One of the biggest promos is that it's compact for an SLR. On one hand, "compact SLR" has a similar ring to "tall midget." You know, too much of a qualification. The E-410 may be relatively small but it's still a big freakin' camera. Nevertheless, you'll see in the first shot below that the 13.6-ounce E-410 body is significantly smaller than Nikon's baby DSLR, the D40, which is the same size as the 10-megapixel upgrade D40x and weighs just over 16 ounces. In fact, the E-410 is almost as small as Olympus' 18X zoom point-and-shoot, the SP-550 UZ, compared in the second shot. The lithium-ion battery designed for this smaller body gets a reported 400 shots per charge, which should put it roughly in the middle of the pack.

When it comes to taking pictures, I shoot plenty, and I know a few things about shutter speeds and f-stops. Still, I'm no pro jock. Fortunately, neither is anyone who would seriously consider this camera. The E-410 is aimed squarely at people who plan to step up from a point-and-shoot, for more versatility and overall nicer-looking pictures.

If that's your aim, you could do far worse than buy an E-410. Live View certainly helps people who have gotten used to framing shots on the large LCD, rather than squinting into a viewfinder. In Live View, there's even a little targeting computer for the auto focus. When you activate it, you digitally zoom in 10X without affecting the frame of your shot, to hyper-focus on a particular item.

The 10-megapixel resolution is, itself, a helpful item for beginners, since it allows you to crop a shot closer without suffering from any digital pixelation. And the settings, Olympus' standard grid pattern of options such as flash, image quality and ISO setting, are easy to access once you get the button sequence down. It's intuitive, possibly more-so than the D40, whose interface relies more heavily on the large LCD than than Nikon's previous D models.

Outdoors, with plenty of light, proved to be the best environment for shooting in the E-410's automatic modes. Colors came out rich, with decent contrast most of the time. Though I typically prefer the viewfinder for shooting, the high-contrast display did well in the blazing sunlight for both Live View and post-shot review.

Shooting with a flash indoors was a mixed bag. If there was enough ambient light, the flash filled in only what was necessary, and shots came out bright without that artificial sheen. In instances with lower natural light, however, the camera took a while to make the focus, exposure and light adjustments before committing to the shot. By that point, my subjects (a pair of gray cats named Wade and Wynona) might have wandered off or stopped doing the cute thing I was hoping to immortalize. This is not a problem I've encountered with the Nikon D40. The good news is that when the camera finally did make the shot, whatever was in frame appeared properly lighted and not at all washed out—even at close range.

My biggest complaint about the E-410 is that, using the Zuiko 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 lens that comes in the two-lens deluxe kit, I didn't have a very good time shooting in low light without a flash. Automatic shutter-speed adjustment meant a slow, blurry exposure, even in ambient light that many point-and-shoots can negotiate. The Nikon D40, by comparison, performs admirably well in low light with its 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 Nikkor lens.

You can see examples from the camera in the gallery below.

The camera body comes by itself or in two kits. Body only is $700, a kit with a single lens is $800, and a kit with two lenses, the 14-42mm plus a 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 will cost you $900.

Olympus' follow-up to the E-410 will be the E-510, out in a few weeks. They both have the above-mentioned features, plus the "supersonic wave filter" dust demolisher that Olympus prides itself on. (Can someone please tell me why it's not an "ultrasonic" wave filter?) In addition, the E-510 has a bigger hand grip and optical image stabilization, and will cost $100 more than E-410 in each of the three configurations.

I know, you want me to tell you whether you should spend your hard-earned $800 on this for your mom's Mother's Day gift. If relative size and the Live View feature are important to Mommy dearest, then yes. Otherwise, spend a tad more on the slightly larger, better performing Nikon D40x. – Wilson Rothman

[Olympus]

It's as small as it is cheap. Yes it is...you're a liddle-widdle DSLR, aren't you! That's because this Nikon's lost the LCD up top that shows settings for exposure. And it loses its built in lens motor, so it can't autofocus except with those lenses using built-in motors. Still, this camera is way less expensive than Canon's budget DSLR, the XTi, even with a lens. (That's $599 vs $799 for the Xti Body only.) Sure, it has 6MP instead of 10, but I'd take the extra stop of light sensitivity (3200 vs 1600 on the XTi) over the extra useless megapixels, anyday. In theory, anyhow.

Of course, I have a few issues with this cam. Read on for sample shots, or click through the gallery to see the shiny new cam in all its cuteness.

I'm not a pro photographer, but I almost was. So, I cannot live without the LCD that shows me shutter speed, aperture settings, etc, though. Having said that, the amateur will appreciate the fact that this camera gives advice when a photo is set to be under or overexposed. See:

If you're going to use this thing in a semi-automatic or fully automatic mode, though, fire away. It was clear that every shot was vibrant and rich. Exposure was terrific. Maybe post processed with some sort of "LIFE IS AWESOME" filter. This chair top, which I snapped accidentally, is NOT supposed to be that red:

Low light performance was not on par with the Canon 30D I use that has an equivalent 3200 ISO rating. Basically, the grain goes out of control at 1600 and beyond, and I couldn't use it in good conscience at this level. Colors remained good, but maybe that was the bright LCD on the back of the camera talking. (Take my critique of color accuracy with a grain of salt then.) See these photos. The grainier one is the Nikon, while the Canon is the more expensive 30D. But this is what you're not getting:

The LCD is a lot brighter on the Nikon than on my 30D. And the Camera's lens feels entry level, and is a bit on the slow side. And it takes SD cards instead of CF, which is cool for amateurs.

In the end, let the fact that I'm comparing this $600 dollar camera to a full featured DSLR say something. It's a steal. At this price, you could get one instead of a point and shoot. You might miss the video functions most pocket cams rock these days. But if you're in it for photography's sake, your pictures will be nicer for it.

Just my two-cents. If you're a photography wonk, you'll likely want a deeper review. For that, head on over to a site like DPreview.com or DCresource.com. They'll do you right once their reviews are up. –Brian Lam

Nikon D40 [Gizmodo]

You do lose the ability to run autofocus on lenses without built in motors, though. So you're limited to AF with Nikon's AF-S and AF-I lenses, which may limit your upgrade path. The price? Astoundingly low at $599 with a 3x lens. (The fairly ok, "18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens". Who the hell names these things?)

A pretty sweet camera, but clearly in a different price range than the Canon Rebel XTi. We'll see how it does when the full reviews start rolling in.

Jump for more shots from all angles, plus a great screen grab of the menus.

–Brian Lam

Nikon D40 DSLR [DP Review]