E-420+14-150 or E-520+14-42+40-150

[JeffCharles]

I know that this is something that I am going to have to figure out for myself, but I would like to know what others think.

I want to buy a carry-everywhere camera this summer when I visit the US, and the E-420 and E-520 are obvious candidates. One conclusion I have reached is that I want IS. A 150mm lens with a max aperture of f/5.6 needs it, I think. I am also making an assumption that the IQ from the two configurations will be roughly equivalent.

Here are my assessments of the two kits:

E-420+14-150
Pluses: Always ready to shoot wide or long without having to change lenses. Take the 14-150 off and the E-420 with the 25 f/2.8 is extremely compact and discreet, and I do sometimes like to shoot with a prime of that focal length.
Minuses: Heavier to hand carry and much more expensive.

E-520+14-42+40-150
Pluses: Much cheaper. Lighter weight with either lens. IS available with other lenses, e.g., my 14-54 or a future 12-60.
Minuses: Have to change lenses to get full range of focal lengths. Camera slightly bulkier.

My rational mind says get the E-520 kit, but I want the E-420 kit more. One question I have for those who have used both the E-510 and either the E-410 or E-420 is how much difference the E-510's larger size makes in actual use. I understand that the difference is mostly in the grip, but I have read that subjectively, it feels a fair amount bigger than the E-420. This would matter most with the 25 f/2.8 mounted.

Jeff

[marcof]

trust your initial instinct
I've used 510 and 400/420 and prefer the latter, even though I have large hands. Not many will agree though.
If the 14-150 is as good as they claim, it should be a great set.

However, please note that the leicasonic IS only works in "always on" mode on olympus bodies.. and I think that uses a bit more battery power.. (actually, is this still the case for new oly models??)

[Johannes]

The E-4xx high ISO performance is not bad.... :)
(My bias on E-4xx) :D

[Gwyver]

trust your initial instinct
I've used 510 and 400/420 and prefer the latter, even though I have large hands. Not many will agree though.
If the 14-150 is as good as they claim, it should be a great set.

However, please note that the leicasonic IS only works in "always on" mode on olympus bodies.. and I think that uses a bit more battery power.. (actually, is this still the case for new oly models??)

I often use my E3 with the Leica 14~150 and have been delighted with the IQ etc.

Re Marcof's comment: The alternative way - which I use - to obtain the benefit of IS with this lens is to switch off the Mega OIS on the lens and use the IS mode on the Olympus body (assuming you opt for an E-5xx).

HTH

[JeffCharles]

The E-4xx high ISO performance is not bad.... :)
(My bias on E-4xx) :D

A street camera with a slow lens needs decent high-ISO. Can I assume that 800 is pretty usable on the 420? How about 1600?

By "usable", I mean that I can get raw files at those ISOs that will clean up OK using Noiseware or similar (if necessary) and that can be printed up to 12x16 or maybe a little bigger.

Jeff

[tspore]

Please note the E-5xx series is probably the best selling camera series that Olympus has at this time. But I personally prefer the 420 over the 520. But I just like the compact body more than I like the E-520 body.
Do you really need IS?
We now have ISO 1600 which is quite usable.

I still have not used the 14-150mm, but it is a nice sized lens. So if you want a all in 1 that would probably be better than the 18-150, the 18mm isn't quite wide enough for me.

Once again just opinions, but that's what your asking for.

[JeffCharles]

...
Do you really need IS?
We now have ISO 1600 which is quite usable...

With usable 1600, I would need IS less, but it could be useful. Here's an example.

I was on top of a mountain (OK, a big hill) a few weeks ago. An hour before sunset, I was getting EV8 exposure readings with my E-1. That's equivalent to f/5.6 and 1/125 at 1600 ISO. Too slow to hand hold a 150mm lens, so IS would have helped if that was my max aperture, as it would have been with the 40-150.

In any case, the 14-150 (or the E-520) has IS.

Jeff

[tspore]

Definitely Jeff you have a point for that application, I think that still the E-420 is a good camera, but like you originally stated, you are going to make that choice yourself.

[JeffCharles]

...I think that still the E-420 is a good camera, but like you originally stated, you are going to make that choice yourself.

I am still leaning towards the E420 and 14-150, except that the price of that kit is pretty crazy. I do need to play with the E-420 and with the E-520 before I decide though. I will do that at B&H when I am in NYC in July. (I have not found a retailer who sells either here in Oaxaca.)

Jeff

[Godfrey]

The better lens will win in this comparison vs the higher spec body when it comes to image quality.

The Olympus 14-42 and 40-150 are both good lenses, but I think the Leica designed ultra-zoom is going to give them tough competition. Leica's lens designs have invariably been very capable performers, even the ultrazooms they've delivered for use on the Panasonic FZ series lenses. eg, a full resolution 4 Mpixel JPEG capture :

http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/IoM-4/PoA-lighthouse-0730usFR.jpg
Point of Ayre Lighthouse, Isle of Man
© 2004 by Godfrey DiGiorgi

Captured with Panasonic FZ10, tripod mounted
ISO 50 @ f/5.7 @ 1/800sec, f=24.8mm (4.1x, 145mm equiv 135)
AE-Program: compensation -0.3EV, AF: on


I've sold several 11x14 inch prints of this photo. The above is without any post processing other than a small rotation to get the verticals correct.

Godfrey

[oldclifford]

Maybe a sort of dumb question: Will E-420 look funny with a huge lens such as 14-150 or even 12-60? I think the major reason to choose e-420 is because its small size, will a big lens ruin its portability I am also hesitating about which to chose. Thanks.

[JeffCharles]

Maybe a sort of dumb question: Will E-420 look funny with a huge lens such as 14-150 or even 12-60? I think the major reason to choose e-420 is because its small size, will a big lens ruin its portability I am also hesitating about which to chose. Thanks.

Have you seen the simulation page at four-thirds.org? It lets you pair bodies with lenses. Not the same as holding them, but it gives an idea. Link: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/matching/index.html#

I have not had a chance to handle the E-420, but people are using it with the 12-60 and the 14-150. I have read it described as attaching the camera to the lens instead of the lens to the camera. One consideration is that the total size and weight of the E-420 and a large lens will be a lot less than the E-3 and a large lens. For example, E-420 + 14-150 = 34.4 ounces; E-3 + 14-150 = 47.1 ounces.

Jeff

[Godfrey]

Maybe a sort of dumb question: Will E-420 look funny with a huge lens such as 14-150 or even 12-60? I think the major reason to choose e-420 is because its small size, will a big lens ruin its portability I am also hesitating about which to chose. Thanks.

Whether it looks "funny" or not is mostly immaterial. The question I always consider is how the camera will balance and does it provide good handling.

I haven't played with an E-420 yet, but I found the E-510 a little tight for my hands and prefer the E-1, E-3 and Panny L1 due to their ergonomics. And I prefer the smaller, lighter lenses on the Panny too.

Godfrey

[oldclifford]

Thanks guys, the link is cool. Acutally you can play the E-420 in local CC. I played it a little while and it is really small. However, you can not find other lens but 14-42 which was attched.