Olympus PEN E-P3 vs Olympus PEN E-PM1

Winner
Olympus PEN E-P3

75

Olympus PEN E-PM1

73

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Olympus PEN E-P3

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
900 ms startup delay
OLED Screen
Screen type
Bright and vivid
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
External flash not needed
 

Reasons to buy the Olympus PEN E-PM1

Size
Really small
Compact (110×64×34 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.3"
Weight
Light-weight
263 g
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Olympus PEN E-P3.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Olympus PEN E-PM1.

competitors

Olympus PEN E-P3 Competitors

Olympus PEN E-PM2

Olympus PEN E-PM2

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$380 with 14-42mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
True resolution Higher true resolution
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$460 with 14-42mm lens

True resolution Higher true resolution
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$599 with 14-42mm lens

Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen

Olympus PEN E-PM1 Competitors

Olympus PEN Lite E-PL3

Olympus PEN E-PL3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$278 body only

$265 with 14-42mm lens

Startup delay Much more startup delay
Olympus PEN E-PL2

Olympus PEN E-PL2

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$459 with 14-42mm lens

Built-in flash Built-in flash
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag
Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$479 body only

$340 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Much longer battery life
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Olympus PEN E-P3
PEN E-P3
Olympus

Report a correction
Olympus PEN E-PM1
PEN E-PM1
Olympus

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments