Leica M Typ 240 vs Olympus E-P2
The Leica M (Typ 240) and the Olympus PEN E-P2 are two enthusiast cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in September 2012 and November 2009. The M Typ 240 is a rangefinder-focusing mirrorless, while the E-P2 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. The cameras are based on a full frame (M Typ 240) and a Four Thirds (E-P2) sensor. The Leica has a resolution of 23.7 megapixels, whereas the Olympus provides 12.2 MP.
Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.
Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Leica M (Typ 240) and the Olympus PEN E-P2? 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 side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Leica M Typ 240 and the Olympus E-P2. 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 dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
The M Typ 240 can be obtained in two different colors (black, silver), while the E-P2 is available in three color-versions (black, silver, white).
If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Olympus E-P2 is notably smaller (24 percent) than the Leica M Typ 240. Moreover, the E-P2 is substantially lighter (48 percent) than the M Typ 240. It is worth mentioning in this context that the M Typ 240 is splash and dust resistant, while the E-P2 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. A larger imaging sensor will tend to go along with bigger and heavier lenses, although exceptions exist. You can compare the optics available for the two cameras in the Leica M Lens Catalog (M Typ 240) and the Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog (E-P2).
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, you can move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible camera comparisons there.
# | Camera Model |
Camera Width |
Camera Height |
Camera Depth |
Camera Weight |
Battery Life |
Weather Sealing |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price (USD) |
Street Price |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 240 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | .. | Y | Sep 2012 | 6,950 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | 121 mm | 70 mm | 36 mm | 355 g | 300 | n | Nov 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Canon 6D Mark II | 144 mm | 111 mm | 75 mm | 765 g | 1200 | Y | Jun 2017 | 1,999 | amazon.com | |
4. | Canon 6D | 145 mm | 111 mm | 71 mm | 770 g | 1090 | Y | Sep 2012 | 2,099 | ebay.com | |
5. | Leica M11 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 640 g | 700 | Y | Jan 2022 | 8,995 | amazon.com | |
6. | Leica M10-R | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Jul 2020 | 8,295 | amazon.com | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | .. | Y | Jun 2019 | 3,999 | ebay.com | |
8. | Leica M10-P | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Aug 2018 | 7,995 | amazon.com | |
9. | Leica M10 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Jan 2017 | 6,595 | ebay.com | |
10. | Leica M Typ 262 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | .. | Y | Nov 2015 | 5,195 | ebay.com | |
11. | Leica SL | 147 mm | 104 mm | 39 mm | 847 g | 400 | Y | Oct 2015 | 7,450 | ebay.com | |
12. | Leica M9 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 37 mm | 585 g | .. | n | Sep 2009 | 7,999 | ebay.com | |
13. | Olympus E-P3 | 122 mm | 69 mm | 34 mm | 369 g | 330 | n | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
14. | Olympus E-PL2 | 114 mm | 72 mm | 42 mm | 362 g | 280 | n | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
15. | Olympus E-PL3 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 37 mm | 313 g | 300 | n | Jun 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
16. | Olympus E-P1 | 121 mm | 70 mm | 36 mm | 355 g | 300 | n | Jun 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
17. | Panasonic GH1 | 124 mm | 90 mm | 45 mm | 385 g | 300 | n | Mar 2009 | 899 | ebay.com | |
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders. | |||||||||||
The price is, of course, an important factor in any camera decision. The listed launch prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The E-P2 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 89 percent) than the M Typ 240, 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 imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors 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. 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 are more costly to manufacture and tend to lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.
Of the two cameras under consideration, the Leica M Typ 240 features a full frame sensor and the Olympus E-P2 a Four Thirds sensor. The sensor area in the E-P2 is 74 percent smaller. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 1.0 and 2.0. The sensor in the M Typ 240 has a native 3:2 aspect ratio, while the one in the E-P2 offers a 4:3 aspect.
With 23.7MP, the M Typ 240 offers a higher resolution than the E-P2 (12.2MP), but the M Typ 240 nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 6.01μm versus 4.29μm for the E-P2) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the M Typ 240 is a much more recent model (by 2 years and 10 months) than the E-P2, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixels.
The resolution advantage of the Leica M Typ 240 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the M Typ 240 for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 29.8 x 19.9 inches or 75.6 x 50.5 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 23.8 x 15.9 inches or 60.5 x 40.4 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 19.8 x 13.3 inches or 50.4 x 33.7 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-P2 are 20.2 x 15.1 inches or 51.2 x 38.4 cm for good quality, 16.1 x 12.1 inches or 41 x 30.7 cm for very good quality, and 13.4 x 10.1 inches or 34.1 x 25.6 cm for excellent quality prints.
The Leica M (Typ 240) has a native sensitivity range from ISO 200 to ISO 6400, which can be extended to ISO 100-6400. The corresponding ISO settings for the Olympus PEN E-P2 are ISO 100 to ISO 6400 (no boost).
Technology-wise, both cameras are equipped with CMOS (Complementary Metal–Oxide–Semiconductor) sensors. 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"). Of the two cameras under review, the M Typ 240 provides substantially higher image quality than the E-P2, with an overall score that is 28 points higher. This advantage is based on 2.5 bits higher color depth, 2.9 EV in additional dynamic range, and 1.9 stops in additional low light sensitivity. The adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.
# | Camera Model |
Sensor Class |
Resolution (MP) |
Horiz. Pixels |
Vert. Pixels |
Video Format |
DXO Portrait |
DXO Landscape |
DXO Sports |
DXO Overall |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 240 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | 1080/25p | 24.0 | 13.3 | 1860 | 84 | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.5 | 10.4 | 505 | 56 | |
3. | Canon 6D Mark II | Full Frame | 26.0 | 6240 | 4160 | 1080/60p | 24.4 | 11.9 | 2862 | 85 | |
4. | Canon 6D | Full Frame | 20.0 | 5472 | 3648 | 1080/30p | 23.8 | 12.1 | 2340 | 82 | |
5. | Leica M11 | Full Frame | 60.3 | 9528 | 6328 | none | 26.3 | 14.8 | 3376 | 100 | |
6. | Leica M10-R | Full Frame | 40.9 | 7864 | 5200 | none | 25.3 | 14.3 | 2924 | 95 | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | 1080/25p | 25.2 | 14.2 | 2821 | 94 | |
8. | Leica M10-P | Full Frame | 23.8 | 5952 | 3992 | none | 25.1 | 14.1 | 2739 | 93 | |
9. | Leica M10 | Full Frame | 23.8 | 5952 | 3992 | none | 24.4 | 13.2 | 2133 | 86 | |
10. | Leica M Typ 262 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | none | 24.8 | 13.7 | 2478 | 90 | |
11. | Leica SL | Full Frame | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 4K/30p | 25.0 | 13.4 | 1821 | 88 | |
12. | Leica M9 | Full Frame | 18.1 | 5212 | 3472 | none | 22.5 | 11.7 | 884 | 69 | |
13. | Olympus E-P3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.8 | 10.1 | 536 | 51 | |
14. | Olympus E-PL2 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.4 | 10.2 | 573 | 55 | |
15. | Olympus E-PL3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.9 | 10.3 | 499 | 52 | |
16. | Olympus E-P1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.4 | 10.4 | 536 | 55 | |
17. | Panasonic GH1 | Four Thirds | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/24p | 21.6 | 11.6 | 772 | 64 | |
Note: DXO values in italics represent estimates based on sensor size and age. |
Many modern cameras cannot only take still pictures, but also record videos. Both cameras under consideration are equipped with sensors that have a sufficiently high read-out speed for moving images, but the M Typ 240 provides a higher video resolution than the E-P2. It can shoot video footage at 1080/25p, while the Olympus is limited to 720/30p.
Feature comparison
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. For example, the M Typ 240 has an optical viewfinder, which can be very useful when shooting in bright sunlight. In contrast, the E-P2 relies on live view and the rear LCD for framing. That said, the E-P2 can be equipped with an optional viewfinder – the VF-2. The adjacent table lists some of the other core features of the Leica M Typ 240 and Olympus E-P2 along with similar information for a selection of comparators.
# | 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. | Leica M Typ 240 | optical | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | Y | |
3. | Canon 6D Mark II | optical | Y | 3.0 / 1040 | swivel | Y | 1/4000s | 6.5/s | n | n | |
4. | Canon 6D | optical | Y | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 4.5/s | n | n | |
5. | Leica M11 | optical | n | 3.0 / 2333 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 4.5/s | n | n | |
6. | Leica M10-R | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 4.5/s | n | n | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | optical | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
8. | Leica M10-P | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 5.0/s | n | n | |
9. | Leica M10 | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 5.0/s | n | n | |
10. | Leica M Typ 262 | optical | n | 3.0 / 921 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
11. | Leica SL | 4400 | Y | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | Y | 1/8000s | 11.0/s | n | n | |
12. | Leica M9 | optical | n | 2.5 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 2.0/s | n | n | |
13. | Olympus E-P3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 614 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
14. | Olympus E-PL2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
15. | Olympus E-PL3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | tilting | n | 1/4000s | 5.5/s | n | Y | |
16. | Olympus E-P1 | none | n | 3.0 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | Y | |
17. | Panasonic GH1 | 1440 | n | 3.0 / 460 | swivel | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | n | |
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one. |
The M Typ 240 writes its imaging data to SDXC cards, while the E-P2 uses SDHC cards. The M Typ 240 supports UHS-I cards (Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 104 MB/s), while the E-P2 cannot take advantage of Ultra High Speed SD cards.
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 Leica M (Typ 240) and Olympus PEN E-P2 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.
# | Camera Model |
Hotshoe Port |
Internal Mic / Speaker |
Microphone Port |
Headphone Port |
HDMI Port |
USB Port |
WiFi Support |
NFC Support |
Bluetooth Support |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 240 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
3. | Canon 6D Mark II | Y | stereo / mono | Y | - | mini | 2.0 | Y | Y | Y | |
4. | Canon 6D | Y | mono / mono | Y | - | mini | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
5. | Leica M11 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | 3.2 | Y | - | Y | |
6. | Leica M10-R | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | Y | mono / - | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
8. | Leica M10-P | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
9. | Leica M10 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
10. | Leica M Typ 262 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
11. | Leica SL | Y | stereo / mono | Y | Y | full | 3.0 | Y | - | - | |
12. | Leica M9 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
13. | Olympus E-P3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
14. | Olympus E-PL2 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
15. | Olympus E-PL3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
16. | Olympus E-P1 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
17. | Panasonic GH1 | Y | stereo / - | Y | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - |
Both the M Typ 240 and the E-P2 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The E-P2 was replaced by the Olympus E-P3, while the M Typ 240 was followed by the Leica M Typ 262. Further information on the features and operation of the M Typ 240 and E-P2 can be found, respectively, in the Leica M Typ 240 Manual (free pdf) or the online Olympus E-P2 Manual.
Review summary
So what conclusions can be drawn? Is the Leica M Typ 240 better than the Olympus E-P2 or vice versa? A synthesis of the relative strong points of each of the models is listed below.
Arguments in favor of the Leica M (Typ 240):
- More detail: Offers more megapixels (23.7 vs 12.2MP) with a 42% higher linear resolution.
- Better image quality: Scores substantially higher (28 points) in the DXO overall assessment.
- Richer colors: Generates images with noticeably better colors (2.5 bits more color depth).
- More dynamic range: Captures a larger spectrum of light and dark details (2.9 EV of extra DR).
- Better low-light sensitivity: Requires less light for good images (1.9 stops ISO advantage).
- Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (1080/25p vs 720/30p).
- Easier framing: Has an optical viewfinder for image composition and settings control.
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (920k vs 230k dots).
- Better sealing: Is weather sealed to enable shooting in dusty or wet environments.
- Faster buffer clearing: Has an SD card interface that supports the UHS-I standard.
- More prestigious: Has the Leica luxury appeal, which ensures a high resale price.
- More modern: Reflects 2 years and 10 months of technical progress since the E-P2 launch.
Advantages of the Olympus PEN E-P2:
- More compact: Is smaller (121x70mm vs 139x80mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
- Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 325g or 48 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
- Sharper images: Has stabilization technology built-in to reduce the impact of hand-shake.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (89 percent cheaper at launch).
- More heavily discounted: Has been around for much longer (launched in November 2009).
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the M Typ 240 is the clear winner of the match-up (12 : 5 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 sports photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a street photog, and a person interested in family portraits has distinct needs from a landscape shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.
In any case, while the specs-based evaluation of cameras can be instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it remains partial and cannot reveal, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance when actually working with the M Typ 240 or the E-P2. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased.
Expert reviews
This is why expert reviews are important. 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.
# | Camera Model |
AP score |
CL score |
DCW score |
DPR score |
EPZ score |
PB score |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price (USD) |
Street Price |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Leica M Typ 240 | 4/5 | .. | .. | .. | 4/5 | .. | Sep 2012 | 6,950 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | 3/5 | + | .. | 69/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Nov 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Canon 6D Mark II | 4/5 | + | 4/5 | 80/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2017 | 1,999 | amazon.com | |
4. | Canon 6D | 5/5 | + + | .. | 83/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2012 | 2,099 | ebay.com | |
5. | Leica M11 | 4.5/5 | .. | 4.5/5 | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2022 | 8,995 | amazon.com | |
6. | Leica M10-R | 4.5/5 | .. | 4/5 | .. | .. | 4/5 | Jul 2020 | 8,295 | amazon.com | |
7. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | Jun 2019 | 3,999 | ebay.com | |
8. | Leica M10-P | .. | .. | 3/5 | .. | .. | 4/5 | Aug 2018 | 7,995 | amazon.com | |
9. | Leica M10 | 4.5/5 | .. | .. | .. | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2017 | 6,595 | ebay.com | |
10. | Leica M Typ 262 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | Nov 2015 | 5,195 | ebay.com | |
11. | Leica SL | 4/5 | .. | 4/5 | 84/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Oct 2015 | 7,450 | ebay.com | |
12. | Leica M9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | .. | Sep 2009 | 7,999 | ebay.com | |
13. | Olympus E-P3 | .. | 83/100 | .. | 74/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
14. | Olympus E-PL2 | 3/5 | 83/100 | .. | 71/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
15. | Olympus E-PL3 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 72/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
16. | Olympus E-P1 | .. | + | .. | 66/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
17. | Panasonic GH1 | .. | + + | .. | 72/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Mar 2009 | 899 | ebay.com | |
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available. |
Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, though. The assessments were made in relation to similar cameras of the same technological generation. Hence, a score should always be seen in the context of the camera's market launch date and its price, 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 camera comparisons
Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? In case you are interested in seeing how other cameras pair up, just make a corresponding selection in the search boxes below. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored.
- Canon 5D Mark III vs Leica M Typ 240
- Canon 5D Mark IV vs Olympus E-P2
- Canon D60 vs Olympus E-P2
- Canon G7 X Mark II vs Leica M Typ 240
- Canon M6 Mark II vs Leica M Typ 240
- Hasselblad X1D II vs Olympus E-P2
- Leica M Typ 240 vs Pentax K-70
- Leica M Typ 240 vs Sony A7 II
- Leica M Typ 240 vs Sony A7R
- Nikon P1000 vs Olympus E-P2
- Nikon Z6 vs Olympus E-P2
- Olympus E-P2 vs Panasonic S1R
Specifications: Leica M Typ 240 vs Olympus E-P2
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the specs of the two cameras to facilitate a quick review of their differences and common features.
Camera Model | Leica M Typ 240 | Olympus E-P2 |
---|---|---|
Camera Type | Rangefinder camera | Mirrorless system camera |
Camera Lens | Leica M mount lenses | Micro Four Thirds lenses |
Launch Date | September 2012 | November 2009 |
Launch Price | USD 6,950 | USD 799 |
Sensor Specs | Leica M Typ 240 | Olympus E-P2 |
Sensor Technology | CMOS | CMOS |
Sensor Format | Full Frame Sensor | Four Thirds Sensor |
Sensor Size | 35.8 x 23.9 mm | 17.3 x 13.0 mm |
Sensor Area | 855.62 mm2 | 224.9 mm2 |
Sensor Diagonal | 43 mm | 21.6 mm |
Crop Factor | 1.0x | 2.0x |
Sensor Resolution | 23.7 Megapixels | 12.2 Megapixels |
Image Resolution | 5952 x 3976 pixels | 4032 x 3024 pixels |
Pixel Pitch | 6.01 μm | 4.29 μm |
Pixel Density | 2.77 MP/cm2 | 5.42 MP/cm2 |
Moiré control | Anti-Alias filter | Anti-Alias filter |
Movie Capability | 1080/25p Video | 720/30p Video |
ISO Setting | 200 - 6,400 ISO | 100 - 6,400 ISO |
ISO Boost | 100 - 6,400 ISO | no Enhancement |
DXO Sensor Quality (score) | 84 | 56 |
DXO Color Depth (bits) | 24.0 | 21.5 |
DXO Dynamic Range (EV) | 13.3 | 10.4 |
DXO Low Light (ISO) | 1860 | 505 |
Screen Specs | Leica M Typ 240 | Olympus E-P2 |
Viewfinder Type | Optical viewfinder | Viewfinder optional |
Viewfinder Field of View | 100% | |
Viewfinder Magnification | 0.68x | |
LCD Framing | Live View | Live View |
Rear LCD Size | 3.0inch | 3.0inch |
LCD Resolution | 920k dots | 230k dots |
LCD Attachment | Fixed screen | Fixed screen |
Shooting Specs | Leica M Typ 240 | Olympus E-P2 |
Focus System | Manual Focus | Contrast-detect AF |
Manual Focusing Aid | Focus Peaking | no Peaking Feature |
Continuous Shooting | 3 shutter flaps/s | 3 shutter flaps/s |
Image Stabilization | no shake reduction | In-body stabilization |
Fill Flash | no On-Board Flash | no On-Board Flash |
Storage Medium | SDXC cards | SDHC cards |
Single or Dual Card Slots | Single card slot | Single card slot |
UHS card support | UHS-I | no |
Connectivity Specs | Leica M Typ 240 | Olympus E-P2 |
External Flash | Hotshoe | Hotshoe |
USB Connector | USB 2.0 | USB 2.0 |
HDMI Port | no HDMI | mini HDMI |
Wifi Support | no Wifi | no Wifi |
Body Specs | Leica M Typ 240 | Olympus E-P2 |
Environmental Sealing | Weathersealed body | not weather sealed |
Battery Type | BP-SCL2 | BLS-1 |
Body Dimensions |
139 x 80 x 42 mm (5.5 x 3.1 x 1.7 in) |
121 x 70 x 36 mm (4.8 x 2.8 x 1.4 in) |
Camera Weight | 680 g (24.0 oz) | 355 g (12.5 oz) |
Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.