Olympus E-1 versus Olympus E-620

The Olympus E-1 and the Olympus E-620 are two digital cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in June 2003 and February 2009. Both are DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) cameras that are equipped with a Four Thirds sensor. The E-1 has a resolution of 4.9 megapixel, whereas the E-620 provides 12.2 MP.

Body comparison

The side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Olympus E-1 and the Olympus E-620. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All width, height and depth dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter. You can also toggle the display to switch to a percentage comparison if you prefer that the measures are being expressed in relative terms (in this case, the camera on the left – the E-1 – represents 100 percent across all the size and weight measures).

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Olympus E-620 is notably smaller (17 percent) than the Olympus E-1. Moreover, the E-620 is markedly lighter (29 percent) than the E-1. It is worth mentioning in this context that the E-1 is splash and dust resistant, while the E-620 does not feature any corresponding weather-sealing.

The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete since they do not consider the interchangeable lenses that both of these cameras require. In this particular case, both cameras feature the same lens mount, so that they can use the same lenses. You can find an overview of suitable optics in the Four Thirds Lens Catalog.

Concerning battery life, the E-1 gets 750 shots out of its BLM-1 battery, while the E-620 can take 500 images on a single charge of its BLS-1 power pack.

The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, just select a new right or left comparator from among the camera models in the table. Alternatively, you can also move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible comparisons there.

The listed prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The E-620 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 59 percent) than the E-1, which puts it into a different market segment. Usually, retail prices stay at first close to the launch price, but after several months, discounts become available. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.

Sensor comparison

The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors of image quality. A large sensor will tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color depth than smaller pixel-units in a sensor of the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be more expensive and lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.

Both cameras under consideration feature a Four Thirds sensor and have a format factor (sometimes also referred to as "crop factor") of 2.0. Within the spectrum of camera sensors, this places the review cameras among the medium-sized sensor cameras that aim to strike a balance between image quality and portability. Both cameras feature a native aspect ratio (sensor width to sensor height) of 4:3.

While the two cameras under review share the same sensor size, the E-620 offers a higher resolution of 12.2 megapixel, compared with 4.9 MP of the E-1. This megapixel advantage translates into a 58 percent gain in linear resolution. On the other hand, these sensor specs imply that the E-620 has a higher pixel density and a smaller size of the individual pixel (with a pixel pitch of 4.29μm versus 6.78μm for the E-1). However, it should be noted that the E-620 is much more recent (by 5 years and 8 months) than the E-1, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that compensate for the smaller pixel size.

Consistent information on actual sensor performance is available from DXO Mark for most cameras. This service assesses and scores the color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors, and also publishes an overall camera score. The adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.

Feature comparison

Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. The E-1 and the E-620 are similar in the sense that both have an optical viewfinder. The latter is useful for getting a clear image for framing even in brightly lit environments. The following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Olympus E-1, the Olympus E-620, and comparable cameras. If you need more detail on the specs, you can find comprehensive listings, for example, in the dpreview camera hub.

Both the E-1 and the E-620 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The E-1 was replaced by the Olympus E-3, while the E-620 was followed by the Olympus E-600.

Summary

So what conclusions can be drawn? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus E-1 or the Olympus E-620 – has the upper hand? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.

Reasons to prefer the Olympus E-1:

• Easier setting verification: Has an LCD display on top to control shooting parameters.
• Longer lasting: Can take more shots (750 versus 500) on a single battery charge.
• Better sealing: Is weather sealed to enable shooting in dusty or wet environments.
• More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in June 2003).

Arguments in favor of the Olympus E-620:

• More detail: Has more megapixels (12.2 vs 4.9MP), which boosts linear resolution by 58%.
• Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (2.7" vs 1.8") for image review and settings control.
• More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (230k vs 134k dots).
• More flexible LCD: Has swivel screen for odd-angle shots in portrait or landscape orientation.
• Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (4 vs 3 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
• More compact: Is smaller (130x94mm vs 141x104mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
• Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 217g or 29 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
• Easier fill-in: Has a small integrated flash to brighten shadows of backlit subjects.
• Sharper images: Has stabilization technology build-in to reduce the impact of hand-shake.
• More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (59 percent cheaper at launch).
• More modern: Reflects 5 years and 8 months of technical progress since the E-1 launch.

If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the E-620 is the clear winner of the contest (11 : 4 points). However, the relevance of individual strengths will vary across photographers, so that you might want to apply your own weighing scheme to the summary points.

In any case, while the comparison of the spec-sheets of cameras can offer a general idea of their imaging potential, it remains partial and cannot reveal, for example, the handling experience and imaging performance when actually working with the E-1 or the E-620. User reviews that are available, for instance, at amazon can sometimes shed light on these issues, but such feedback is all too often partial, inconsistent, and inaccurate. This is why expert reviews are important. The adjacent table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites. The full reviews are available, respectively, at cameralabs.com, dpreview.com, ephotozine.com, imaging-resource.com, and photographyblog.com.

The above review scores should be interpreted with care, though. The assessments were made in relation to similar cameras of the same technological generation. Thus, a score needs to be put into the context of the launch date and the launch price of the camera, and comparisons of ratings among very different cameras or across long time periods have little meaning. Also, please note that some of the review sites have changed their methodology and reporting over time.

Other comparisons

In case you would like to check on the differences and similarities of other camera models, just make your choice using the following search menu. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored. If the camera you are interested in is not available, please contact me, and I will try to add information on that model to the database.