Olympus E-PL3 vs Ricoh GR II

The Olympus PEN E-PL3 and the Ricoh GR II are two digital cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in June 2011 and June 2015. The E-PL3 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, while the GR II is a fixed lens compact. The cameras are based on a Four Thirds (E-PL3) and an APS-C (GR II) sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 12.2 megapixels, whereas the Ricoh provides 16.1 MP.

Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.

Headline Specifications

Olympus E-PL3		Ricoh GR II
Mirrorless system camera		Fixed lens compact camera
Micro Four Thirds lenses		28mm f/2.8
12.2 MP – Four Thirds sensor		16.1 MP – APS-C sensor
1080/60i Video		1080/30p Video
ISO 200-12,800		ISO 100-25,600
Viewfinder optional		Viewfinder optional
3.0" LCD – 460k dots		3.0" LCD – 1230k dots
Tilting screen (no touchscreen)		Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)
5.5 shutter flaps per second		4 shutter flaps per second
In-body stabilization		no shake reduction
300 shots per battery charge		320 shots per battery charge
110 x 64 x 37 mm, 313 g		117 x 63 x 35 mm, 251 g

Check E-PL3 offers at
ebay.com
Check GR II offers at
ebay.com

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus PEN E-PL3 and the Ricoh GR II? 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 physical size and weight of the Olympus E-PL3 and the Ricoh GR II are illustrated in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

The E-PL3 can be obtained in four different colors (black, silver, red, white), while the GR II is only available in black.

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Ricoh GR II is somewhat larger (5 percent) than the Olympus E-PL3. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the E-PL3 nor the GR II are weather-sealed.

The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete and possibly misleading, as the GR II has a lens built in, whereas the E-PL3 is an interchangeable lens camera that requires a separate lens. Attaching the latter will add extra weight and bulk to the setup. You can compare the optics available for the E-PL3 and their specifications in the Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog.

Concerning battery life, the E-PL3 gets 300 shots out of its Olympus BLS-5 battery, while the GR II can take 320 images on a single charge of its Ricoh DB-65 power pack. The power pack in the GR II can be charged via the USB port, which can be very convenient when travelling.

The adjacent table lists the principal physical characteristics of the two cameras alongside a wider set of alternatives. 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.

Body Specifications

		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.		Ricoh GR II	117 mm	63 mm	35 mm	251 g	320	n	Jun 2015	699	ebay.com
3.		Canon G7 X	103 mm	60 mm	40 mm	304 g	210	n	Sep 2014	699	ebay.com
4.		Fujifilm X70	113 mm	64 mm	44 mm	340 g	330	n	Jan 2016	799	ebay.com
5.		Olympus E-P2	121 mm	70 mm	36 mm	355 g	300	n	Nov 2009	799	ebay.com
6.		Olympus E-P3	122 mm	69 mm	34 mm	369 g	330	n	Jun 2011	799	ebay.com
7.		Olympus E-PL1	115 mm	72 mm	42 mm	334 g	290	n	Feb 2010	599	ebay.com
8.		Olympus E-PL2	114 mm	72 mm	42 mm	362 g	280	n	Jan 2011	599	ebay.com
9.		Olympus E-PL5	111 mm	64 mm	38 mm	325 g	360	n	Sep 2012	599	ebay.com
10.		Olympus E-PM1	110 mm	64 mm	34 mm	265 g	330	n	Jun 2011	499	ebay.com
11.		Olympus E-PM2	110 mm	64 mm	34 mm	269 g	360	n	Sep 2012	499	ebay.com
12.		Panasonic GF2	113 mm	68 mm	33 mm	310 g	300	n	Nov 2010	549	ebay.com
13.		Panasonic GF3	108 mm	67 mm	32 mm	264 g	300	n	Jun 2011	549	ebay.com
14.		Panasonic GF5	108 mm	67 mm	37 mm	267 g	360	n	Apr 2012	499	ebay.com
15.		Panasonic GM5	99 mm	60 mm	36 mm	211 g	220	n	Sep 2014	749	ebay.com
16.		Ricoh GR	117 mm	61 mm	35 mm	245 g	290	n	Apr 2013	799	ebay.com
17.		Sony RX100 III	102 mm	58 mm	41 mm	290 g	320	n	May 2014	799	ebay.com
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.
Convert to Imperial

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. 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.

Sensor comparison

The size of the imaging sensor is a crucial determinant 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.

Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus E-PL3 features a Four Thirds sensor and the Ricoh GR II an APS-C sensor. The sensor area in the GR II is 64 percent bigger. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 2.0 and 1.5. The sensor in the E-PL3 has a native 4:3 aspect ratio, while the one in the GR II offers a 3:2 aspect.

With 16.1MP, the GR II offers a higher resolution than the E-PL3 (12.2MP), but the GR II nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 4.79μm versus 4.29μm for the E-PL3) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the GR II is a much more recent model (by 3 years and 11 months) than the E-PL3, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixel-units. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the GR II has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.

The resolution advantage of the Ricoh GR II implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the GR II for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 24.6 x 16.3 inches or 62.6 x 41.5 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 19.7 x 13.1 inches or 50.1 x 33.2 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 16.4 x 10.9 inches or 41.7 x 27.6 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-PL3 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 Olympus PEN E-PL3 has a native sensitivity range from ISO 200 to ISO 12800. The corresponding ISO settings for the Ricoh GR II are ISO 100 to ISO 25600 (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.

Consistent information on actual sensor performance is available from DXO Mark for many cameras. 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 consideration, the GR II offers substantially better image quality than the E-PL3 (overall score 28 points higher). The advantage is based on 2.7 bits higher color depth, 3.4 EV in additional dynamic range, and 1.1 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.

Sensor Characteristics

		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.		Ricoh GR II	APS-C	16.1	4928	3264	1080/30p	23.6	13.7	1078	80
3.		Canon G7 X	1-inch	20.0	5472	3648	1080/60p	23.0	12.7	556	71
4.		Fujifilm X70	APS-C	16.0	4896	3264	1080/60p	23.7	13.0	1608	80
5.		Olympus E-P2	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.5	10.4	505	56
6.		Olympus E-P3	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	1080/60i	20.8	10.1	536	51
7.		Olympus E-PL1	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.5	10.1	487	54
8.		Olympus E-PL2	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	720/30p	21.4	10.2	573	55
9.		Olympus E-PL5	Four Thirds	15.9	4608	3456	1080/30p	22.8	12.3	889	72
10.		Olympus E-PM1	Four Thirds	12.2	4032	3024	1080/60i	21.0	10.3	499	52
11.		Olympus E-PM2	Four Thirds	15.9	4608	3456	1080/30p	22.7	12.2	932	72
12.		Panasonic GF2	Four Thirds	12.0	4000	3000	1080/60i	21.2	10.3	506	54
13.		Panasonic GF3	Four Thirds	12.0	4000	3000	1080/60i	20.6	10.1	459	50
14.		Panasonic GF5	Four Thirds	12.0	4000	3000	1080/60i	20.5	10.0	573	50
15.		Panasonic GM5	Four Thirds	15.8	4592	3448	1080/60p	22.1	11.7	721	66
16.		Ricoh GR	APS-C	16.1	4928	3264	1080/30p	23.6	13.5	972	78
17.		Sony RX100 III	1-inch	20.0	5472	3648	1080/60p	22.4	12.3	495	67
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 two cameras under consideration both have sensors whose read-out speed is fast enough to capture moving pictures, but the E-PL3 provides a higher frame rate than the GR II. It can shoot video footage at 1080/60i, while the Ricoh is limited to 1080/30p.

Feature comparison

Beyond body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The E-PL3 and the GR II 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 GV-1 for the GR II – are available as accessories. The following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Olympus E-PL3, the Ricoh GR II, and comparable cameras.

Core Features

		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.		Ricoh GR II	optional	n	3.0 / 1230	fixed	n	1/4000s	4.0/s	Y	n
3.		Canon G7 X	none	n	3.0 / 1040	tilting	Y	1/2000s	6.5/s	Y	Y
4.		Fujifilm X70	optional	n	3.0 / 1040	tilting	Y	1/4000s	8.0/s	Y	n
5.		Olympus E-P2	optional	n	3.0 / 230	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	n	Y
6.		Olympus E-P3	optional	n	3.0 / 614	fixed	Y	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
7.		Olympus E-PL1	optional	n	2.7 / 230	fixed	n	1/2000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
8.		Olympus E-PL2	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	n	1/4000s	3.0/s	Y	Y
9.		Olympus E-PL5	optional	n	3.0 / 460	tilting	Y	1/4000s	8.0/s	n	Y
10.		Olympus E-PM1	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	n	1/4000s	5.5/s	n	Y
11.		Olympus E-PM2	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	Y	1/4000s	8.0/s	n	Y
12.		Panasonic GF2	optional	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	Y	1/4000s	2.6/s	Y	n
13.		Panasonic GF3	none	n	3.0 / 460	fixed	Y	1/4000s	3.2/s	Y	n
14.		Panasonic GF5	none	n	3.0 / 920	fixed	Y	1/4000s	4.0/s	Y	n
15.		Panasonic GM5	1166	n	3.0 / 921	fixed	Y	1/500s	5.8/s	n	n
16.		Ricoh GR	optional	n	3.0 / 1230	fixed	n	1/4000s	4.0/s	Y	n
17.		Sony RX100 III	1440	n	3.0 / 1229	tilting	n	1/2000s	10.0/s	Y	Y
Note: *) Information refers to the mechanical shutter, unless the camera only has an electronic one.

One difference between the cameras concerns the presence of an on-board flash. The GR II has one, while the E-PL3 does not. While the built-in flash of the GR II is not very powerful, it can at times be useful as a fill-in light.

The Ricoh GR II has an intervalometer built-in. This enables the photographer to capture time lapse sequences, such as flower blooming, a sunset or moon rise, without purchasing an external camera trigger and related software.

Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the E-PL3 and the GR II write their files to SDXC cards. The GR II supports UHS-I cards (Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 104 MB/s), while the E-PL3 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 Olympus PEN E-PL3 and Ricoh GR II and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

Input-Output Connections

		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.		Ricoh GR II	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	-
3.		Canon G7 X	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	-
4.		Fujifilm X70	Y	stereo / mono	Y	-	micro	2.0	Y	-	-
5.		Olympus E-P2	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
6.		Olympus E-P3	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
7.		Olympus E-PL1	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
8.		Olympus E-PL2	Y	stereo / -	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
9.		Olympus E-PL5	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
10.		Olympus E-PM1	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
11.		Olympus E-PM2	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
12.		Panasonic GF2	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
13.		Panasonic GF3	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
14.		Panasonic GF5	-	stereo / mono	-	-	mini	2.0	-	-	-
15.		Panasonic GM5	Y	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	-	-
16.		Ricoh GR	Y	mono / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	-	-	-
17.		Sony RX100 III	-	stereo / mono	-	-	micro	2.0	Y	Y	-

It is notable that the GR II offers wifi support, which can be a very convenient means to transfer image data to an off-camera location. In contrast, the E-PL3 does not provide wifi capability.

Both the E-PL3 and the GR II have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The E-PL3 was replaced by the Olympus E-PL5, while the GR II was followed by the Ricoh GR III. Further information on the features and operation of the E-PL3 and GR II can be found, respectively, in the Olympus E-PL3 Manual (free pdf) or the online Ricoh GR II Manual.

Review summary

So what is the bottom line? Is the Olympus E-PL3 better than the Ricoh GR II or vice versa? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.

Arguments in favor of the Olympus PEN E-PL3:

• Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
• Better video: Provides higher movie framerates (1080/60i versus 1080/30p).
• 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 4 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
• More flexible: Accepts interchangeable lenses, so that lens characteristics can be altered.
• Sharper images: Has hand-shake reducing image stabilization built-in.
• More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in June 2011).

Reasons to prefer the Ricoh GR II:

• More detail: Has more megapixels (16.1 vs 12.2MP), which boosts linear resolution by 17%.
• Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
• Better image quality: Scores substantially higher (28 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
• Richer colors: Generates noticeably more natural colors (2.7 bits more color depth).
• More dynamic range: Captures a broader range of light and dark details (3.4 EV of extra DR).
• Better low-light sensitivity: Can shoot in dim conditions (1.1 stops ISO advantage).
• More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1230k vs 460k dots).
• Easier time-lapse photography: Has an intervalometer built-in for low frequency shooting.
• Ready to shoot: Has an integrated lens, whereas the E-PL3 necessitates an extra lens.
• Less heavy: Has a lower weight even though it has a lens built in (unlike the E-PL3).
• Easier travel charging: Can be conveniently charged via its USB port.
• Easier fill-in: Has a small integrated flash to brighten shadows of backlit subjects.
• Easier file upload: Has wifi built in for automatic backup or image transfer to the web.
• Easier device pairing: Supports NFC for fast wireless image transfer over short distances.
• Faster buffer clearing: Has an SD card interface that supports the UHS-I standard.
• More modern: Reflects 3 years and 11 months of technical progress since the E-PL3 launch.

If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the GR II is the clear winner of the contest (16 : 8 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.

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus E-PL3 and the Ricoh GR II place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera and Best Prime Lens Compact Camera listings whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

In any case, while the comparison of the spec-sheets of cameras can offer a general idea of their imaging potential, it says little about, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance of the E-PL3 and the GR II in practical situations. 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 hands-on reviews by experts 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.

Expert Camera Reviews

		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.		Ricoh GR II	..	..	..	..	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jun 2015	699	ebay.com
3.		Canon G7 X	4/5	+ +	..	77/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Sep 2014	699	ebay.com
4.		Fujifilm X70	4.5/5	..	..	76/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jan 2016	799	ebay.com
5.		Olympus E-P2	3/5	+	..	69/100	4/5	4.5/5	Nov 2009	799	ebay.com
6.		Olympus E-P3	..	83/100	..	74/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jun 2011	799	ebay.com
7.		Olympus E-PL1	..	86/100	..	69/100	4/5	4.5/5	Feb 2010	599	ebay.com
8.		Olympus E-PL2	3/5	83/100	..	71/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jan 2011	599	ebay.com
9.		Olympus E-PL5	3/5	+ +	..	..	4.5/5	4.5/5	Sep 2012	599	ebay.com
10.		Olympus E-PM1	..	86/100	..	71/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jun 2011	499	ebay.com
11.		Olympus E-PM2	3/5	..	..	77/100	5/5	4.5/5	Sep 2012	499	ebay.com
12.		Panasonic GF2	3/5	82/100	..	70/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Nov 2010	549	ebay.com
13.		Panasonic GF3	3/5	82/100	..	71/100	4.5/5	4/5	Jun 2011	549	ebay.com
14.		Panasonic GF5	3/5	..	..	..	4.5/5	4.5/5	Apr 2012	499	ebay.com
15.		Panasonic GM5	3.5/5	+	..	77/100	5/5	4.5/5	Sep 2014	749	ebay.com
16.		Ricoh GR	5/5	..	..	79/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	Apr 2013	799	ebay.com
17.		Sony RX100 III	5/5	+ +	..	82/100	4.5/5	5/5	May 2014	799	ebay.com
Note: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available.

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 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.

Check E-PL3 offers at
ebay.com
Check GR II offers at
ebay.com

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 your choice using the following search menu. Alternatively, you can follow any of the listed hyperlinks for comparisons that others found interesting.

~

Check E-PL3 offers at
ebay.com
Check GR II offers at
ebay.com

Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.