[JohnR]

I picked up one of these in a local store today. Since it's a superseded model (current model is the E-420), they can be bought at a good price. In the single lens kit, it was cheaper than the SP570 bridge camera sitting next to it (which I also tried and didn't like).

Anyway, it's not really mine but I have a couple of weeks to play with it. So I thought I might post some impressions. Comparisons are with the Nikon D40 w/ 18-55 kit lens (the pre-VR version). First off, it's small. Dimensionally there's not that much in it for the body, but with the lens on it's obviously smaller. In the hands, it feels smaller as well. Weight-wise (with lens), it's pretty much a wash.

I really like the way the body is designed. It has an "old style" SLR look to it, but is still very comfortable to grip (if you don't have large hands).

The zoom ring on the lens feels a little stiff but it's fine if you don't worry about it. The focus is however done "by wire" which to me says autofocus-only with this guy. OK, the Nikon kit lens is horrible to manual focus as well, but it seems that all the 4/3 system lenses are like that. But, I didn't buy this for someone who is likely to manual focus anyway. One thing I like about the lens is that it's shortest at minimum focus distance - which makes it easy to "put away," whereas the Nikon kit lens is shortest somewhere in the middle of its travel. Silly, but there it is, these are the things you notice...

So far, the camera feels good and is easy to navigate around and use, even though completely different to what I'm used to. Main surprise/reservation so far is that, in a dark room, the flash strobes about a dozen times while you hold the shutter release down before the camera decides to shoot. And, the viewfinder is noticeably dimmer than the D40. Also, zooming in on a shot on the LCD enables you to see visible compression artifacts... odd.

Anyway, I will be taking some shots with the two cameras in JPEG-only mode, and seeing how they compare.

[BradJudy]

Main surprise/reservation so far is that, in a dark room, the flash strobes about a dozen times while you hold the shutter release down before the camera decides to shoot.

A friend has one of these and this function was driving me crazy at a mutual friend's wedding.  At such an event, it can be annoying to other guests if you're taking a lot of pictures. 

In general, they seem to like the camera, but I haven't looked at many of the resulting pictures, so I can't speak to the output. 

[Wind Chaser]

in a dark room, the flash strobes about a dozen times while you hold the shutter release down before the camera decides to shoot.

That's the primitive way for red eye reduction, surely that feature can be turned off??

[JohnR]

I think it might be the AF-assist. I may have to read the manual - yikes 

A couple of good things I forgot to mention - the lens comes with a decent hood. Also, on playback, it uses the control wheel for zooming in and out of a picture, which makes it pretty fast.

[JohnR]

Yep, so anyway that was the AF assist, it was easy enough to turn off. Without it, the camera seems to focus fine in low light anyway

I used it some more on the weekend. The rubberized grip is actually really easy to hold, in spite of the lack of a really protruding grip like most SLRs. The "retro" styling does have a drawback though - the strap lugs stick out on the front of the camera, and the one on the right side of the camera is exactly where I wanted the knuckle of my middle finger to be when carrying the camera about in my right hand. It took me a while to find a comfortable carrying position. Ah the things that matter...

This camera has a bunch of features that my D40 doesn't have, including live view, exposure bracketing, mirror lockup (although inconvenient to turn on), and DOF preview. (Most of these I didn't discover until I read the manual after the weekend.)

A slight surprise with this camera is the 4:3 aspect ratio. I guess I just assumed that an SLR would have a 3:2 aspect ratio. It's interesting (different?) shooting with this aspect ratio, sometimes I really liked it, other times I just didn't want it at all. For wide shots, this ratio makes 28mm not really feel like 28mm at all.

Over the weekend I used it in JPEG mode with noise reduction set to Low. To be honest I'm rather ambivalent about the results I'm getting at this point. I've since switched to turning noise reduction Off and turning down the sharpening, as recommended by dpreview.com -- we will see how that goes next time. Anyway here are a couple of shots from the weekend, untouched except for resizing.

Wollstonecraft in the mist

Lemons

Niamh, with Chocolate and Milk

[JohnR]

I forgot to mention that all shots are on full automatic.

[nathanm]

I like the warm color cast, it really works well.  Makes them look more mystical.  Well, the fog shot and the Goat Princess ones at least. I don't know if lemons can be mystical or not.

[ooheadsoo]

Those look great for out of the camera.  The warm cast is a little offputting, if everything is going to look like that.  Just because the body has an antiqued style doesn't mean the pictures should have one, too.

[JohnR]

I must have a bad eye for color, I didn't twig about the color cast - I think this is one of my issues with the output I am getting from the camera so far. There are of course a number of manual white balance settings for color temp, but each also has an adjustment that you can apply with two sliders for Red and Green. I can see the difference when I mess with these but I have no idea what the "correct" value should be. This is the point where (with the Nikon) I went to RAW so I could mess with that stuff in post-processing.

I am beginning to feel that this is not a good camera to be used as a fast and better quality P&S, but one with lots of features for the photographer on a budget and with some time to spare.

[nathanm]

Whatever you did, it looks good.  It just looks warm, it doesn't look like there's a cast.

[BradJudy]

It looks like the camera is set for a cool lighting like fluorescent and is compensating.  Are you sure the camera is on auto for white balance?  It looks like there are multiple levels to "auto" on the 410. 

[jon_010101]

I really have been wanting one of these (410 or 420).  I have an "old" C7070, an IS-1, and an OM-1, and would love to combine the three in a perfect union of past/present technology

[mjosef]

That color tone reminds me of the old Agfa color films...I liked their 'unique' tone at that time, was different from Kodak and Fuji.

[TONEPUB]

Using the camera on Auto color balance should be no problem at all.
Again another reason to use RAW.

However, as someone who worked with the design team at Olympus
in that camera's development, I know they really put a lot of emphasis
on color fidelity and what they like to refer to as "out of the box" color.

This means can you get lifelike color right out of the box with no custom
settings and not reading the manual.

I can't say I had that kind of luck with this camera, I've always had great
luck with Olympus in that department.  Perhaps something is set wrong...

The reason behind the 4/3 system is that it requires less cropping to
achieve standard print sizes over a 2/3 aspect ratio of a conventional
SLR or DSLR.  The thing I most enjoyed about their cameras was that
they were pretty much full frame for an 8 1/2 x 11 magazine cover....

[JohnR]

However, as someone who worked with the design team at Olympus
in that camera's development,

Hey really? How cool is that?!

It just looks warm, it doesn't look like there's a cast.

Sorry, I think I'm misusing terms here. Anyway, here's a review that found the auto white balance to be on the warm side (in daylight):

"Good colors overall, though a tendency toward a warm cast and high contrast hurts both highlight and shadow detail." - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E410/E410A5.HTM

Other reviews found it to be too warm in artificial lighting.

Anyway, every white balance setting (inc auto) has a red-blue adjustment on it, which (with some searching) appears to be equivalent to a color temperature adjustment. I'll try it today - look out for some icy beachside shots!!

[ooheadsoo]

It looks really good - just on the warm side, is all.  I.e., not neutral, as I expect auto white balance to look.

[JohnR]

Thanks, I think I will do a little work on the Goat Princess picture (thanks Nathan ) and print it out at 8x10 for her Dad when he comes to the city next week.

Today's finding is that the Red-Blue slider for Auto white balance has no discernible effect. The Green-Magenta one does, but not the Red-Blue one 

The various WB settings (shade, incandescent, etc) appear to have the intended effect... although there is a big gap between daylight and incandescent. However, you can set the color temperature to anything you want with the custom WB setting. However again, this is starting to get to way more than an upgraded P&S shooter (i.e. my sister, the intended end user of this camera) will want to do.

I will post some shots from today shortly.

[JohnR]

Norfolk Island Pines at Newport Beach





Wharf at Salt Pan Cove

[TONEPUB]

Also, is your monitor perfectly calibrated?.....

I'd rather go to the dentist than write another article
about monitor calibration, but it is something to think
about..

[JohnR]

Also, is your monitor perfectly calibrated?.....

It's as close as I can get it... although I don't see what difference it could make to the observation that the red-blue slider has no discernible effect, it does display different colors you know...