Olympus E-520 vs E-1

The Olympus E-520 and the Olympus E-1 are two digital cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in May 2008 and June 2003. Both are DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) cameras that are equipped with a Four Thirds sensor. The E-520 has a resolution of 10 megapixels, whereas the E-1 provides 4.9 MP.

Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.

Headline Specifications

Olympus E-520		Olympus E-1
Digital single lens reflex		Digital single lens reflex
Four Thirds lenses		Four Thirds lenses
10 MP – Four Thirds sensor		4.9 MP – Four Thirds sensor
no Video		no Video
ISO 100-1,600		ISO 100-800 (100 - 3,200)
Optical viewfinder		Optical viewfinder
2.7" LCD – 215k dots		1.8" LCD – 134k dots
Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)		Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)
3.5 shutter flaps per second		3 shutter flaps per second
In-body stabilization		Lens stabilization only
not weather sealed		Weathersealed body
750 shots per battery charge		750 shots per battery charge
136 x 92 x 68 mm, 535 g		141 x 104 x 81 mm, 738 g

Check E-520 offers at
ebay.com
Check E-1 offers at
ebay.com

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus E-520 and the Olympus E-1? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.

Body comparison

The physical size and weight of the Olympus E-520 and the Olympus E-1 are illustrated in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three successive views from the front, the top, and the rear are shown. All width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Olympus E-1 is notably larger (17 percent) than the Olympus E-520. Moreover, the E-1 is substantially heavier (38 percent) than the E-520. It is noteworthy in this context that the E-1 is splash and dust-proof, while the E-520 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 compare the optics available in the Four Thirds Lens Catalog.

The following table provides a synthesis of the main physical specifications of the two cameras and other similar ones. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, you can move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible camera comparisons there.

Body Specifications

		Camera Model	Camera Width	Camera Height	Camera Depth	Camera Weight	Battery Life	Weather Sealing	Camera Launch	Launch Price (USD)	Street Price
1.		Olympus E-520	136 mm	92 mm	68 mm	535 g	750	n	May 2008	699	ebay.com
2.		Olympus E-1	141 mm	104 mm	81 mm	738 g	750	Y	Jun 2003	1,699	ebay.com
3.		Leica Digilux 3	146 mm	87 mm	77 mm	606 g	750	n	Sep 2006	1,499	ebay.com
4.		Olympus E-3	142 mm	116 mm	75 mm	876 g	750	Y	Oct 2007	1,699	ebay.com
5.		Olympus E-5	142 mm	117 mm	75 mm	873 g	750	Y	Sep 2010	1,699	ebay.com
6.		Olympus E-30	142 mm	108 mm	75 mm	701 g	750	n	Nov 2008	1,299	ebay.com
7.		Olympus E-300	147 mm	85 mm	64 mm	624 g	750	n	Sep 2004	799	ebay.com
8.		Olympus E-330	140 mm	87 mm	72 mm	637 g	750	n	Jan 2006	999	ebay.com
9.		Olympus E-410	130 mm	91 mm	53 mm	435 g	500	n	Mar 2007	699	ebay.com
10.		Olympus E-420	130 mm	91 mm	53 mm	440 g	500	n	Mar 2008	599	ebay.com
11.		Olympus E-450	130 mm	91 mm	53 mm	440 g	500	n	Mar 2009	499	ebay.com
12.		Olympus E-510	136 mm	92 mm	68 mm	538 g	750	n	Mar 2007	799	ebay.com
13.		Olympus E-600	130 mm	94 mm	60 mm	535 g	500	n	Aug 2009	449	ebay.com
14.		Olympus E-620	130 mm	94 mm	60 mm	521 g	500	n	Feb 2009	699	ebay.com
15.		Olympus E-P1	121 mm	70 mm	36 mm	355 g	300	n	Jun 2009	799	ebay.com
16.		Olympus E-P2	121 mm	70 mm	36 mm	355 g	300	n	Nov 2009	799	ebay.com
17.		Panasonic L10	135 mm	96 mm	78 mm	556 g	450	n	Aug 2007	599	ebay.com
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.
Convert to Imperial

Any camera decision will naturally be influenced heavily by the price. The retail prices at the time of the camera’s release place the model in the market relative to other models in the producer’s line-up and the competition. The E-520 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 59 percent) than the E-1, which puts it into a different market segment. Normally, street prices remain initially close to the MSRP, but after a couple of months, the first discounts appear. 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.

Sensor comparison

The size of the imaging sensor is a crucial determinant of image quality. All other things equal, a large sensor will have larger individual pixel-units that offer better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Moreover, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more control over depth-of-field in the image and, thus, the ability to better isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be associated with larger, more expensive camera bodies 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.

In terms of chip-set technology, the E-520 uses a more advanced image processing engine (TruePic III) than the E-1 (TruePic), with benefits for noise reduction, color accuracy, and processing speed.

While the two cameras under review share the same sensor size, the E-520 offers a higher resolution of 10 megapixels, compared with 4.9 MP of the E-1. This megapixels advantage translates into a 43 percent gain in linear resolution. On the other hand, these sensor specs imply that the E-520 has a higher pixel density and a smaller size of the individual pixel (with a pixel pitch of 4.74μm versus 6.78μm for the E-1). In this context, it should be noted, however, that the E-520 is much more recent (by 4 years and 10 months) than the E-1, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that compensate for the smaller pixel size.

The resolution advantage of the Olympus E-520 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the E-520 for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 18.2 x 13.7 inches or 46.3 x 34.7 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 14.6 x 10.9 inches or 37.1 x 27.8 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 12.2 x 9.1 inches or 30.9 x 23.2 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-1 are 12.8 x 9.6 inches or 32.5 x 24.4 cm for good quality, 10.2 x 7.7 inches or 26 x 19.5 cm for very good quality, and 8.5 x 6.4 inches or 21.7 x 16.3 cm for excellent quality prints.

The Olympus E-520 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 1600. The corresponding ISO settings for the Olympus E-1 are ISO 100 to ISO 800, with the possibility to increase the ISO range to 100-3200.

In terms of underlying technology, the E-520 is build around a CMOS sensor, while the E-1 uses a CCD imager. Both cameras use a Bayer filter for capturing RGB colors on a square grid of photosensors. This arrangement is found in most digital cameras.

Since 2007, DXO Mark has published sensor performance measurements that have been derived using a consistent methodology. This service determines an overall sensor rating, as well as sub-scores for low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and color depth ("DXO Portrait"). The table below summarizes the physical sensor characteristics and sensor quality findings and compares them across a set of similar cameras.

Sensor Characteristics

		Camera Model	Sensor Class	Resolution (MP)	Horiz. Pixels	Vert. Pixels	Video Format	DXO Portrait	DXO Landscape	DXO Sports	DXO Overall
1.		Olympus E-520	Four Thirds	10.0	3648	2736	none	21.4	10.4	548	55
2.		Olympus E-1	Four Thirds	4.9	2560	1920	none	20.0	9.7	-145	44
3.		Leica Digilux 3	Four Thirds	7.4	3136	2352	none	21.0	10.6	127	53
4.		Olympus E-3	Four Thirds	10.0	3648	2736	none	21.6	10.5	571	56
5.		Olympus E-5	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.6	10.5	519	56
6.		Olympus E-30	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	none	21.3	10.4	530	55
7.		Olympus E-300	Four Thirds	8.0	3264	2448	none	20.4	10.1	-40	48
8.		Olympus E-330	Four Thirds	7.4	3136	2352	none	20.8	10.4	73	52
9.		Olympus E-410	Four Thirds	10.0	3648	2736	none	21.1	10.0	494	51
10.		Olympus E-420	Four Thirds	10.0	3648	2736	none	21.5	10.4	527	56
11.		Olympus E-450	Four Thirds	10.0	3648	2736	none	21.5	10.5	512	56
12.		Olympus E-510	Four Thirds	10.0	3648	2736	none	21.2	10.0	442	52
13.		Olympus E-600	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	none	21.5	10.3	541	55
14.		Olympus E-620	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	none	21.3	10.3	536	55
15.		Olympus E-P1	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.4	10.4	536	55
16.		Olympus E-P2	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.5	10.4	505	56
17.		Panasonic L10	Four Thirds	10.0	3648	2736	none	21.3	10.8	429	55
Note: DXO values in italics represent estimates based on sensor size and age.

Feature comparison

Beyond body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The E-520 and the E-1 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 viewfinder in the E-1 offers a wider field of view (100%) than the one in the E-520 (95%), so that a larger proportion of the captured image is visible in the finder. In addition, the viewfinder of the E-1 has a higher magnification (0.48x vs 0.46x), so that the size of the image transmitted appears closer to the size seen with the naked human eye. The table below summarizes some of the other core capabilities of the Olympus E-520 and Olympus E-1 in connection with corresponding information for a sample of similar cameras.

Core Features

		Camera Model	Viewfinder (Type or 000 dots)	Control Panel (yes/no)	LCD Specifications (inch/000 dots)	LCD Attach- ment	Touch Screen (yes/no)	Max Shutter Speed *	Max Shutter Flaps *	Built-in Flash (yes/no)	Built-in Image Stab
1.		Olympus E-520	optical	n	2.7 / 215	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.5/s	Y	Y
2.		Olympus E-1	optical	Y	1.8 / 134	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	n	n
3.		Leica Digilux 3	optical	n	2.5 / 207	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	n
4.		Olympus E-3	optical	Y	2.5 / 230	swivel	n	1/8000s	5.0/s	Y	Y
5.		Olympus E-5	optical	Y	3.0 / 920	swivel	n	1/8000s	5.0/s	Y	Y
6.		Olympus E-30	optical	Y	2.7 / 230	swivel	n	1/8000s	5.0/s	Y	Y
7.		Olympus E-300	optical	n	1.8 / 134	fixed	n	1/4000s	2.5/s	Y	n
8.		Olympus E-330	optical	n	2.5 / 215	tilting	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	n
9.		Olympus E-410	optical	n	2.5 / 215	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	n
10.		Olympus E-420	optical	n	2.7 / 215	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.5/s	Y	n
11.		Olympus E-450	optical	n	2.7 / 215	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.5/s	Y	n
12.		Olympus E-510	optical	n	2.5 / 215	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
13.		Olympus E-600	optical	n	2.7 / 230	swivel	n	1/4000s	4.0/s	Y	Y
14.		Olympus E-620	optical	n	2.7 / 230	swivel	n	1/4000s	4.0/s	Y	Y
15.		Olympus E-P1	none	n	3.0 / 230	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	n	Y
16.		Olympus E-P2	optional	n	3.0 / 230	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	n	Y
17.		Panasonic L10	optical	n	2.5 / 207	swivel	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	n
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one.

One difference between the cameras concerns the presence of an on-board flash. The E-520 has one, while the E-1 does not. While the built-in flash of the E-520 is not very powerful, it can at times be useful as a fill-in light.

Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the E-520 and the E-1 write their files to Compact Flash or xD Picture cards. Both cameras feature dual card slots, which can be very useful in case a memory card fails.

Connectivity comparison

For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Olympus E-520 and Olympus E-1 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

Input-Output Connections

		Camera Model	Hotshoe Port	Internal Mic / Speaker	Microphone Port	Headphone Port	HDMI Port	USB Port	WiFi Support	NFC Support	Bluetooth Support
1.		Olympus E-520	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
2.		Olympus E-1	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
3.		Leica Digilux 3	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
4.		Olympus E-3	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
5.		Olympus E-5	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
6.		Olympus E-30	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
7.		Olympus E-300	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
8.		Olympus E-330	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
9.		Olympus E-410	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
10.		Olympus E-420	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
11.		Olympus E-450	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
12.		Olympus E-510	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
13.		Olympus E-600	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
14.		Olympus E-620	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-
15.		Olympus E-P1	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
16.		Olympus E-P2	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
17.		Panasonic L10	Y	- / -	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-

Studio photographers will appreciate that the Olympus E-1 (unlike the E-520) features a PC Sync socket, so that professional strobe lights can be controlled by the camera.

Both the E-520 and the E-1 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The E-1 was replaced by the Olympus E-3, while the E-520 does not have a direct successor. Further information on the features and operation of the E-520 and E-1 can be found, respectively, in the Olympus E-520 Manual (free pdf) or the online Olympus E-1 Manual.

Review summary

So how do things add up? Is there a clear favorite between the Olympus E-520 and the Olympus E-1? Which camera is better? A synthesis of the relative strong points of each of the models is listed below.

Advantages of the Olympus E-520:

• More detail: Offers more megapixels (10 vs 4.9MP) with a 43% higher linear resolution.
• Better jpgs: Has a more modern image processing engine (TruePic III vs TruePic).
• 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 (215k vs 134k dots).
• Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (3.5 vs 3 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
• More compact: Is smaller (136x92mm vs 141x104mm) and thus needs less room in the bag.
• Less heavy: Is lighter (by 203g or 28 percent) and hence easier to carry around.
• Sharper images: Has hand-shake reducing image stabilization built-in.
• Easier fill-in: Is equipped with a small onboard flash to brighten deep shadow areas.
• More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (59 percent cheaper at launch).
• More modern: Reflects 4 years and 10 months of technical progress since the E-1 launch.

Reasons to prefer the Olympus E-1:

• More complete view: Has a viewfinder with a larger field of view (100% vs 95%).
• Larger viewfinder image: Features a viewfinder with a higher magnification (0.48x vs 0.46x).
• Easier setting verification: Features a control panel on top to check shooting parameters.
• Better sealing: Is splash and dust sealed for shooting in inclement weather conditions.
• Better studio light control: Has a PC Sync socket to connect to professional strobe lights.
• More heavily discounted: Has been around for much longer (launched in June 2003).

If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the E-520 is the clear winner of the match-up (11 : 6 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 when reflecting and deciding on a new camera. A professional wildlife photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a family photog, and a person interested in architecture has distinct needs from a sports shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus E-520 and the Olympus E-1 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best DSLR Camera listing whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

In any case, while the comparison of technical specifications can provide a useful overview of the capabilities of different cameras, it says little about, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance of the E-520 and the E-1 in practical situations. 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.

Expert reviews

This is where reviews by experts come in. The following table reports the overall ratings of the cameras as published by some of the major camera review sites (amateurphotographer [AP], cameralabs [CL], digitalcameraworld [DCW], dpreview [DPR], ephotozine [EPZ], photographyblog [PB]). As can be seen, the professional reviewers agree in many cases on the quality of different cameras, but sometimes their assessments diverge, reinforcing the earlier point that a camera decision is often a very personal choice.

Expert Camera Reviews

		Camera   Model	AP   score	CL   score	DCW   score	DPR   score	EPZ   score	PB   score	Camera Launch	Launch Price (USD)	Street Price
1.		Olympus E-520	..	87/100	..	+ +	4.5/5	4.5/5	May 2008	699	ebay.com
2.		Olympus E-1	..	..	..	+	o	..	Jun 2003	1,699	ebay.com
3.		Leica Digilux 3	..	..	..	..	..	..	Sep 2006	1,499	ebay.com
4.		Olympus E-3	..	88/100	..	+ +	o	4/5	Oct 2007	1,699	ebay.com
5.		Olympus E-5	4/5	..	..	75/100	4/5	4.5/5	Sep 2010	1,699	ebay.com
6.		Olympus E-30	..	..	..	71/100	4.5/5	4/5	Nov 2008	1,299	ebay.com
7.		Olympus E-300	..	..	..	+	o	4.5/5	Sep 2004	799	ebay.com
8.		Olympus E-330	..	..	..	+	o	..	Jan 2006	999	ebay.com
9.		Olympus E-410	..	86/100	..	+ +	4/5	4.5/5	Mar 2007	699	ebay.com
10.		Olympus E-420	..	85/100	..	+ +	4/5	4.5/5	Mar 2008	599	ebay.com
11.		Olympus E-450	..	..	..	..	4/5	4/5	Mar 2009	499	ebay.com
12.		Olympus E-510	..	89/100	..	+ +	3.5/5	4.5/5	Mar 2007	799	ebay.com
13.		Olympus E-600	..	..	..	..	..	4.5/5	Aug 2009	449	ebay.com
14.		Olympus E-620	3/5	88/100	..	72/100	4.5/5	5/5	Feb 2009	699	ebay.com
15.		Olympus E-P1	..	+	..	66/100	4/5	4.5/5	Jun 2009	799	ebay.com
16.		Olympus E-P2	3/5	+	..	69/100	4/5	4.5/5	Nov 2009	799	ebay.com
17.		Panasonic L10	..	85/100	..	+	3.5/5	4/5	Aug 2007	599	ebay.com
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available.

The review scores listed above should be treated with care, though. The ratings were established in reference to similarly priced cameras that were available in the market at the time of the review. A score, therefore, has to be seen in close connection to the price and market introduction time of the camera, and comparing ratings of very distinct cameras or ones that are far apart in terms of their release date have little meaning. Also, please note that some of the review sites have changed their methodology and reporting over time.

Check E-520 offers at
ebay.com
Check E-1 offers at
ebay.com

Other camera comparisons

Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? 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.

~

Check E-520 offers at
ebay.com
Check E-1 offers at
ebay.com

Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.