EP3 or EP-5?

<p>considering picking up an older 4/3rds Pen as a pocket/travel camera. is the EPL-5's 16m sensor worth the extra $200 over the rock-bottom prices on the E-P3?</p>

<p>are there other differences i should know about? E-P3 has a metal build, it looks like. does the E-PL5 also have the same build? or does the "L " designation really mean "plastic body"? i already have a bagful of pro Nikon gear so just want something basic but good, with IBIS. how much better is the 16mp sensor over the 12mp sensor in terms of low-light/hi-ISO performance? AF is pretty good with both cameras,no?</p>

<p>Eric - I went from the 12 Mp EP1 to the 16 Mp EM5 and the sensors are dramatically different. In particular, the dynamic range is much bigger on the 16 MP, and the ability to pull up shadow detail in post without chroma noise is much better too. Haven't done a lot at high ISO but the EM5 is very impressive at 800 (not high but I do landscapes..). One other thing to consider - the new '5 axis' IBIS (don't know if that is in the EPL5) is fantastic, worth a lot in low light. All that said, with decent lenses even the EP1 could produce some superb results, so neither will disappoint. Using an OMD EM5 alongside a Nikon D800, my personal view is that the quality of the lens on the M43 bodies is critical - at least as important as the sensor. And you can of course use some of the Nikon glass on M43.</p>

<p>The IQ and OOC JPGs are significantly better with the Sony sensor cameras. I've found a couple of significant drawbacks to the E-PL5: controls and LCD. The relevant importance of the "L" cameras is that they only have one rear control, rather than the two on E-P3, and the layout isn't so great. The LCD may be 3", but it has a 16:9 aspect ratio and when shooting stills the active picture area is only 2.5". If you have young, sharp eyes, not so bad. While I don't particularly like using the camera, I keep it because of it's small size and excellent IQ.</p>

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>I used to own the E-P3 and sold it in order to upgrade to the E-PL5. The E-P3 is a fantastic camera in almost every way with the exception of the sensor. It really does let it down. If you only shoot in bright light then it's superb but if you like to shoot when the sun goes down you can forget it.</p>

<p>The E-PL5 is still a beautiful little camera and, in my opinion, is just as robust as the E-P3. However, the handling is not as good due to the smaller size and the control layout. That's really the only thing that let's it down. Nevertheless, I have got used to it and I can work with it easily now.</p>

<p>The articulating screen of the E-PL5, the sensor and the control layout are the 3 major differences between the two cameras. Hand on heart, I would choose the E-PL5 every time for the image quality alone.</p>

<p>Of course, the ultimate solution is the E-P5 which combines the best of both worlds but at a much higher price.</p>

<p>Although the Sony cameras have a slight edge in the image quality department, I really cannot see the point of them as the lenses are the same size as those on a DSLR. In which case, you may as well spend less money on a DSLR and gain a free optical viewfinder. When it comes down to size, my E-PL5 with Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens is tiny and can slip into any jacket pocket. The AF system on the Olympus cameras is also superior. It is seriously quick, extremely accurate and the <em>"tap anywhere on the screen to focus and shoot"</em> feature is incredible for street photography.</p>

<p>@John, thanks, that's helpful. i do have a bunch of Nikon glass, including some fast primes, so i would probably spring for an adapter no matter which one i choose. also looking forward to picking up some m4/3 primes.</p>

<p>@Bruce, i'm not super stoked on the Sony line, because frankly they dont have the native lenses. two control dials is fairly important to me as i do shoot in manual often, so that would likely be a main consideration.</p>

<p>@Jamie, does the PL5 have a metal build? the p5 looks great but at that price i can get a fuji x100 or a d7100. handling is important to me--i have big, clubby fingers so small buttoms would be a big detraction for me. have you used other primes other than the 20/1.7? i'm considering the 12/2, 17/2.8, and panaleica 25/1.4. botht he p3 and pl5 have tap focus right? i do shoot a bunch of street.</p>

<p>thanks, all, for your replies.</p>

<p>I have nothing negative to say about the Olympus models and there is a decent stable of m4/3 lenses to support their bodies. However, you might be interested in what Thom Hogan said recently, which is that Olympus is "on the ropes and bleeding". Hogan says that Olympus hasn't made a profit in 5 years and they are rapidly shrinking in size". He further offers that "anyone doing due diligence on the Olympus Camera Group would probably say not savable". You might not put any stock in Hogan's comments, your call, of course. OTOH, you might not want to invest in a line that is reportedly going south, thus might not be around to support what you buy. </p>

<p>Hogan's comments can be seen at the link below, just scroll down to the heading "<em>Will Nikon make an m4/3 camera?". </em>It's an interesting link that covers a lot more than just Olympus.<em> </em>Good luck. <br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><em>http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/tough-camera-questions.html</em></em></p>

<p>Even if Olympus ceased to exist today, there are so many lenses and bodies available, it would hardly be an issue for quite a while. Unless you're obsessed with the latest and greatest. </p>

<p>hmm, interesting, carl.</p>

<p>if that's the case,though, it's not necessarily bad for consumers, because a) we'll see fire sale prices on old inventory and b) olympus has already done its part by issuing a complete lens line-up. i dont necessarily care about future investment in m4/3 as much as i care about my long-term investment in nikon. in other words, i'm not trying to buy every oly m4/3 body that's out there, but right now, i can get into the system with a body/lens combo for $300-$400, or what a high-end small sensor compact cost three years ago. between the omd e-5, omd e-1, and the ep5, you've got three high-end bodies which are currently at the $1000-$1500 price point. if i can buy a e-5 for $500-$750 in the next year or two, then it makes sense for me to scoop a low-end compact model now and start building a lens collection. </p>

<p>since i'm not looking at m4/3 as a primary system, but rather a backup for PJ/travel work and candid/casual shooting, the long-term feasibility of Olympus is irrelevant. what's more important is they have the bodies now that have the features i'd be interested in--fast AF, compact size, in-body stabilization--as well as the lenses i'd want: 12/2, 17/2.8, 45/1.8, plus the panasonic glass as well.</p>

<p>looking at hogan's comments another way, we may have hit the wall with m 4/3 bodies, i.e., how much better can they get from what's currently being offered? if the improvements are incremental from here on out, then there's no need to keep reinvesting into bodies. but as it stands right now, for less than a sony rx100, i can get better IQ and a nearly-as-compact body with interchangeable lenses. in a year or two, i can upgrade to a more high-end body at closeout prices. those m4/3 lenses arent just going to go away overnight,even if olympus stops making new cameras. </p>

<p>there's a benefit to the consumer from not always buying the current model at current prices. if you wait a generation, you take less of a depreciation hit and may just get a really good deal.</p>

<p>That was not my point. If Olympus goes out of business, good luck with any needed support, including warranty issues. My own choice would to be to invest in a company that has a better outlook, YMMV.</p>

<p>[[That was not my point. If Olympus goes out of business, good luck with any needed support, including warranty issues.]]</p>

<p>Carl, Your point was made and registered. I don't think you understand the responses. Those things do not matter to everyone. The shear number of available used/refurbished products at discounted prices makes the need for warranty work almost completely moot. My time is worth more than what it would cost go through the warranty process. It would be easier to simply buy another of whatever was broken.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What you say is True, Eric. As long as you aren't concerned about heading down what might be a dead end road WRT the survivability of Olympus, then it's all good. To be sure we see very nice results from the m4/3 models, and getting a bargain is not to be sneezed at either. </p>

<p>You're right Rob, I was not looking at it from that standpoint. </p>

<p>Carl, did you read Hogan's comments all the way through? "<em> And no, I'm not predicting Olympus to go out of the camera business, either. At the moment they're simply poised to get smaller."</em></p>

<p>As i hinted before, that's a win for consumers because older inventory will likely be heavily discounted. Olympus got to a plateau with m4/3 but probably can't sustain future growth. that's ok because they did get to a plateau, meaning the system went through enough iterations to mature. if we were still in the days of the EP1, this would be more of an issue than it is now.</p>

<p>What i want as a consumer isnt necessarily to have to spend $1500 every two years on a high-end body with increasingly better features (which will then rapidly depreciate in value) . the EP3 was $900 when it was released just 2 1/2 years ago. today it sells for under $400. obviously, that's a much better deal for a consumer. that same $900 today would buy me an EP5, but are those extra features really worth $600 difference right now? or does it make more sense to wait 2 years and get an EP5 for $400?</p>

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>The E-PL5 is metal build and is just as sturdy as the E-P3. The vari-angle screen may possibly be a weak point but the same is true of any camera that has one. As far as vari-angle screens go it is as tough as they get. The hinge is very substantial.</p>

<p>Yes, both the P3 and PL5 have the tap to shoot feature. The only downside to the E-PL5 over the E-P3 is the handling in my opinion. Nevertheless, I find it OK. I'm 6ft 4 with big hands and I can manage it just fine but the E-P3 is definitely better in that respect.</p>

<p>I've used other m4/3 primes and I can honestly say that the primes from Olympus (except the 17mm f/2.8) are world class. The 17mm f/2.8 is a little soft and is not highly regarded but is adequate. The 17mm f/1.8 is a different story. It is far superior but much more costly. The 12mm f/2.0 is a beauty and the 75mm f/1.8 is nothing short of incredible... enough to worry Leica fans anyway. The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 has noticeably slower AF than the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 but it's cheaper, much more compact and has comparable image quality. It makes the camera truly pocketable.</p>

<p>Oh, I almost forgot... the other thing to take into account is that the P3 has a built in flash and the PL5 doesn't (but it comes with a small clip on hot shoe flash). To be blunt, the flash on the P3 is utter crap but at least it has one. </p>

<p>ALL my cameras are well out of warranty and obsolete to the point where I would replace rather than repair anyway. Digital cameras are throwaway cameras so once the initial warranty year is up it doesn't matter if no one is around to fix it.</p>

<p>hmm, decisions, decisions... the 17/1.8 would be the way to go over the 2.8. but here's where the cost-benefit analysis gets interesting. the epl5+17/1.8 is about the same price as a x100, which has a 35/2 equivalent plus an APS sensor. also, the 20/1.7 isnt that much cheaper than the 17/1.8, not anymore. all those beautiful primes make much more sense if you spring for the larger sensor, but then you're looking at DSLR prices for a smaller-sensor camera.</p>

<p>I have got an E-P3 and and E-M1 and have experience with the E-PL2. I far prefer the E-P3's ergonomics to the E-PL series, which used to drive me nuts. I suggest you handle an E-PL5 befor buying. The little control wheel is needed for exposure compensation but also very easy to accidently move, menaing I was often taking pics with the exposure compensation wrongly set or having to readjust it.<br>

The on-board flash of the P3, while not great, is far preferable to having to muck around with a clip on unit, particularly if you are planning to use the came as a carry-anywhere high quality point and shoot.<br>

The IQ of latest 16 mp Olympus sensor is very good. I'd say about 2 stops better in terms of high ISO noise performance. At about ISO 400-800 the difference in the sensors start to become apparent and from there on the new 16 mp sensor pulls further away.<br>

The new sensor also has better base ISO dymanic range. That said I think the IQ of the E-P3 is fine particularly with good lenses, and a step up from the E-PL2.</p>

 

<p>@Geoff, thanks, that's v. helpful. im leaning toward the EP3 now as its such a good deal and i think i can live with the 12mp sensor for what i'll be using it for. 2 stops is a lot in terms of hi-ISO performance, however.</p>

<p>the gotcha with m4/3 seems to be that the primes maximize the system, but they're not cheap--there's no equivalent of the $200 nikon 35/1.8.</p>

<p>Okay, you guys have a different frame of mind over this than I do. Yes, it's a personal choice, but I would not knowingly buy into a dead end situation. I know that there are bargains to be had, but I buy for the long haul. It just goes against my grain to grab camera X with the idea that if it has problems I'll toss it and buy another one. Everyone has their own reasons. mine no more valid than anyone else's. I only posted in this thread to offer a heads up that Eric might not have been aware of. As it turns out, it doesn't really matter to him, so I'll leave you guys in peace. </p>

<p>Before I go, yes Eric, I read the whole article before I posted that link. I was a Minolta user back before digital cameras hit the market. I had thought that I'd be able to move in the digital world with Minolta gear, but that opportunity never presented itself, and unless I wanted to keep shooting film, my Minolta gear was becoming paper weights. So, I switched to Nikon, but I've never forgotten how I felt over what happened to Minolta. Now you know where my comments come from. ;o)</p>

<p>[[i had thought that I'd be able to move in the digital world with Minolta gear, but that opportunity never presented itself, and unless I wanted to keep shooting film, my Minolta gear was becoming paper weights.]]</p>

<p>Were you unaware that Sony's Alpha-series cameras all use the A-mount? Or that prior to that (2006), Konica-Minolta produced and sold 2 different DSLR's?</p>

<p>[[Yes, it's a personal choice, but I would not knowingly buy into a dead end situation.]]</p>

<p>You read one article and have concluded that Olympus is already dead, but doesn't know it yet. I don't understand the logic here. Again, even if Olympus were to die today, how would the average photographer actually be impacted? How many warranty issues do you think the average Olympus user actually runs into? </p>

<p>My time with Minolta was before Konica became involved, and long before Sony entered the picture. My Minolta gear is long gone, replace by Nikon gear.</p>

<p>Carl, what is the long haul? these are digital cameras we're talking about. you're maybe getting five years use out of a body, maximum. that being the case, it makes sense not to overspend on bodies.</p>

<p>as for the dead-end situation comment, if i took that advice, i would be limited to canon, nikon, sony, and panasonic -- only two of which are pure camera makers. so again, what is the long haul?</p>

<p>If you want to go cheap, the 14-42mm II R kit lens is actually not a bad little zoom. The image quality is more than acceptable and, optically, is actually superior to the 12-50mm zoom that comes with the OM-D. It also collapses down quite neatly and, although made of plastic, the zoom and focus rings operate beautifully smoothly. </p>

<p>If you intend to only own one prime lens then, as you say, a Fuji X100 may actually make more sense although the AF is not as good as the Olympus.</p>

<p>As for the E-P3, be warned! I also thought that the 12MP sensor would be adequate as a second camera. I was wrong, I found it simply not good enough. The new 16MP sensor is a different animal altogether and much more comparable to what you would expect out of a decent DSLR.</p>

<p>[[My time with Minolta was before Konica became involved]]</p>

<p>Today MC and MD lenses can be used on mirrorless cameras with inexpensive adapters. </p>

<p>@Jamie, hmm. too bad, because the EP3 otherwise looks great. i admit im a little spoiled by my D3s. but the damn thing is too big to take everywhere, even when fitted with a small prime.</p>

<p>m4/3 is intriguing, but im a little hesitant to jump all in (eyeing the Fuji's for pure IQ)</p>

<p>but in terms of compact solutions, how would an EP3 compare with a Sony RX100 in terms of IQ? the RX100 is said to have amazing IQ at low ISO. is the EP3 sensor really that bad? i'm not sure i can get a better compact for under $400..</p>