lock up the mirror and open the shutter to use it. To take a shot you have to close the shutter, drop the mirror down and then make the exposure in the normal way without an LCD preview image. It's not meant for general purpose photography and neither is the camera. It's specifically designed for use in astrophotography. There are actually other specialized reflex viewing astrophotography camera systems that can do the same thing.

The E-330 is the first general puropse DSLR with a practical, always active, usuable live preview. I don't count the EOS 20Da

I look at the E-330 as entry level because, in my experience, the only users who regard a live LCD preview as a major factor in camera purchase are those who are upgrading from consumer digicams. I've yet to hear any serious photographers switching from film to digital and caring much about a live LCD preview. Of course I doubt that very many photographers moving from film DSLRs to digital would buy into the Olympus 4/3 system anyway, but that's another issue.

who honestly wants to sacrifice viewfinder size and brightness for a LCD preview function?

who really needs live LCD when the point of using an SLR is that you get look throught the lens directly and optically?

i am sure there are some who will like this and buy it,

but i really dun think a camera like this will bring Photography to another new level.

its just a waste of time and resources in my opinion.

Bob wrote, "Of course I doubt that very many photographers moving from film DSLRs to digital would buy into the Olympus 4/3 system anyway, ..."

Frankly, the Olympus 4/3 lens selection looks awesome. Too bad there isn't a good body to go with it, like one with a great viewfinder and Konica-Minolta's anti-shake system...

If there were a good body, and I was prepared to switch lens systems, I'd seriously consider it. Until then, the D200 will have to do.

Well, a $7000 300/2.8 lens is certainly awesome, but not necessarily in a good way!

Yes, I know it "works like a 600/2.8 with the 2x multiplier", but a 300/2.8 is still a 300/2.8 as far as actually building it (and pricing it) is concerned. It only needs to cover 18x12mm as well. The superb Canon 300/2.8L with image stabilization "only" costs $3900 and covers full frame. On a D20 it "acts like a 480/2.8" if you want to think of it that way I guess.

The multiplier argument falls a little flat when you realize that if Canon made an SLR with a 3x multiplier, you could get an "effective 600/2.8L" lens for around $600. The EF 200/2.8L is a very good lens indeed, even on full frame. On a 3x camera it would be "totally awesome".

I'm not saying the 4/3 system can't give decent results, it can, but it's not particularly smaller, cheaper, lighter or better than other formats, and for those looking for bargain (3rd party) lenses, it's currently not the best choice. If you're happy with the Olympus lenses, then that's good. It's certainly an inovative system with some interesting features.

"I've yet to hear any serious photographers switching from film to digital and caring much about a live LCD preview"

Not with this one. But get me one with AF, no shutter&mirror sound/vibration, flip&twist OLED LCD - be it with a new and goooood EVF - and I'll be happy to pay extra $$$ for it: street photography, concerts....
Maybe within a couple of years... :)

Bob, I would have thought a scientist like you would be able to see a balanced view. Yes, the 300/2.8 and 150/2 are overpriced for what they are, but realistically, you can't get a much cheaper deal on the Canon system to achieve the same magnification and field of view. (and just so you know, Canon doesn't actually make a 3x crop camera, so that argument is completely irrelevant)

And I know that you, as nature photographer, are biased towards these lenses, but in the real world maybe one in a million (ok, maybe one hundred thousand) Canon DLSR buyers will actually ever buy a lens like those.

If you look at the kind of lenses many people want on their reasonably priced DSLRs, like a standard zoom and telephoto zoom, Canon will sell you a slow, not very sharp 17-85/4-5.6(!) for $525. Olympus will sell you the 14-54/2.8-3.5 (a lens on par for sharpness with Canon's 24-70/2.8) for the bargain price of $500.

As I have used one, I will not question the excelence of the Canon 70-200/4L; it is a great lens and at $600 a very good deal. But for $850 Olympus sells you a 50-200/2.8-3.5 that is longer even compared to 200mm on a 20D, faster and sharper. Not a bad deal either.

And if it's a portrait lens you are after, at $450 the 50/2 is a stunning lens. $100 more than the 85/1.8, but a better lens. Again: not a bad deal.

For many people the Olympus system IS the right choice with a better choice of the types of lenses they actually want. Seriously, when was the last time you came acros a 350D or even 20D on the street being used by anyone with anything other than one of the (as Scott Eaton calls them) "Capt'n Crunch" kit zooms? Or how many people that should be using better glas are stuck with their 17-85's or worse simply because they can't afford anything better in the Canon world?

Of course it is not the first to do this. Olympus own E10 had live preview, and you could even see the scene live as it was being exposed! They got it right with the E10, use a silvered mirror, duh! It should be standard on all DSLRs, not dust problems, silent, all kinds of benefits, and the loss of a little light to the sensor.

Personally, I can't see the reason to have a mirror at all, it compromises lens design. This gives me yet another reason to experiment with the radically designed Sony R1.

Bas you are correct in a way, but what's so magical about a 2x crop? Maybe a 3x crop would be even better, with image quality almost as good, and with lenes (like 200/2.8 = 600/2.8) MUCH smaller and cheaper?

Like I said, the Olympus system is interesting.

Maybe what we need is another manufacturer to make a 2x or a 3x crop fact DSLR that takes full frame lenses. For example if Canon made a $500 DSLR with a 3x crop sensor and you had a 200/2.8L lens, you could mount it on the 3x body and get a 600/2.8. If you wanted a little higher image quality you could put it on a $700 Digital Rebel XT (1.6x, 320/2.8) or if you wanted the highest quality you could mount it on a full frame body like the EOS 5D or 1Ds MkII and you'd have a 200/2.8L. It's a $600 lens on any camera!

If the Olympus 4/3 (2x) system and lenses were 1/2 the size, 1/2 the weight and 1/2 the cost of larger format alternatives, I'd say they'd really have a winner on their hands. But it's not. The promise of a small, light, cheap SLR system has a lot of appeal, but the current 4/3 system isn't that and unless someone else picks up and runs with it I doubt it will be one of the formats that continues into the next decade.

If you remember the old 110 format SLRs (Pentax made the best known one, but I think minolta had one too), a digital equivalent could sell. They were tiny and cute. The 110 film versions didn't last long, but that was mainly because the quality of prints from 110 film sucked pretty bad. However, 110 was larger than almost any consumer DSLR sensor, so a 110 format digital sensor should have very acceptable image quality. In fact 110 was 13x17mm, about the same size as the Olympus 13.5x18mm. The 110 format SLR lenses were tiny and so was the camera.

The 1.5x/1.6x DSLRs are essentially digital APS (C) format and the 2x (Olympus 4/3) DSLRs are essentially digital 110 format.

I'm not a Canon user, but to get the magnification of the 4/3 format out of a larger sensor all you have to do is crop the shot.

So yeah, Olympus lenses are very expensive. What's more they're limited to covering a tiny sensor area with a greater penalty in noise vs. resolution.

Quote: 'I'm not a Canon user, but to get the magnification of the 4/3 format out of a larger sensor all you have to do is crop the shot.'

William you are missing the point. Yes it is true that you can crop an image from a larger sensor and get the same relative viewable image...but the Olympus displays that image at it's full 7.5 megapixel. A full frame camera is losing many of it's effective pixels to crop to the same viewable area.

I believe it was Bob who already did an article on this...maybe he can post the link.

My personal view is that I am going to keep my 1.6x sensor 20D for wildlife/telephoto photography for this very advantage, even once I've finally found the bucks to buy the 5D.

I am intrigued by the Olympus system, but I have too much money invested in Canon at this point to change.

You can't just crop the image from a 1x, 1.3x, or 1.6x sensor to get 2x like the Olympus system because you lose too many pixels.

If you crop an 8.2MP sensor to 2x you end up with a 2x sensor, but with about 5.25MP. This isn't bad - many DSLRs are still 6MP, but it wouldn't be as good as a 7.5MP 4/3 sensor. It might be good enough of course.

If you crop a 12MP EOS 5D sensor image down to the size of an 8MP EOS 20D 1.6x sensor, you lose image quality. It's the same idea.

If you want a small sensor camera with a large multiplier, you have to design for it from the start, which means using smaller pixels to keep up the pixel density, and Olympus have done that.

"the 300/2.8 and 150/2 are overpriced for what they are, but realistically, you can't get a much cheaper deal on the Canon system to achieve the same magnification and field of view."

Sure you can. Get a 5D, a 2X teleconverter, and the 300/2.8 IS. (Note that this is way cheaper than the Oly 300/2.8 alone). Now when the Oly user shoots at ISO 100, you shoot at ISO 400. Print both at 13x19. The 5D image will look a lot better. (Note that the DOF is the same.)

Similarly, the 300/2.8 on the 5D at ISO 1600 will look better than the 150/2.0 on the Oly at ISO 800.

Well I got the Evolt E300 for the optics of Zuiko and not because of the weight. Personally if it's too small I won't be able to hold it... But I still like a 4/3 rangefinder. Come on Digilux 3!

The point of the camera is "YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PUT THE CAMERA TO YOUR EYE TO SHOOT", period. This can be an incredibly valuable feature for a DSLR, or worthless, it depends on what type photography project you have in mind, think about it....

Re: Live LCD Preview

Well, it uses juice, and it isn't really necessary, is it? This is a marketing device that will attract some users, but it really doess not promote better photography.

As for the technology to remove the dust from the sensor, that is another matter entirely. That would definitely be handy.

--Lannie

Well, it uses juice, and it isn't really necessary, is it? This is a marketing device that will attract some users, but it really doess not promote better photography.

The same could be said about autofocus. Just look at it as a bonus on top of a high quality DSLR, useful when eye-level viewfinders aren't.

Reprinting for you this unedited, early user, hands on report from a well traveled and active,-boy is he active- nature photographer. I trust it adds to the above predictive comments and caveats. An interesting first look,w/ plus and minuses..Warning--long spiel. Warning# 2: He is not a neutral observer,having a lot of cash in ED lenses. And seeing his posted scenic work, I have to be impressed at how the author manages to achieve the results he gets from what Atkins (rather dismissively) describes as the equivalent of Kodak's 110 cartridge (recall,no pressure plate on cartridges,a penalty for serious shooting with quality lenses)short lived film format... No matter. Enjoy.

.......................................................................... " I just received mine early this morning and have been learning it since. Just a few random observations:

Body is firm, not flimsey. No flex to it, no squeaks. About the same feel as a Canon 20D, though obviously a different shape. Rear screen is mounted with metal attachments and didn't give me a flimsy feeling, something I was worried about. Pretty well organized. No buttons obviously in the way like on the E-500. Had no bad or stuck pixels on the sensor or LCD and the sensor was clear of dust.

Viewfinder is good. Much better and bigger than I expected. Viewfinder data is on the right side like the E-500 but I didn't have any trouble seeing it while still viewing the entire image with glasses on. Large, easy to use diopter adjustment knob and a built in viewfinder shutter with large lever control for when you're using the live view. Optical viewfinder appears to be centered in the image capture area and is large enough so you can use it without much worry about what is also being included in the image that you can't see in the OVF.

WB is better than any other Olympus camera, though it still needs some white in the scene (doesn't have a separate WB window on camera like the E-1) or you need to make a custom WB setting. Very sophistocated. Allows you to adjust individual images or all images to both mired shift (red-blue) range and color correction (green-magenta) range. WB goes as low as 2000K. In theory, you should be able to balance any type of normally visable lighting in the camera.

Shutter/mirror slap are noisy. It's been a year or so since I had an E-300, but from memory I'd say the E-330 is louder, perhaps the loudest of the E series cameras.

Control are quite good with a combination of buttons (some multipurpose) and menus, but not quite as good overall as the E-1 which would let you do almost any camera setting with button and your eye to the viewfinder.

The RAW images are already recognized by Studio (I assume Viewer also), so you don't need to update Studio and don't need to install Olympus Master software.

The camera comes with a single jack for external connections. It is a dual purpose USB and video out plug. Not compatible with E-1 USB plug. There is nowhere to plug in an AC adapter, so you can only run camera with internal battery. Bad news if you're trying to download a large capacity CF card to your computer from the camera. Also may present problems if there are any truly long firmware updates.

Both A and B liveview modes work and work well, even with moving objects, at least to the level of slowly moving cars. Liveview A mode uses a dedicated sensor and allows AF and, quality wise, is visually on a par with Liveview B mode. Liveview B shows 100% of sensor image and allows a 10x image magnification, if desired, to assist with manual focus, but doesn't allow AF. Should be very good with macro work or used as a focusing aid with legacy lenses. In liveview mode B you can set a variety of grid patterns (two different grids and also calibrated measuring rules) to be projected onto the screen as an overlay of your image. Very interesting and useful for composition. I'm getting to like this feature more and more.

Light metering is identical sensitivity with previous E system cameras, but offers refinement. Now there are three forms of spotmetering. The normal spot metering and highlight spot metering (as with snow pictures) and lowlight spot metering (as with shadows in a concert.)

AF appears fast. At a guess it's a little faster than with an E-1 but right now that's just an impression that needs to be confirmed. Seems to work better in low light than the E-1, but still not fast like a Canon. That's ok with me, I prefer greater accuracy/reliability to greater speed.

The small built in flash is low power, but efficient. It is adequate for close snapshot work. The camera also accepts both the FL-36 and FL-50 as well, and can employ them in conjunction with the internal flash so you can use both bounce and direct flash simultaneously. It is necessary to open the internal flash before mounting the external flash hot shoe unit to ensure that the internal flash does not graze the external flash during deployment, as can happen with the FL-50. If the small flash emits pulses as AF illumination, wait a second or so after focus lock before fully depressing shutter button and capturing the flash image. That allows the flash capacitor to fully recharge and helps prevent underexposed flash shots.

A problem in using flash with the E system has been the lack of a flash exposure lock. That is, a method by which you could take a exposure reading with flash on your primary subject and then recompose the image with the primary subject off to the side and have the primary subject properly illuminated when the flash fires. The problem is that the flash does't take its exposure reading until after you recompose the image, thereby no giving a proper flash exposure measurement to the primary subject which is off to the side in the image. Olympus is aware of the situation and have crafted a unique solution which they've implemented with the E-330. The E-330 allows you to readjust the centerpoint of your exposure measurement to around whichever focus point is active. The idea is that instead of focusing and then recomposing, you set one of the side focus points to be active and then only compose once and simultaneously use the side focus point to focus on your primary subject. When the flash prefires (TTL mode), the camera will take the exposure measurement around the side focus point which hopefully is still pointed towards you primary subject off to the side and will properly illuminate it. Kind of exotic, but should be very useful.

Noise appears to be very good on the camera. Haven't had the week or so needed to really come to a conclusion, but my impression right now is that the camera shows little more noise than a typical Canon right up through ISO 1600, yet still doesn't have any of the Canon's plastic image smoothing. By way of reference, I'd guess that the E-330's noise at ISO 1600 is about the same as the E-1's noise at ISO 400-800, depending on how well the image was exposed. That impression so far is based on RAW images developed in Studio with no type of noise suppression software used, either in or out of the camera. I haven't tried any in camera noise suppression or JPGs yet, since I don't normally shoot those and that'll be about the last thing I check out.

Image quality, so far, seems very good. As mentioned about, WB is good and noise is minimal for a 4/3 camera. Level of detail is high. I have a general impression that the inherent image sharpness/acutance is high, perhaps as high as the E-1, but I'll need a couple of weeks and many images in different conditions before I come to a final opinion on this. My impression as of now is that this camera has the best sensor/firmware of any E system camera to date. One small bug in the ointment; my initial impression is that the dynamic range of the sensor is a little less than that of the Kodak sensors in the other E series cameras.

Nice details include information displays that are easily accessable and include BOTH flashing blown highlights and flashing blown lowlights. You can show almost any level of information detail in the display or turn it off altogether. Also, if shooting with the camera in portrait orientation you can set the camera to automatically rotate the image so it shows in the proper orientation both in the camera review and when downloaded to computer.

Only two storage locations for custom setups. I'd prefer more. I use three on the E-1.

Only one custom WB setting available. I'd prefer more.

__________________ Good shooting,

English Bob..." (also goes by handle EB on several user groups.)

for someone on a budget, like me, i would choose this system over the canon or nikon. seems like more bang for the buck right now. lenses look good to an ameteur like me. i think this camera has lots going for it. the local dealer has tried to sell me a rebel xt that he says comes with 2 captncrunch lens. $1100 cananadian. well i think the olympus deserves a good look instead. canon is probably a better system but i just want a cookie cutter approach right now.

Maybe the next Olympus comes with a OLED-Display? All about OLED here: What is a OLED-Display?