Olympus E-600 versus Olympus E-3
The Olympus E-600 and the Olympus E-3 are two digital cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in August 2009 and October 2007. Both are DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) cameras that are equipped with a Four Thirds sensor. The E-600 has a resolution of 12.2 megapixel, whereas the E-3 provides 10 MP.
The side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Olympus E-600 and the Olympus E-3. Three successive views from the front, the top, and the rear are shown. All size dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter. If you prefer, you can also use the toggle button to switch to a comparison in percentage terms (in this case, the camera on the left – the E-600 – represents the basis or 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-3 is considerably larger (35 percent) than the Olympus E-600. Moreover, the E-3 is substantially heavier (64 percent) than the E-600. Cameras that are aimed at professionals or semi-pros tend to be a bit bulkier in order to give them the necessary environmental and shock resistance. It is noteworthy in this context that the E-3 is splash and dust-proof, while the E-600 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.
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.
|Camera Body Specifications
|Olympus E-600 (⇒ rgt)||5.1 in||3.7 in||2.4 in||18.9 oz||500||no||2009||449||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-3 (⇒ lft)||5.6 in||4.6 in||3.0 in||30.9 oz||750||YES||2007||1,699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.6 in||4.6 in||3.0 in||30.8 oz||750||YES||2010||1,699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-P2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||4.8 in||2.8 in||1.4 in||12.5 oz||300||no||2009||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-P1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||4.8 in||2.8 in||1.4 in||12.5 oz||300||no||2009||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-620 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.7 in||2.4 in||18.4 oz||500||no||2009||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-450 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.6 in||2.1 in||15.5 oz||500||no||2009||499||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-420 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.6 in||2.1 in||15.5 oz||500||no||2008||599||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-520 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.4 in||3.6 in||2.7 in||18.9 oz||750||no||2008||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-30 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.6 in||4.3 in||3.0 in||24.7 oz||750||no||2008||1,299||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.1 in||3.6 in||2.1 in||15.3 oz||500||no||2007||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.4 in||3.6 in||2.7 in||19.0 oz||750||no||2007||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.6 in||4.1 in||3.2 in||26.0 oz||750||YES||2003||1,699||discont.||check|
The listed prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The E-600 was launched at a markedly lower price (by 74 percent) than the E-3, 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.
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 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-600 offers a higher resolution of 12.2 megapixel, compared with 10 MP of the E-3. This megapixel advantage translates into a 11 percent gain in linear resolution. On the other hand, these sensor specs imply that the E-600 has a higher pixel density and a smaller size of the individual pixel (with a pixel pitch of 4.29μm versus 4.74μm for the E-3). In this context, it should be noted, however, that the E-600 is a somewhat more recent model (by 1 year and 10 months) than the E-3, and its sensor might have benefitted from technological advances during this time that at least partly compensate for the smaller pixel size.
For most cameras, data on sensor performance has been reported by DXO Mark. 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 Overall DXO ratings for the two cameras under consideration are close, suggesting that they provide similar image quality. The table below summarizes the physical sensor characteristics and sensor quality findings and compares them across a set of similar cameras.
|Olympus E-600 (⇒ rgt)||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||no||21.5||10.3||541||55|
|Olympus E-3 (⇒ lft)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.6||10.5||571||56|
|Olympus E-5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||720/30p||21.6||10.5||519||56|
|Olympus E-P2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||720/30p||21.5||10.4||505||56|
|Olympus E-P1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||720/30p||21.4||10.4||536||55|
|Olympus E-620 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||no||21.3||10.3||536||55|
|Olympus E-450 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.5||10.5||512||56|
|Olympus E-420 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.5||10.4||527||56|
|Olympus E-520 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.4||10.4||548||55|
|Olympus E-30 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||12.2||4032||3024||no||21.3||10.4||530||55|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.1||10.0||494||51|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||10.0||3648||2736||no||21.2||10.0||442||52|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||4.9||2560||1920||no||-||-||-||-|
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. The E-600 and the E-3 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 table below summarizes some of the other core capabilities of the Olympus E-600 and Olympus E-3 in connection with corresponding information for a sample of similar cameras. If you need more detail on the specs, you can find comprehensive listings, for example, in the dpreview camera hub.
|Olympus E-600 (⇒ rgt)||optical||no||2.7||230||swivel||no||4000||4.0||12||YES|
|Olympus E-3 (⇒ lft)||optical||YES||2.5||230||swivel||no||8000||5.0||13||YES|
|Olympus E-5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||YES||3.0||920||swivel||no||8000||5.0||13||YES|
|Olympus E-P2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||no||no||3.0||230||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||YES|
|Olympus E-P1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||no||no||3.0||230||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||YES|
|Olympus E-620 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.7||230||swivel||no||4000||4.0||12||YES|
|Olympus E-450 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.7||215||fixed||no||4000||3.5||12||no|
|Olympus E-420 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.7||215||fixed||no||4000||3.5||12||no|
|Olympus E-520 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.7||215||fixed||no||4000||3.5||12||YES|
|Olympus E-30 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||YES||2.7||230||swivel||no||8000||5.0||13||YES|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||215||fixed||no||4000||3.0||10||no|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||215||fixed||no||4000||3.0||12||YES|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||YES||1.8||134||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||no|
Both the E-600 and the E-3 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The E-3 was replaced by the Olympus E-5, while the E-600 does not have a direct successor.
So how do things add up? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus E-600 or the Olympus E-3 – has the upper hand? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.
Arguments in favor of the Olympus E-600:
- More detail: Offers more megapixels (12.2 vs 10MP) with a 11% higher linear resolution.
- Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (2.7" vs 2.5") for image review and settings control.
- More compact: Is smaller (130x94mm vs 142x116mm) and thus needs less room in the bag.
- Less heavy: Is lighter (by 341g or 39 percent) and hence easier to carry around.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (74 percent cheaper at launch).
- More modern: Is somewhat more recent (announced 1 year and 10 months after the E-3).
Advantages of the Olympus E-3:
- Easier setting verification: Has a control panel on top to check shooting parameters.
- Faster shutter: Has a higher mechanical shutter speed (8000/sec vs 4000/sec) to freeze action.
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (5 vs 4 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- Longer lasting: Gets more shots (750 versus 500) out of a single battery charge.
- Better sealing: Is splash and dust sealed for shooting in inclement weather conditions.
- More heavily discounted: Has been on the market for longer (launched in August 2009).
If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the match-up finishes in a tie (6 points each). However, the relative importance of the various individual camera aspects will vary according to personal preferences and needs, so that you might like to apply corresponding weights to the particular features.
In any case, while the specs-based evaluation of cameras is instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it remains incomplete and does no justice, for example, to the way the E-600 or the E-3 handle or perform in practice. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased. This is where reviews by experts come in. 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.
|Olympus E-600 (⇒ rgt)||-||-||-||-||4.5/5||2009||449||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-3 (⇒ lft)||88/100||HiRec||reviewed||reviewed||4/5||2007||1,699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-5 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||75/100||4/5||-||4.5/5||2010||1,699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-P2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||83/100 Rec||69/100 Silver||4/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||2009||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-P1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||83/100 Rec||66/100||4/5||4/5||4.5/5||2009||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-620 (⇒ lft | rgt)||88/100||72/100 HiRec||4.5/5||reviewed||5/5||2009||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-450 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||-||4/5||-||4/5||2009||499||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-420 (⇒ lft | rgt)||85/100||HiRec||4/5||reviewed||4.5/5||2008||599||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-520 (⇒ lft | rgt)||87/100||HiRec||4.5/5||4/5||4.5/5||2008||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-30 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||71/100 HiRec||4.5/5||-||4/5||2008||1,299||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-410 (⇒ lft | rgt)||86/100||HiRec||4/5||reviewed||4.5/5||2007||699||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-510 (⇒ lft | rgt)||89/100||HiRec||3.5/5||reviewed||4.5/5||2007||799||discont.||check|
|Olympus E-1 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||Rec||reviewed||reviewed||-||2003||1,699||discont.||check|
The above review scores should be interpreted 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. 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. It should also be noted that some of the review sites have over time altered the way they render their verdicts.
In case you would like to check on the differences and similarities of other camera models, 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. If you do not see the camera that you are looking for, kindly get in touch, and I will try to update the database with the necessary infos.
- Canon G7 X Mark II vs Canon M3
- Canon M10 vs Canon G7 X
- Fujifilm X-T20 vs Panasonic G85
- Fujifilm X100T vs Canon M6
- Leica X Typ 113 vs Leica X-U Typ 113
- Olympus E-400 vs Olympus E-420
- Olympus E-M5 II vs Fujifilm X-T1
- Panasonic FZ2500 vs Panasonic ZS100
- Panasonic G6 vs Panasonic GX850
- Panasonic GH5 vs Sony RX10 III
- Panasonic L1 vs Panasonic L10
- Sony RX10 II vs Canon 80D