Leica M Typ 262 vs Olympus E-P3
The Leica M (Typ 262) and the Olympus PEN E-P3 are two enthusiast cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in November 2015 and June 2011. The M Typ 262 is a rangefinder-focusing mirrorless, while the E-P3 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. The cameras are based on a full frame (M Typ 262) and a Four Thirds (E-P3) 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 262) and the Olympus PEN E-P3? 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
An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Leica M Typ 262 and the Olympus E-P3 is provided 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 dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
The M Typ 262 can be obtained in two different colors (black, silver), while the E-P3 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-P3 is notably smaller (24 percent) than the Leica M Typ 262. Moreover, the E-P3 is substantially lighter (46 percent) than the M Typ 262. It is worth mentioning in this context that the M Typ 262 is splash and dust resistant, while the E-P3 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 262) and the Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog (E-P3).
Concerning battery life, the M Typ 262 gets 400 shots out of its Leica BP-SCL2 battery, while the E-P3 can take 330 images on a single charge of its Olympus BLS-5 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, 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 262 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | 400 | Y | Nov 2015 | 5,195 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus E-P3 | 122 mm | 69 mm | 34 mm | 369 g | 330 | n | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | 158 mm | 168 mm | 83 mm | 1530 g | 1210 | Y | Feb 2016 | 5,999 | ebay.com | |
4. | Leica M Typ 240 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | 500 | Y | Sep 2012 | 6,950 | ebay.com | |
5. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 42 mm | 680 g | 500 | Y | Jun 2019 | 3,999 | ebay.com | |
6. | Leica M10 | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Jan 2017 | 6,595 | ebay.com | |
7. | Leica M10-P | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Aug 2018 | 7,995 | ebay.com | |
8. | Leica M10-R | 139 mm | 80 mm | 39 mm | 660 g | 210 | Y | Jul 2020 | 8,295 | ebay.com | |
9. | Leica Q Typ 116 | 130 mm | 80 mm | 93 mm | 640 g | 300 | n | Jun 2015 | 4,249 | ebay.com | |
10. | Leica Q2 | 130 mm | 80 mm | 92 mm | 718 g | 370 | Y | Mar 2019 | 4,995 | amazon.com | |
11. | Leica SL | 147 mm | 104 mm | 39 mm | 847 g | 400 | Y | Oct 2015 | 7,450 | ebay.com | |
12. | Nikon D750 | 141 mm | 113 mm | 78 mm | 750 g | 1230 | Y | Sep 2014 | 2,299 | ebay.com | |
13. | Olympus E-P1 | 121 mm | 70 mm | 36 mm | 355 g | 300 | n | Jun 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
14. | Olympus E-P2 | 121 mm | 70 mm | 36 mm | 355 g | 300 | n | Nov 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
15. | Olympus E-PL1 | 115 mm | 72 mm | 42 mm | 334 g | 290 | n | Feb 2010 | 599 | ebay.com | |
16. | Olympus E-PL2 | 114 mm | 72 mm | 42 mm | 362 g | 280 | n | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
17. | Olympus E-PL3 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 37 mm | 313 g | 300 | n | Jun 2011 | 599 | 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 manufacturer’s suggested retail prices give an idea on the placement of the camera in the maker’s lineup and the broader market. The E-P3 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 85 percent) than the M Typ 262, 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 sensor inside a digital camera is one of the key determinants 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 262 features a full frame sensor and the Olympus E-P3 a Four Thirds sensor. The sensor area in the E-P3 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 262 has a native 3:2 aspect ratio, while the one in the E-P3 offers a 4:3 aspect.
With 23.7MP, the M Typ 262 offers a higher resolution than the E-P3 (12.2MP), but the M Typ 262 nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 6.01μm versus 4.29μm for the E-P3) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the M Typ 262 is a much more recent model (by 4 years and 4 months) than the E-P3, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixels. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the M Typ 262 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.
The resolution advantage of the Leica M Typ 262 implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the M Typ 262 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-P3 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 262) 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-P3 are ISO 200 to ISO 12800 (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 is based on lab testing and assigns an overall score to each camera sensor, as well as ratings for dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), color depth ("DXO Portrait"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"). 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 262 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | none | 24.8 | 13.7 | 2478 | 90 | |
2. | Olympus E-P3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.8 | 10.1 | 536 | 51 | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | Full Frame | 20.0 | 5472 | 3648 | 4K/60p | 24.1 | 13.5 | 3207 | 88 | |
4. | Leica M Typ 240 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | 1080/25p | 24.0 | 13.3 | 1860 | 84 | |
5. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | Full Frame | 23.7 | 5952 | 3976 | 1080/25p | 25.2 | 14.2 | 2821 | 94 | |
6. | Leica M10 | Full Frame | 23.8 | 5952 | 3992 | none | 24.4 | 13.2 | 2133 | 86 | |
7. | Leica M10-P | Full Frame | 23.8 | 5952 | 3992 | none | 25.1 | 14.1 | 2739 | 93 | |
8. | Leica M10-R | Full Frame | 40.9 | 7864 | 5200 | none | 25.3 | 14.3 | 2924 | 95 | |
9. | Leica Q Typ 116 | Full Frame | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 1080/60p | 24.3 | 12.7 | 2221 | 85 | |
10. | Leica Q2 | Full Frame | 46.7 | 8368 | 5584 | 4K/30p | 26.4 | 13.5 | 2491 | 96 | |
11. | Leica SL | Full Frame | 24.0 | 6000 | 4000 | 4K/30p | 25.0 | 13.4 | 1821 | 88 | |
12. | Nikon D750 | Full Frame | 24.2 | 6016 | 4016 | 1080/60p | 24.8 | 14.5 | 2956 | 93 | |
13. | Olympus E-P1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.4 | 10.4 | 536 | 55 | |
14. | Olympus E-P2 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.5 | 10.4 | 505 | 56 | |
15. | Olympus E-PL1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.5 | 10.1 | 487 | 54 | |
16. | Olympus E-PL2 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.4 | 10.2 | 573 | 55 | |
17. | Olympus E-PL3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.9 | 10.3 | 499 | 52 | |
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. The E-P3 indeed provides for movie recording, while the M Typ 262 does not. The highest resolution format that the E-P3 can use is 1080/60i.
Feature comparison
Beyond body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. For example, the M Typ 262 has an optical viewfinder, which can be very useful when shooting in bright sunlight. In contrast, the E-P3 relies on live view and the rear LCD for framing. That said, the E-P3 can be equipped with an optional viewfinder – the VF-3. The adjacent table lists some of the other core features of the Leica M Typ 262 and Olympus E-P3 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 262 | optical | n | 3.0 / 921 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
2. | Olympus E-P3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 614 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | optical | Y | 3.2 / 1620 | fixed | Y | 1/8000s | 16.0/s | n | n | |
4. | Leica M Typ 240 | optical | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
5. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | optical | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | n | |
6. | Leica M10 | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 5.0/s | n | n | |
7. | Leica M10-P | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 5.0/s | n | n | |
8. | Leica M10-R | optical | n | 3.0 / 1037 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 4.5/s | n | n | |
9. | Leica Q Typ 116 | 3680 | n | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | Y | 1/2000s | 10.0/s | n | Y | |
10. | Leica Q2 | 3680 | n | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | Y | 1/2000s | 10.0/s | n | Y | |
11. | Leica SL | 4400 | Y | 3.0 / 1040 | fixed | Y | 1/8000s | 11.0/s | n | n | |
12. | Nikon D750 | optical | Y | 3.2 / 1229 | tilting | n | 1/4000s | 6.0/s | Y | n | |
13. | Olympus E-P1 | none | n | 3.0 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | Y | |
14. | Olympus E-P2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | Y | |
15. | Olympus E-PL1 | optional | n | 2.7 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
16. | Olympus E-PL2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
17. | Olympus E-PL3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | tilting | n | 1/4000s | 5.5/s | n | Y | |
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one. |
One differentiating feature between the two cameras concerns the touch sensitivity of the rear screen. The E-P3 has a touchscreen, while the M Typ 262 has a conventional panel. Touch control can be particularly helpful, for example, for setting the focus point.
Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the M Typ 262 and the E-P3 write their files to SDXC cards. Both cameras can use UHS-I cards, which provide for Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 104 MB/s.
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 262) and Olympus PEN E-P3 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 262 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
2. | Olympus E-P3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | Y | mono / mono | Y | Y | mini | 3.0 | - | - | - | |
4. | Leica M Typ 240 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
5. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | Y | mono / - | - | - | - | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
6. | Leica M10 | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
7. | Leica M10-P | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
8. | Leica M10-R | Y | - / - | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - | |
9. | Leica Q Typ 116 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | micro | 2.0 | Y | Y | - | |
10. | Leica Q2 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | - | - | Y | - | Y | |
11. | Leica SL | Y | stereo / mono | Y | Y | full | 3.0 | Y | - | - | |
12. | Nikon D750 | Y | stereo / mono | Y | Y | mini | 2.0 | Y | - | - | |
13. | Olympus E-P1 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
14. | Olympus E-P2 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
15. | Olympus E-PL1 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
16. | Olympus E-PL2 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
17. | Olympus E-PL3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - |
Both the M Typ 262 and the E-P3 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The E-P3 was replaced by the Olympus E-P5, while the M Typ 262 was followed by the Leica M10. Further information on the features and operation of the M Typ 262 and E-P3 can be found, respectively, in the Leica M Typ 262 Manual (free pdf) or the online Olympus E-P3 Manual.
Review summary
So what conclusions can be drawn? Is the Leica M Typ 262 better than the Olympus E-P3 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 262):
- More detail: Offers more megapixels (23.7 vs 12.2MP) with a 42% higher linear resolution.
- Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
- Better image quality: Features a larger and more technologically advanced imaging sensor.
- Richer colors: The sensor size advantage translates into images with better, more accurate colors.
- More dynamic range: Larger sensor captures a wider spectrum of light and dark details.
- Better low-light sensitivity: Larger sensor produces good images even in poorly lit environments.
- Easier framing: Has an optical viewfinder for image composition and settings control.
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (921k vs 614k dots).
- Longer lasting: Can take more shots (400 versus 330) on a single battery charge.
- Better sealing: Is weather sealed to enable shooting in dusty or wet environments.
- More prestigious: Has the Leica luxury appeal, which ensures a high resale price.
- More modern: Reflects 4 years and 4 months of technical progress since the E-P3 launch.
Advantages of the Olympus PEN E-P3:
- Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
- Broader imaging potential: Can capture not only stills but also 1080/60i video.
- Fewer buttons to press: Has a touchscreen to facilitate handling and shooting adjustments.
- More compact: Is smaller (122x69mm vs 139x80mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
- Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 311g or 46 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
- Sharper images: Has stabilization technology built-in to reduce the impact of hand-shake.
- Easier fill-in: Has a small integrated flash to brighten shadows of backlit subjects.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (85 percent cheaper at launch).
- More heavily discounted: Has been around for much longer (launched in June 2011).
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the M Typ 262 emerges as the winner of the contest (12 : 9 points). However, the pertinence of the various camera strengths will differ across photographers, so that you might want to weigh individual camera traits according to their importance for your own imaging needs before making a camera decision. 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.
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 262 or the E-P3. 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 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 262 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | Nov 2015 | 5,195 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus E-P3 | .. | 83/100 | .. | 74/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Canon 1D X Mark II | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 89/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Feb 2016 | 5,999 | ebay.com | |
4. | Leica M Typ 240 | 4/5 | .. | .. | .. | 4/5 | .. | Sep 2012 | 6,950 | ebay.com | |
5. | Leica M-E Typ 240 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | Jun 2019 | 3,999 | ebay.com | |
6. | Leica M10 | 4.5/5 | .. | .. | .. | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2017 | 6,595 | ebay.com | |
7. | Leica M10-P | .. | .. | 3/5 | .. | .. | 4/5 | Aug 2018 | 7,995 | ebay.com | |
8. | Leica M10-R | 4.5/5 | .. | 4/5 | .. | .. | 4/5 | Jul 2020 | 8,295 | ebay.com | |
9. | Leica Q Typ 116 | 5/5 | .. | .. | 80/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2015 | 4,249 | ebay.com | |
10. | Leica Q2 | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 84/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Mar 2019 | 4,995 | amazon.com | |
11. | Leica SL | 4/5 | .. | 4/5 | 84/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Oct 2015 | 7,450 | ebay.com | |
12. | Nikon D750 | 5/5 | + + | 4/5 | 90/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2014 | 2,299 | ebay.com | |
13. | Olympus E-P1 | .. | + | .. | 66/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
14. | Olympus E-P2 | 3/5 | + | .. | 69/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Nov 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
15. | Olympus E-PL1 | .. | 86/100 | .. | 69/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Feb 2010 | 599 | ebay.com | |
16. | Olympus E-PL2 | 3/5 | 83/100 | .. | 71/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
17. | Olympus E-PL3 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 72/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available. |
Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, though. The ratings were established in reference to similarly priced cameras that were available in the market at the time of the review. 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 20D vs Leica M Typ 262
- Canon G9 X vs Leica M Typ 262
- Contax N Digital vs Olympus E-P3
- Leica D-LUX 5 vs Olympus E-P3
- Leica M Typ 262 vs Nikon D7100
- Leica M Typ 262 vs Olympus E-P2
- Leica M Typ 262 vs Panasonic FZ100
- Leica M Typ 262 vs Sony NEX-C3
- Leica S Typ 007 vs Olympus E-P3
- Leica V-LUX 4 vs Olympus E-P3
- Olympus E-M10 IV vs Olympus E-P3
- Olympus E-P3 vs Pentax Q
Specifications: Leica M Typ 262 vs Olympus E-P3
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 262 | Olympus E-P3 |
---|---|---|
Camera Type | Rangefinder camera | Mirrorless system camera |
Camera Lens | Leica M mount lenses | Micro Four Thirds lenses |
Launch Date | November 2015 | June 2011 |
Launch Price | USD 5,195 | USD 799 |
Sensor Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus E-P3 |
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 | no AA filter | Anti-Alias filter |
Movie Capability | no Video | 1080/60i Video |
ISO Setting | 200 - 6,400 ISO | 200 - 12,800 ISO |
ISO Boost | 100 - 6,400 ISO | no Enhancement |
Image Processor | Maestro | TruePic VI |
DXO Sensor Quality (score) | .. | 51 |
DXO Color Depth (bits) | .. | 20.8 |
DXO Dynamic Range (EV) | .. | 10.1 |
DXO Low Light (ISO) | .. | 536 |
Screen Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus E-P3 |
Viewfinder Type | Optical viewfinder | Viewfinder optional |
Viewfinder Field of View | 100% | |
Viewfinder Magnification | 0.68x | |
LCD Framing | Live View | |
Rear LCD Size | 3.0inch | 3.0inch |
LCD Resolution | 921k dots | 614k dots |
LCD Attachment | Fixed screen | Fixed screen |
Touch Input | no Touchscreen | Touchscreen |
Shooting Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus E-P3 |
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 | Built-in Flash |
Storage Medium | SDXC cards | SDXC cards |
Single or Dual Card Slots | Single card slot | Single card slot |
UHS card support | UHS-I | UHS-I |
Connectivity Specs | Leica M Typ 262 | Olympus E-P3 |
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 262 | Olympus E-P3 |
Environmental Sealing | Weathersealed body | not weather sealed |
Battery Type | Leica BP-SCL2 | Olympus BLS-5 |
Battery Life (CIPA) | 400 shots per charge | 330 shots per charge |
Body Dimensions |
139 x 80 x 42 mm (5.5 x 3.1 x 1.7 in) |
122 x 69 x 34 mm (4.8 x 2.7 x 1.3 in) |
Camera Weight | 680 g (24.0 oz) | 369 g (13.0 oz) |
Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.