Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 5, 2007, 11:25 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

I'm thinking of changing from the 500, which I really like and have from day one.

I like a lot of the newfeatures listed on the 510, especially the stabilizer for use 'mostly' with the longer lens of the 2 kit ones. The tripod isn't always convenient.

So how about the guys who have one, share some of your thoughts about it.
Pro and Con.

Ken
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 5, 2007, 4:37 PM   #2
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

I haven't used a E500, so I have no comparison. So I would just give the 'usual' DSLR warnings that seem to apply. My main points about the E510 would be that -

The default options should not be trusted, they are for a 'snap-n-shoot' quality, and the camera can do FAR more.

The IS is worth every penny.

The default ESP + AFmetering is all to cock. Better try cente weighted or ESP on its own.

Set Noise filter OFF, and Sharpness LOW for JPEG (and do some post processing), or better still only use RAW.

It is a very ergonomic camera.Everything iswhere you would hope things to be.

The 'Live View' is great for tripod studio work, but I'm not yet convinced about outdoors in nature. Either way, it isn't a downside.

In image quality itpunches well above its weight, especially in RAW. The colours are 'Olympus' colours, and I can't think of any quirks that can't be solved, other than the magenta cast in blown highlights as shown in the default Oly Master 2 software, and others.. Adobe Camera Raw 4.2 solves this, other software manufacturers including Olympus haven't yet caught up.


OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2007, 9:45 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

not owning one, but maybe soon, lets see what E3 brings
I have handled one though
finder is much brighter and the AF is quite fast
I was in the store and I know what my 300 would have been like in those circumstances. The auto WB as seen in liveview was quite good for flouro lighting, distortion in it lens seemed low, the tele 40-150 seemed quite good, certainly good value for money.

cheers Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 3:54 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

I bought it just for the IS, as I hardly ever carry a tripod. I do a reasonable amount of macro and l-o-n-g tele (Sigma 135-400mm) and IS here really makes a difference. Also good in low light: IS allows slower shutterspeeds and ISO 800 is better. The quality of the photos seems somewhat better somehow, but probably no more than what I could achieve in PhotoShop(?) Autofocus seems faster than on the e-500. I have not tried its RAW mode. Nor have I used the Live View (except to test that it worked), but this may come in useful in some situations.

Should you upgrade from e-500? Only if you really need IS or have plenty of money.

Jorgen
http://www.photoblog.com/jorgen

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 1:14 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

Thanks for responding guys, they all good answers that tel me what I need to know.

I agree with Riley, what we really need is the E3 but between just buying a home and keeping my little sailboat on the water I have to strike a balance somewhere.

I will keep my options open for this year and see what the E3 actually retails for (and what my daughter can find it for in China) It is a temping hunk of plastic and glass.

Jorgen, thanks for addressing the stabilizer, that was the answer I hoped to hear. Especially when I think that the longer 'kit' lens is somewhat soft in focusing. I may have to do something about that with another lens.

OCD, Thanks for comments on factory pre setting I found this out with the 500 when I started with it. I haven't gotten into RAW yet. Perhaps this winter when work slows a bit I can do some experimenting. I'd just like to see if it's worth the bother in changing from touching up SHQ jpeg for my requirements or is it just some sort of techie gimmick.






Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 9:20 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

Scouse;
If you take a lot of shots from the sailboat, you will love the E-510 for the IS alone. I have a 22 ft Chaparral that I take a lot of shots from while moving, mostly in the SAN Diego Harbor. It is a great camera, even better if yoiu an afford the 50-200 lens for it, which costs about $750 or so.







From the nosebleed section


trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2007, 12:54 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
"longer 'kit' lens is somewhat soft in focusing."
Test it with a (good!) tripod. The old 50-150mm is very sharp.

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2007, 4:12 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

Unfortunately... I can't "blame" the tripod. I've just "snapped this one in quickly my office.

My wife bought me this one, in a pinch I could use it to hold up my V8 pickup truck full of sand while I change the tyre...

I'm on my wife's lap top now and don't have a photo for example on it. I'll post one later. The lens I'm talking of is the 40-150 3.5/4.5 of the 2 lens kit.

I do like the other, the 14-45, I use as a primary.



Troop, I loved your San Deigo set, I plan on hovering around the Pugot Sound sailboat racing scene and getting pics of boats with their rags pulling them...!

Funny we have other Kens in here and I'm a Ken Lewis! Where's the troop from?
Attached Images
 
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2007, 3:26 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

The 40-150 3.5/4.5 is commonly known as being sharp (unlike the 14-45 which can be slightly softer). Your set seems the opposite!

Jorgen
http://www.photoblog.com/jorgen

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2007, 9:50 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

My wife has had a girlscout troop for 9 years, so that's where the email address came from!

From the pre-show before the Red Bull Air races in San Diego


trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:38 AM.