Olympus PEN E-PL5 vs Samsung NX3000

Olympus PEN E-PL5
Samsung NX3000

Reasons to buy the Olympus PEN E-PL5

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Slightly more lenses available
Lens availability
108 lenses
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX3000

True resolution
High true resolution
20 MP
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light
Weight
Light-weight
230 g
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Olympus PEN E-PL5.
Explore our gallery of 2 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX3000.

competitors

Olympus PEN E-PL5 Competitors

Olympus OM-D E-M10

Olympus OM-D E-M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$380 - $449 body only

$390 - $499 with 14-42mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Size Larger
Nikon 1 V1

Nikon 1 V1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$436 body only

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Olympus PEN E-PM1

Olympus PEN E-PM1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Weight Lighter
Touch screen No touch screen

Samsung NX3000 Competitors

Samsung NX2000

Samsung NX2000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Samsung NX1100

Samsung NX1100

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$450 with 20-50mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Samsung NX300

Samsung NX300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$699 with 20-50mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life

discussion

Olympus PEN E-PL5
PEN E-PL5
Olympus

Report a correction
Samsung NX3000
NX3000
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments