Olympus E-PL3 vs E-P2
The Olympus PEN E-PL3 and the Olympus PEN E-P2 are two digital cameras that were announced, respectively, in June 2011 and November 2009. Both the E-PL3 and the E-P2 are mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that are equipped with a Four Thirds sensor. Both cameras offer a resolution of 12.2 megapixels.
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 Olympus PEN E-PL3 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 Olympus E-PL3 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 size dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.
The E-PL3 can be obtained in four different colors (black, silver, red, white), 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 larger (20 percent) than the Olympus E-PL3. Moreover, the E-P2 is markedly heavier (13 percent) than the E-PL3. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the E-PL3 nor the E-P2 are weather-sealed.
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 Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog. Mirrorless cameras, such as the two under consideration, have the additional advantage of having a short flange to focal plane distance, which makes it possible to mount many lenses from other systems onto the camera via adapters.
The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators. If you would like to visualize and compare a different camera combination, you can navigate to the CAM-parator app and make your selection from a broad list of cameras there.
# | Camera Model |
Camera Width |
Camera Height |
Camera Depth |
Camera Weight |
Battery Life |
Weather Sealing |
Camera Launch |
Launch Price (USD) |
Street Price |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus E-PL3 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 37 mm | 313 g | 300 | n | Jun 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | 121 mm | 70 mm | 36 mm | 355 g | 300 | n | Nov 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Olympus E-PL5 | 111 mm | 64 mm | 38 mm | 325 g | 360 | n | Sep 2012 | 599 | ebay.com | |
4. | Olympus E-PM2 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 34 mm | 269 g | 360 | n | Sep 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
5. | Olympus E-P3 | 122 mm | 69 mm | 34 mm | 369 g | 330 | n | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
6. | Olympus E-PL2 | 114 mm | 72 mm | 42 mm | 362 g | 280 | n | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
7. | Olympus E-PM1 | 110 mm | 64 mm | 34 mm | 265 g | 330 | n | Jun 2011 | 499 | ebay.com | |
8. | Olympus E-PL1 | 115 mm | 72 mm | 42 mm | 334 g | 290 | n | Feb 2010 | 599 | ebay.com | |
9. | Olympus E-P1 | 121 mm | 70 mm | 36 mm | 355 g | 300 | n | Jun 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
10. | Panasonic GF5 | 108 mm | 67 mm | 37 mm | 267 g | 360 | n | Apr 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
11. | Panasonic GF3 | 108 mm | 67 mm | 32 mm | 264 g | 300 | n | Jun 2011 | 549 | ebay.com | |
12. | Panasonic GF2 | 113 mm | 68 mm | 33 mm | 310 g | 300 | n | Nov 2010 | 549 | ebay.com | |
13. | 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. | |||||||||||
Any camera decision will naturally be influenced heavily by the price. 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-PL3 was launched at a somewhat lower price (by 25 percent) than the E-P2, which makes it more attractive for photographers on a tight budget. 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.
Sensor comparison
The size of the sensor inside a digital camera is one of the key determinants of image quality. A large sensor will tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixel-units 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 are more costly to manufacture and tend to 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.
In terms of chip-set technology, the E-PL3 uses a more advanced image processing engine (Truepic VI) than the E-P2 (TruePic V), with benefits for noise reduction, color accuracy, and processing speed.
The two cameras under review do not only share the same sensor size, but also offer an identical resolution of 12.2 megapixels. This similarity in sensor specs implies that both the E-PL3 and the E-P2 have the same pixel density, as well as the same pixel size. It should, however, be noted that the E-PL3 is a somewhat more recent model (by 1 year and 7 months) than the E-P2, and its sensor might have benefitted from technological advances during this time.
The Olympus PEN E-PL3 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 200 to ISO 12800. 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.
For many cameras, data on sensor performance has been reported by DXO Mark. This service assesses and scores the color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors, and also publishes an overall camera score. Of the two cameras under consideration, the E-P2 has a markedly higher DXO score than the E-PL3 (overall score 4 points higher), which will translate into better image quality. The advantage is based on 0.6 bits higher color depth, 0.1 EV in additional dynamic range, and -0 stops in additional low light sensitivity. The following table provides an overview of the physical sensor characteristics, as well as the sensor quality measurements for a selection of comparators.
# | Camera Model |
Sensor Class |
Resolution (MP) |
Horiz. Pixels |
Vert. Pixels |
Video Format |
DXO Portrait |
DXO Landscape |
DXO Sports |
DXO Overall |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Olympus E-PL3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.9 | 10.3 | 499 | 52 | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.5 | 10.4 | 505 | 56 | |
3. | Olympus E-PL5 | Four Thirds | 15.9 | 4608 | 3456 | 1080/30p | 22.8 | 12.3 | 889 | 72 | |
4. | Olympus E-PM2 | Four Thirds | 15.9 | 4608 | 3456 | 1080/30p | 22.7 | 12.2 | 932 | 72 | |
5. | Olympus E-P3 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 20.8 | 10.1 | 536 | 51 | |
6. | Olympus E-PL2 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.4 | 10.2 | 573 | 55 | |
7. | Olympus E-PM1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 1080/60i | 21.0 | 10.3 | 499 | 52 | |
8. | Olympus E-PL1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.5 | 10.1 | 487 | 54 | |
9. | Olympus E-P1 | Four Thirds | 12.2 | 4032 | 3024 | 720/30p | 21.4 | 10.4 | 536 | 55 | |
10. | Panasonic GF5 | Four Thirds | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/60i | 20.5 | 10.0 | 573 | 50 | |
11. | Panasonic GF3 | Four Thirds | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/60i | 20.6 | 10.1 | 459 | 50 | |
12. | Panasonic GF2 | Four Thirds | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/60i | 21.2 | 10.3 | 506 | 54 | |
13. | Panasonic GH1 | Four Thirds | 12.0 | 4000 | 3000 | 1080/24p | 21.6 | 11.6 | 772 | 64 |
Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but also of capturing video footage. Both cameras under consideration are equipped with sensors that have a sufficiently high read-out speed for moving images, but the E-PL3 provides a higher video resolution than the E-P2. It can shoot video footage at 1080/60i, while the E-P2 is limited to 720/30p.
Feature comparison
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The E-PL3 and the E-P2 are similar in the sense that neither of the two has a viewfinder. The images are, thus, framed using live view on the rear LCD. However, optional viewfinders – the VF-2 for the E-PL3 and the VF-2 for the E-P2 – are available as accessories. The table below summarizes some of the other core capabilities of the Olympus E-PL3 and Olympus E-P2 in connection with corresponding information for a sample of similar cameras.
# | 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-PL3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | tilting | n | 1/4000s | 5.5/s | n | Y | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | Y | |
3. | Olympus E-PL5 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | tilting | Y | 1/4000s | 8.0/s | n | Y | |
4. | Olympus E-PM2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 8.0/s | n | Y | |
5. | Olympus E-P3 | optional | n | 3.0 / 614 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
6. | Olympus E-PL2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
7. | Olympus E-PM1 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 5.5/s | n | Y | |
8. | Olympus E-PL1 | optional | n | 2.7 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/2000s | 3.0/s | Y | Y | |
9. | Olympus E-P1 | none | n | 3.0 / 230 | fixed | n | 1/4000s | 3.0/s | n | Y | |
10. | Panasonic GF5 | none | n | 3.0 / 920 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 4.0/s | Y | n | |
11. | Panasonic GF3 | none | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 3.2/s | Y | n | |
12. | Panasonic GF2 | optional | n | 3.0 / 460 | fixed | Y | 1/4000s | 2.6/s | Y | n | |
13. | 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 E-PL3 writes its imaging data to SDXC cards, while the E-P2 uses SDHC 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 Olympus PEN E-PL3 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. | Olympus E-PL3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
3. | Olympus E-PL5 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
4. | Olympus E-PM2 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
5. | Olympus E-P3 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
6. | Olympus E-PL2 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
7. | Olympus E-PM1 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
8. | Olympus E-PL1 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
9. | Olympus E-P1 | Y | stereo / - | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
10. | Panasonic GF5 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
11. | Panasonic GF3 | - | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
12. | Panasonic GF2 | Y | stereo / mono | - | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
13. | Panasonic GH1 | Y | stereo / - | Y | - | mini | 2.0 | - | - | - |
Both the E-PL3 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 E-PL3 was followed by the Olympus E-PL5. Further information on the features and operation of the E-PL3 and E-P2 can be found, respectively, in the Olympus E-PL3 Manual (free pdf) or the online Olympus E-P2 Manual.
Review summary
So what is the bottom line? Is there a clear favorite between the Olympus E-PL3 and the Olympus E-P2? Which camera is better? Below is a summary of the relative strengths of each of the two contestants.
Reasons to prefer the Olympus PEN E-PL3:
- Better jpgs: Has a more modern image processing engine (Truepic VI vs TruePic V).
- Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (1080/60i vs 720/30p).
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (460k vs 230k dots).
- More flexible LCD: Has a tilting screen for odd-angle shots in landscape orientation.
- More selfie-friendly: Has an articulated screen that can be turned to be front-facing.
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (5.5 vs 3 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- More compact: Is smaller (110x64mm vs 121x70mm) and thus needs less room in the bag.
- Less heavy: Is lighter (by 42g or 12 percent) and hence easier to carry around.
- More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced segment (25 percent cheaper at launch).
- More modern: Is somewhat more recent (announced 1 year and 7 months after the E-P2).
Advantages of the Olympus PEN E-P2:
- Better image quality: Scores markedly higher (4 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
- More heavily discounted: Has been on the market for longer (launched in November 2009).
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the E-PL3 is the clear winner of the match-up (10 : 2 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 wedding photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a travel photog, and a person interested in cityscapes has distinct needs from a macro 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-PL3 and the Olympus E-P2 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera listing whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.
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 E-PL3 or the E-P2. At times, user reviews, such as those published at amazon, address these issues in a useful manner, but such feedback is on many occasions incomplete, inconsistent, and unreliable.
Expert reviews
This is where reviews by experts come in. The adjacent summary-table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular 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. | Olympus E-PL3 | 3/5 | + + | .. | 72/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
2. | Olympus E-P2 | 3/5 | + | .. | 69/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Nov 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
3. | Olympus E-PL5 | 3/5 | + + | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2012 | 599 | ebay.com | |
4. | Olympus E-PM2 | 3/5 | .. | .. | 77/100 | 5/5 | 4.5/5 | Sep 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
5. | Olympus E-P3 | .. | 83/100 | .. | 74/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2011 | 799 | ebay.com | |
6. | Olympus E-PL2 | 3/5 | 83/100 | .. | 71/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jan 2011 | 599 | ebay.com | |
7. | Olympus E-PM1 | .. | 86/100 | .. | 71/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2011 | 499 | ebay.com | |
8. | Olympus E-PL1 | .. | 86/100 | .. | 69/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Feb 2010 | 599 | ebay.com | |
9. | Olympus E-P1 | .. | + | .. | 66/100 | 4/5 | 4.5/5 | Jun 2009 | 799 | ebay.com | |
10. | Panasonic GF5 | 3/5 | .. | .. | .. | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Apr 2012 | 499 | ebay.com | |
11. | Panasonic GF3 | 3/5 | 82/100 | .. | 71/100 | 4.5/5 | 4/5 | Jun 2011 | 549 | ebay.com | |
12. | Panasonic GF2 | 3/5 | 82/100 | .. | 70/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Nov 2010 | 549 | ebay.com | |
13. | Panasonic GH1 | .. | + + | .. | 72/100 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | Mar 2009 | 899 | ebay.com | |
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available. |
The review scores listed above should be treated with care, 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 comparing ratings of very distinct cameras or ones that are far apart in terms of their release date have little meaning. Also, kindly note that some of the listed sites have over time developped their review approaches and their reporting style.
Other camera comparisons
Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? If you would like to see a different side-by-side camera review, just use the search menu below. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored.
- Canon 1Ds vs Olympus E-P2
- Canon SL3 vs Olympus E-P2
- Fujifilm X-A7 vs Olympus E-P2
- Leica Q Typ 116 vs Olympus E-PL3
- Leica X Typ 113 vs Olympus E-P2
- Nikon D3300 vs Olympus E-PL3
- Nikon D70 vs Olympus E-P2
- Nikon D70s vs Olympus E-PL3
- Olympus E-M10 III vs Olympus E-PL3
- Olympus E-P2 vs Sony RX10 IV
- Olympus E-PL3 vs Pentax K-1 II
- Olympus E-PL3 vs Sony HX80
Specifications: Olympus E-PL3 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 | Olympus E-PL3 | Olympus E-P2 |
---|---|---|
Camera Type | Mirrorless system camera | Mirrorless system camera |
Camera Lens | Micro Four Thirds lenses | Micro Four Thirds lenses |
Launch Date | June 2011 | November 2009 |
Launch Price | USD 599 | USD 799 |
Sensor Specs | Olympus E-PL3 | Olympus E-P2 |
Sensor Technology | CMOS | CMOS |
Sensor Format | Four Thirds Sensor | Four Thirds Sensor |
Sensor Size | 17.3 x 13.0 mm | 17.3 x 13.0 mm |
Sensor Area | 224.9 mm2 | 224.9 mm2 |
Sensor Diagonal | 21.6 mm | 21.6 mm |
Crop Factor | 2.0x | 2.0x |
Sensor Resolution | 12.2 Megapixels | 12.2 Megapixels |
Image Resolution | 4032 x 3024 pixels | 4032 x 3024 pixels |
Pixel Pitch | 4.29 μm | 4.29 μm |
Pixel Density | 5.42 MP/cm2 | 5.42 MP/cm2 |
Moiré control | Anti-Alias filter | Anti-Alias filter |
Movie Capability | 1080/60i Video | 720/30p Video |
ISO Setting | 200 - 12,800 ISO | 100 - 6,400 ISO |
Image Processor | Truepic VI | TruePic V |
DXO Sensor Quality (score) | 52 | 56 |
DXO Color Depth (bits) | 20.9 | 21.5 |
DXO Dynamic Range (EV) | 10.3 | 10.4 |
DXO Low Light (ISO) | 499 | 505 |
Screen Specs | Olympus E-PL3 | Olympus E-P2 |
Viewfinder Type | Viewfinder optional | Viewfinder optional |
LCD Framing | Live View | Live View |
Rear LCD Size | 3.0inch | 3.0inch |
LCD Resolution | 460k dots | 230k dots |
LCD Attachment | Tilting screen | Fixed screen |
Shooting Specs | Olympus E-PL3 | Olympus E-P2 |
Focus System | Contrast-detect AF | Contrast-detect AF |
Continuous Shooting | 5.5 shutter flaps/s | 3 shutter flaps/s |
Image Stabilization | In-body stabilization | 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 | no | no |
Connectivity Specs | Olympus E-PL3 | Olympus E-P2 |
External Flash | Hotshoe | Hotshoe |
USB Connector | USB 2.0 | USB 2.0 |
HDMI Port | mini HDMI | mini HDMI |
Wifi Support | no Wifi | no Wifi |
Body Specs | Olympus E-PL3 | Olympus E-P2 |
Battery Type | Olympus BLS-5 | Olympus BLS-1 |
Battery Life (CIPA) | 300 shots per charge | 300 shots per charge |
Body Dimensions |
110 x 64 x 37 mm (4.3 x 2.5 x 1.5 in) |
121 x 70 x 36 mm (4.8 x 2.8 x 1.4 in) |
Camera Weight | 313 g (11.0 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.