Olympus E-620 announced

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022401olympuse620.asp

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=51631

Specs look excellent - sized between E-420 and E-520 but nearly the feature set of the E-30 (and the sensor / processor of the E-30 too!). I got distracted from my housing purchase for the E-520 when I got a D700, glad I did as this one seems far more interesting - on paper at least.

This is still one of the best deals in underwater photography today. A complete DSLR camera E-620, 14 to 42 mm zoom lens, PT-E06 housing and PPO-E05 lens port for around $2100.00. The view finder has been enlarged over the E-410 & E-520, image stabilization in the camera body, articulating LCD, art filter modes and much more. The housing is built much like the PT-E05 housing with built in fiber optic ports, new cam locking system and ability to interchange all of the over twenty optical glass ports now available for the Olympus, Nexus and SeaTool housings for Olympus.

For a look at many of the upsides to the Olympus systems you can read my attached review ON THE PT-E05,

http://news.fourthirdsphoto.com//node/11

http://www.myfourthirds.com/images/e-620/P...using_E_620.jpg

Phil Rudin

Yeah, I was considering housing the D700 for a while but seeing as a complete package with the E-620 is far cheaper than the D700 housing alone that's a very tempting offer. A better VF is a huge upside, as are the seven AF points and various other small improvements. It'll be interesting to see how the new sensor performs in real world situations. The E-520 has quite big problems with colour noise already at ISO 800, to the point where the D700 is better at ISO 6400 than the Oly at 800...

Phil, do you have any idea of how the Oly housings work with S&S strobes in FO mode? I don't really feel like replacing my YS-110...

The noise issues with small sensors at high ISO v. 35 mm size sensors is well documented. The now about $500.00 E-520 would not be expected to preform as well at 800 as the $3000.00 Nikon D700 with a four times larger sensor so this is a personal needs kind of thing. I shoot at ISO 100 about 98% of the time in the water and don't exceed 400 much above water. If you need to shoot at 6400 ISO underwater then you should buy a housing for your D700 it is an outstanding camera. The downsides to 35 mm size sensors for wide angle lenses behind a dome is also well documented and it is clear that smaller sensors can provide better results. That aside the issue here is that many would like an underwater DSLR that is in a value price range with high image quality and that is the area the Olympus is filling here.

Regarding the YS-110 and fiber optics, I don't own the strobe and have never tested one so all I can report is that others have posted mixed results and that the strobe has since been upgraded.

Phil Rudin

The downsides to 35 mm size sensors for wide angle lenses behind a dome is also well documented and it is clear that smaller sensors can provide better results.

I think this is a little bit of a misconception when one compares similar FOV lenses. Remember that the 16-35 Canon would be a 10-22 on DX and the 14-24 Nikon would be a 9-16 rectilinear on DX. (And proportionately lower on Olympus format) I think when comparing similar FOV, the results and / or difficulties of setting them up would be similar. for example, I think the 17-35 on FX is quite similar to 12-24 on DX. I think the main advantage of the smaller sensors is of course similar FOV lenses will be smaller and more compact.

I certainly don't need ISO 6400 underwater and only occasionally use it on land - but when I do need it, it's very helpful. And I don't expect the E-520 to perform like a D700. But I would like it to perform roughly the same as an APS-C camera. I hope that Oly (Panasonic) have managed to at least move closer to the best of the APS-C pack with the 12 MP sensor (as much of a contradiction as that may seem, but here's hoping the new Truepic III+ engine adds a little magic). The E-520 is about 1 1/2 stops worse than the D60 or EOS 450D in chroma noise and a stop worse in luminance noise.

I actually have the upgraded YS-110a (use it with a compact right now) so will certainly try should I go down the E-620 route.

loftus, from what I've heard the Zuiko 7-14 performs quite well underwater, Phil can probably tell you more, but I certainly haven't heard of any of the issues that plagues the 14-24 (which is great on land but which I would hesitate to house).

I certainly don't need ISO 6400 underwater and only occasionally use it on land - but when I do need it, it's very helpful. And I don't expect the E-520 to perform like a D700. But I would like it to perform roughly the same as an APS-C camera. I hope that Oly (Panasonic) have managed to at least move closer to the best of the APS-C pack with the 12 MP sensor (as much of a contradiction as that may seem, but here's hoping the new Truepic III+ engine adds a little magic). The E-520 is about 1 1/2 stops worse than the D60 or EOS 450D in chroma noise and a stop worse in luminance noise.

 

I actually have the upgraded YS-110a (use it with a compact right now) so will certainly try should I go down the E-620 route.

 

loftus, from what I've heard the Zuiko 7-14 performs quite well underwater, Phil can probably tell you more, but I certainly haven't heard of any of the issues that plagues the 14-24 (which is great on land but which I would hesitate to house).

Yeah honestly, I really don't know, but we don't get to see many examples, comparisons or tests of Olympus stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love the size, ergonomics, performance of the Olympus cameras, and this setup is obviously an awesome value, but the only way to compare would be some side by side tests of wide rectilinears and their respective setups. I was just making the point that when one compares FOV rather than focal length numbers, FX wide angles compare with equivalent DX wide angles. Also Steve Frink has shown that the 14-24 can work with specific setups and get decent corners. It's just that this is just simply tougher to accomplish with wide rectilinears.

Unfortunately, anyway you swing it, rectilinear wide angle lenses with their flat plane of focus were simply not designed to work with domeports, so one is always essentially working within the depth of focus of the lens at the corners. This is why we have no real corner problems with fisheye lenses.

Again, not trying to discourage this setup, just pointing out that full frame rectilinears can be setup to perform OK.

On the issue of high ISO, I agree high ISO is not essential for underwater photography, but from my own experience with the D700, it's opened up possibilities I could not consider before, so it should not be completely discounted as a desirable feature of an underwater rig.

I certainly don't need ISO 6400 underwater and only occasionally use it on land - but when I do need it, it's very helpful. And I don't expect the E-520 to perform like a D700. But I would like it to perform roughly the same as an APS-C camera. I hope that Oly (Panasonic) have managed to at least move closer to the best of the APS-C pack with the 12 MP sensor (as much of a contradiction as that may seem, but here's hoping the new Truepic III+ engine adds a little magic). The E-520 is about 1 1/2 stops worse than the D60 or EOS 450D in chroma noise and a stop worse in luminance noise.

<snip>

Just this weekend I had a conversation with an u/w photography tech. weenie about the potential for the Micro 4/3rds (MFT) system. The pluses were the smaller housing size and weight (port sizes would be the same as 4/3rds) and the live view w/o shutter lag. He noted that Olympus & Panasonic fill a specific niche with SLR, size, and price point. This means that they are unlikely to greatly improve the performance of the MOS sensor. I would love to hear differently.

Phil???

Bob

I would venture to say that 95% of the people who are looking to invest in an under $4000.00 total underwater system would be more than happy with the results from this camera. The sensor is only one component of the total system. The 9 to 18 mm (100 to 62 AOV) is around $500.00 and requires only the dome port and gear because of its small size, no extension port required. Look at the results from the DPReview test of the lens and a case can be made for better corner sharpness with small sensors. This may or may not translate to underwater use. But I am sure if you start off with better corners you have a chance of better results.

You may also want to checkout the results on the under $400.00 50 mm F/2 macro (24 degree AOV, 100 mm equv. in 35 mm at life size) This lens has the highest DPReview lens rating of any tested lens to date with an IQ. rating of 9.5 of 10. These two lenses and a few accessories will cover most U/W photographers needs for a long time. The 8 mm fisheye can also be added using the same PPO-E04 dome port used for the 9 to 18 zoom.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympu...6_o20/page4.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympu...2_o20/page4.asp

Phil Rudin

Phil,

We agree.

Bob

In all honesty, the new line of RDX housings from Sea & Sea offer an equally cheap yet high quality setup and you can't really complain about the quality of the 60 macros from either Canon or Nikon. The kit lenses from all manufacturers are all fairly similar (and of surprisingly high quality) these days so no real difference there.

Between the 450D, the D60 and the new E-620 (provided it produces the same IQ as the E-30), I would go for the latter as I like the way Olympus cameras are set up and the colour straight out of camera, but I seem to be in a minority. I'm just happy Oly continue to offer such an extensive and complete lineup even when their market share is what it is.

loftus, I'm certainly considering the option of housing the D700. Awaiting info on how the 14-24 will perform in the S&S port system now and also the actual street price of that housing. If I were to do so I would go with S&S as I very much like the idea of using FO.

The downsides to 35 mm size sensors for wide angle lenses behind a dome is also well documented and it is clear that smaller sensors can provide better results.

I also feel this is incorrect. Once you normalize field of view and physical aperture, the sensor size doesn't matter. The problem is that people like to compare at identical f-stops and you can't do that with different size sensors. The physical aperture and FOV must be the same.

Full frame cameras are really more challenging because they are usually higher resolution that smaller ones.

In all honesty, the new line of RDX housings from Sea & Sea offer an equally cheap yet high quality setup and you can't really complain about the quality of the 60 macros from either Canon or Nikon. The kit lenses from all manufacturers are all fairly similar (and of surprisingly high quality) these days so no real difference there.

Phil has suggested before that Oly 50mm macro lens is especially great based on lens reviews. It's also been refuted before. Macro lenses used underwater are all diffraction-limited and how sharp they are at wide apertures is of no consequence. I promise you that a FF camera with a proper 100mm lens is not going to be outperformed by a 4/3 system shooting macro no matter how great the 50mm is. I agree, though, that a 4/3 system is likely to perform well at the price point. Whether a 4/3 system is more desirable than an entry level APS-C system is the real question. For some it may be but not for me.

As for how good the 9-18 is based on a DPReview article, the Nikon 14-24 is thought of pretty highly as well and it was shown recently that the lens doesn't perform as poorly underwater as many suspected. I wouldn't say that the 14-24's liabilities are well documented.

Yeah, I was considering housing the D700 for a while but seeing as a complete package with the E-620 is far cheaper than the D700 housing alone that's a very tempting offer. A better VF is a huge upside, as are the seven AF points and various other small improvements. It'll be interesting to see how the new sensor performs in real world situations. The E-520 has quite big problems with colour noise already at ISO 800, to the point where the D700 is better at ISO 6400 than the Oly at 800...

 

Phil, do you have any idea of how the Oly housings work with S&S strobes in FO mode? I don't really feel like replacing my YS-110...

I have the E-520 with a YS 110 and a YS 110a. Both work but the 110 does have some misfire issues that require turning the unit on then off. This occurs in ttl mode mostly in low light conditions where the camera is performing multiple pre-flashes for the autofocus. With proper aiming of my focus light I get good performance from either strobe. If you use the flash in manuel mode there should be no issues.

Brian

I think it looks great! A nice step up from the E-520 for a slight cost increase. I was disappointed the the E-30 didn't come with an Oly housing, so this more than makes up for it.

I like the fact that it has 7 AF points, the 3 in the E-520 are kind of weak. Did anyone notice that it has illuminated buttons? That could be kind of cool if the housing buttons are semi-transparent.

I'm playing with an E-520 kit, some lenses, UFL-2 strobes and housing the next couple of weeks. It's a change from my D-80, not as robust, but very easy and light to use. I have a YS-110a in stock and will give that a play along with my Inon z240s.

The added features of the E-620 may sway me away from another Nikon. Look for an article and shots on my blog in a week or two on the E-520.

Jack

"Phil has suggested before that Oly 50mm macro lens is especially great based on lens reviews. It's also been refuted before. Macro lenses used underwater are all diffraction-limited and how sharp they are at wide apertures is of no consequence. I promise you that a FF camera with a proper 100mm lens is not going to be outperformed by a 4/3 system shooting macro no matter how great the 50mm is. I agree, though, that a 4/3 system is likely to perform well at the price point. Whether a 4/3 system is more desirable than an entry level APS-C system is the real question. For some it may be but not for me."

 

No, Phil has posted DPReviews basis for thinking the Olympus 50 mm macro lens is "especially great" I like the lens because it out performs the Canon 50 and 100 macros, the Nikon 55, 60 and 105 macros and Nikonos RS 50 mm macro lenses I have used in the past. I would think macro lenses are diffraction-limited both above and below water. It has also been stated by A Mustard and others on this site that it has little real world cost for most U/W macro. I agree that a sensor almost four times the size of the 4/3 sensor should outperform with a proper 100 mm lens but in the lens reviews I have seen this is not the case and at about twice the cost and four times the sensor size and cost I would think the difference should be greater than it is.

 

Same goes for the 14 to 24 zoom, its a great lens but for the cost of lens, camera, port and extensions involved I would expect a bigger difference as well.

 

Phil Rudin

You mentioned the DPReview comment here.

How many macro lens reviews has DPReview published though? I'd point out that for the 1400 line/ph that DPReview is reporting at f/8 that Photozone is reporting 1800 lines/ph for Nikon macro lenses at f/16. Trouble is that we can't compare these numbers because we don't know how they are generated. DPReview hasn't published any Canon or Nikon macro lens tests so I fail to see the significance.

Yes, diffraction doesn't depend on water but on land you aren't shooting everything at f/11 or smaller. Alex said that he would choose diffraction limits over not getting the shot any day (and who would disagree?). He didn't demonstrate that he was getting his full 12MP's worth at f/22+. Diffraction is a physical law, not a variable. It's seems too often misunderstood.

I'm simply saying that a DPReview comment doesn't suggest that 4/3 system is the one to shoot because it's got the greatest macro lens. It sure seems like that's the idea being advanced. I would like to know more about why you feel this lens is outperforming so many other macro lenses underwater. I can't remember seeing a macro lens review that wasn't complimentary.

I have the E-520 with a YS 110 and a YS 110a. Both work but the 110 does have some misfire issues that require turning the unit on then off. This occurs in ttl mode mostly in low light conditions where the camera is performing multiple pre-flashes for the autofocus. With proper aiming of my focus light I get good performance from either strobe. If you use the flash in manuel mode there should be no issues.

Are you saying that the 110 has some issues but that the 110a doesn't? (I have the 110a.) Can I also ask what kind of grips you've used?

Same goes for the 14 to 24 zoom, its a great lens but for the cost of lens, camera, port and extensions involved I would expect a bigger difference as well.

The difference is huge for its intended use: PJ, interior and possible landscape work. There really isn't anything that comes even close and the fact that it's sharp across the frame already at f/2.8 is unique. I can, however, see that this doesn't necessarily translate to it being a good UW performer.

I agree that the Olympus and 4/3 system seems to be perfect for UW: fairly small and compact lenses, great already wide open, two steps more DOF than 35 mm cameras (one step more than APS-C). But I don't think that Zuiko lenses are necessarily better than other manufacturers' lenses. Many 4/3 proponents suggest superior sharpness and while they often certainly are sharper wide open than 35 mm lenses, stopped down to give equivalent DOF, the difference seems fairly small. Not that strange, these days even the kit lenses perform surprisingly well so differences will be small!

I use the 60mm canon and previously had the 50mm Olympus.

Theres no comparison in my view, because the Olympus extends when focussing (internal focus for Canon 60mm), it uses the focus by wire system with worse 'feel' (direct manual focus for canon), only goes to 1:2 magnification (not directly comparable due to sensor size but still less Im pretty sure) and is very slow focussing as well due to the previously mentioned external focussing. I find it very hard to believe it was significantly better in resolution than the Canon EF-S 60mm, but given my new camera was 2mp better in resolution have no meaningful comparison in that area. Im sure similar is the case for Nikon, just dont know about other brands.

The only noticeable advantage for macro I can think of is better depth of field for a given f-stop due to the 4/3 sensor etc, but found the other issues more than enough of a deal killer.

Otara

The only noticeable advantage for macro I can think of is better depth of field for a given f-stop due to the 4/3 sensor etc, but found the other issues more than enough of a deal killer.

But proportionately greater diffraction as well. At equivalent resolution 4/3 doesn't have better depth of field.

DPReview makes quite a point of criticizing the focusing features of the lens. They agree with you.