The E-500 in 2020 and compared to the E-M1ii

[pdk42]

Out of curiosity for the Kodak CCD sensor, I just bought a little-used E500 from eBay, complete with 14-45 and 17.5-45 kit lenses. A few initial thoughts...

Negative thoughts:

- The camera feels very out of date. Its provenance was from the dark-ages of plastic blob form factor and it shows. It looks and feels cheap IMHO. Holding it next to the E-M1ii, the latter just feels and handles so much better. It's in a different league.

- The handling is OK with well-placed controls - but the viewfinder is tiny - by far the worst I've used. From memory, it's even worse than my first real DSLR - the Canon EOS 350D; I think a competitor to the E500 in its day.

- It's very slow. Writing a single 8Mp raw to the card takes about 6 seconds. Everything else is slow too..

- Where's the IBIS?? This is the first camera I've used since 2012 that doesn't have IBIS and it's quite a rude awakening. I'd never buy a camera now without good stabilsation.

- Where's the live view? I've become very used to seeing exposure effects during shooting. Suddenly there's no crutch to help me nail the exposure.

- Rear screen is tiny. Reviewing photographs reveals little about their sharpness or final colour/tones etc.

- Shutter/mirror is pretty noisy.

All this confirms that I just no longer like DSLRs. I'm sure I'd feel the same about a Nikon D850. The form factor, the handling, the sea of plastic blobiness, the optical viewfinder - nothing motivates me to use it. Yeuk!


Positive thoughts:

- AF works well.

- Metering is pretty accurate (once I apply a bit of old-fashioning thinking and human override).

- Image quality is surprisingly good (I'm shooting raw). More on this below - it's the whole point of the acquisition.

- It works perfectly.

- Battery life is excellent.


Now to the IQ. How does it compare to the E-M1ii? :

- Highlight headroom is worse than the E-M1ii. I'd definitely be under-exposing anything with even moderate highlights. It's easy to blow out bright areas.

- Noise is pretty good at ISO 100. I wouldn't want to shoot at ISO 800 or higher though.

- DR overall is notably worse.

- Sharpness is worse. Shooting with the same lens the E-M1ii shots are sharper at comparable magnifications (using the 14-45 lens - via the adapter on the E-M1ii). I think this is due to a strong AA filter on the E-500. Adding more sharpening in LR goes some way to fixing this.

- Colours are definitely better on the E-500 - at least with LR default processing. They are deeper and more pleasing to the eye. I can get the E-M1ii images to be close with some tweaking in LR, but I still think that the E-500 renders more natural-looking colours.

- 8Mp is just fine. I think on a print, even a large one, you'd not see the difference between images taken on the two cameras.


So is it a keeper? Probably not - but I'll play with it for a month or so and see what I can extract of those colours.

I'll post up some comparable images over the weekend.

[Ian]

The E-330 that came out after the E-500 was the first of any brand system camera to have a colour live-view mode (and a tilting screen). But that had a Panasonic LiveMOS sensor.

Try shooting RAW and JPEG (SHQ) - you might be surprised at how good the JPEGs look.

Have you checked that the lenses and the body have the latest firmware?

Ian

[blu-by-u]

I don't remember SHQ Jpg.

Don't over underexpose..the dreaded banding.

[IPWheatley]

As always, an interesting read from Paul but maybe if he had opted for a used E1 instead of an E500 he might have come to a different conclusion. Bought my E1 and both kit lenses for around £90 after selling my original one when I got my E3 and still use it frequently, the Kodak 5MP sensor still delivers stunning images.. Agree with most of his other findings but, unlike him, after having used a FF DSLR for the last eight months, there is no going back to a mirrorless crop camera for me. Also of the four lenses I now own only one has IS., nice to have I agree but not a deal breaker IMO. If you just accept the limitations of these cameras and get out and use them instead of always lusting after the latest offering from your chosen brand, in the right hands they will still reward you with excellent photographs. I am so looking forward to seeing the results that Paul has managed to obtain with his E500. Regards Ian W.

[shenstone]

I sadly recently got rid of mine. That was a mistake, but I had worked it to death and was only using it to record maintenance on my Landy ... actually there is a point almost all of the maintenance pictures on my Land Rover blog were taken with the E500 so it was vert useable until just now

The biggest thing I noticed using it was the viewfinder on the later 4/3 cameras were bigger and brighter and the noise in dark pictures (and I took it caving) is a lot better now, but there are still quite a few pictures taken with it that I am happy to have on my website

Enjoy it whilst you have it

Regards
Andy

[Ian]

As always, an interesting read from Paul but maybe if he had opted for a used E1 instead of an E500 he might have come to a different conclusion. Bought my E1 and both kit lenses for around £90 after selling my original one when I got my E3 and still use it frequently, the Kodak 5MP sensor still delivers stunning images.. Agree with most of his other findings but, unlike him, after having used a FF DSLR for the last eight months, there is no going back to a mirrorless crop camera for me. Also of the four lenses I now own only one has IS., nice to have I agree but not a deal breaker IMO. If you just accept the limitations of these cameras and get out and use them instead of always lusting after the latest offering from your chosen brand, in the right hands they will still reward you with excellent photographs. I am so looking forward to seeing the results that Paul has managed to obtain with his E500. Regards Ian W.

I don't know if pdk42 has handled an E-1 - but that was a world apart from the E-500 (along with the price tag! It felt solid and right in the hand, had a bigger (but not generous) and brighter viewfinder and of course the shutter was amazingly quiet and vibration-free for its time.

I'm still not entirely convinced the actual sensor differences represented different colour; in-camera JPEGs almost certainly but from RAW I think the potential is not that different (though low light noise and dynamic range are different stories).

One lovely aspect of the technology is that your old RAW files can reveal so much more quality now than they did back in 2003! Sadly, I didn't take many RAW files because card storage space was a premium, both in quantity and space, plus RAW conversion was very slow and in-camera JPEGs very good.

Ian

[Otto]

Yes, raw files from my old E-300 yield much better results now.

[Ross the fiddler]

I came in with later models came & I still have my E410 & E520. I get them out now & again just for the fun of it. It is interesting going back & seeing what we used to use. A bit like going back to the home you grew up in & it feeling smaller than remembered.

[IPWheatley]

Brixham Harbour Views 2 023 by Ian Wheatley, on Flickr
As Pauls original intent was to only assess the performance of the original Kodak sensor fitted to early Olympus DSLRs my observation regarding the E1 was perhaps not valid in this instance. I take your point Ian in that the E1, which was pitched squarely at the pro market and the E500 at the amateur sector. Like yourself, I only shot jpegs initially, not converting to RAW until around five years ago. What I would say is that the SOOC jpegs from the Kodak sensor are second to none and I enclose a shot of Brixham Harbour taken in 2008 which I hope illustrates my point. To me the E1 remains an iconic camera. As I said earlier, I am looking forward to seeing Pauls images. If they are anything like his previous submissions on this forum it should be very interesting. Regards, Ian W. .

[OM USer]

Nice even if a bit vibrant.

[Phill D]

I think that's a wonderful shot Ian. Was it a jpg straight out of the camera? Yes as OM said it's a bit vibrant but even so it works beautifully. Must dig my E1 out and see if it still works. Last time I used it was to do a comparison with my EM1 mk1 and if I remember correctly it did remarkably well.

[Bruce Clarke]

The old plastic fantastic E-500 was my first Oly body. A great old camera that was fairly indestructible. My sister's is still working (though she has just got a Sony RX100 VIII which will suit her current needs better). I later got an E-1 when they were cheap. Much nicer viewfinder, but even smaller LCD. Both gone now. The later E-520 was much better made than the E-500, and I preferred the handling of that to the E-3 and E-5 I had.

[Mark_R2]

The E500 was my first dslr and I bought it because of my growing interest in historic motorsports photography. There was only so much I could do with a compact camera. I chose it over the Canon 350D and competing Nikon (D40??) mainly because the kit 40-150mm lens was reputedly better than the equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses and gave a bit more reach due to the smaller sensor. The biggest limitation I found was that the AF was totally incapable of following anything moving fast. This was true even when I got the 50-200mm lens (original non-SWD version). I shot everything by pre-focussing and got good results (or so i thought at the time).

Apart from the slow AF, the other limitations I found were:
The noise at higher ISO. Even at ISO200 you could see grain in the images. ISO400 required noise reduction and ISO800 looked like someone had splattered tomato ketchup over the picture.
I found the auto white balance was very erratic. Two shots taken straight after each other would often have quite a different colour balance. I used a lastolite white ‘card’ to get around this.

My camera came with the 17.5-45 lens which was utter crap. It wouldn’t auto- focus at the wide end at all. I upgraded to the 14-54mm lens PDQ and that was a lovely lens.

[drmarkf]

Great thread.

Never tried an E-500, but I well remember going in to the sadly-lamented University Cameras in Cambridge intending to get some boring & plastic DSLR from Canon or Nikon.

After fiddling around for a while, obviously not being very impressed (I was coming from an OM-4) the salesman said “Why don’t you have a look at this...”, handing me an E-1 which had just been reduced in price with the 14-54. It fitted the hand like a glove with every control in a sensible place, and I still love the images. In those days I was shooting raw and I think I was using RawShooter (later Lightroom) and I must say I was immediately attracted to the colours without any/much manipulation.

I regret selling it (although it was bought by Jon Schick, who I see still uses it).

[IPWheatley]

Thanks OM and Phil D and yes it was a SOOC jpeg that only required minimal tweaking, and a touch of sharpening to get it to this state. I have even shot weddings with it with no complaints. Not bad for a 15+ year old and 5MP. Regards, Ian W.

[pdk42]

OK - so, as promised some photos.

First - a quick and dirty back-to-back shot in the garden. E-500 + 14-45 and E-M1ii + 14-45. Both from raw and tweaked to try to get them to look the same:

First up - E-M1ii:

Garden - E-M1ii + 4/3 14-45 by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

Now the E-500:

Garden - E-500 by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

The colours are definitely slightly more appealing in the E-500 - but I could probably get them closer with some more tweaking; and I think no-one would notice unless they were side-by-side.

Now a couple from a local walk in the late afternoon. They're all from raw and I've processed them to make them as best I could and using the sort of PP techniques I usually do; that means a lot of shadow pushing, highlight pulling, some curve fiddling, some colour tweaks, some NR etc. I thought it best to juste do what I normally do and see what I got!

Pen-F + 12-40:

Afternoon Sun - Pen-F by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

E-500 + 14-45:

Afternoon Sun - E-500 by Paul Kaye, on Flickr


Pen-F + 12-40 and from a 5-shot HDR stack:

Clouds over Warwickshire - Pen-F by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

And a single shot on the E-500:

Clouds over Warwickshire - E-500 by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

Without a doubt, even in good light but doing my usual landscape PP, the E-500 is struggling with noise (at ISO 100), but actually the end result is still more than acceptable. I just had to work a little harder. It's certainly true that a £50 camera+lens can deliver!

[MJ224]

Just kinda sorts GAS out. But the more modern camera have lots of extra features, IS, Procap, fast sequentials and silent shutters. All of which I am prepared to pay for. Of course, it all depends on what your poison is in photography, maybe landscapes don't need such a high spec camera as wildlife and sports......But an interesting thread, thanks Paul, Are you Photo showing this year...:-))

[pdk42]

Hi Mark - I wanted to do the photo show, but I'm away on business unfortunately. Pity - I wanted to play with the E-M1iii, and the 2x TC.

You going? Say hello to the other guys there if you do go.

[shenstone]

Interesting comparisons

For all practical purposes for 99.9% of uses these well lit pictures are equivalent and fine unless you pixel peep and even the noise you mention is not visible as posted in the forum I would have to look at 100% detail to really tell. I agree with Mark that it is not those simple features that have had me move on from my E500 it is where you push the limits

Thanks for sharing. I probably won't go out and get one to replace the one I recently disposed of, but it reminds me that I can go back to my raw files and re-process with modern software if I need to and expect to get good results

Regards
Andy