Canon 1000D vs Olympus E-PM2: An In-Depth Comparison for Thoughtful Photographers

Choosing your next camera is rarely straightforward, especially when comparing two models that cater to entry-level enthusiasts but come from very different design philosophies and technological backgrounds. I’ve spent hundreds of hours with both the Canon EOS 1000D, a venerable entry-level DSLR launched in 2008, and the Olympus PEN E-PM2, a more modern mirrorless camera introduced in 2013. Both have earned loyal followings, but they offer distinct experiences and performances.

In this detailed, experience-driven comparison, I’ll walk you through everything - from sensor technology and autofocus to real-world shooting scenarios across various genres. This isn’t just a specs throwdown: it’s about what these cameras actually deliver in your hands. Whether you’re a budding portrait artist, an aspiring landscape shooter, or a serious traveler looking for a compact rig, you’ll find clear recommendations tailored for your needs.

Let’s dive in.

A First Look: Design, Size, and Handling Differences

Physically, these cameras occupy different niches. The Canon 1000D is a traditional compact DSLR with a pentamirror optical viewfinder and a bulkier body. The Olympus E-PM2 is a small, rangefinder-style mirrorless camera focusing on portability and tactile minimalism.

When I placed these side by side during a shoot, the physical differences were immediately obvious. The Canon’s heft (502g) and size (126x98x65mm) provide a reassuring grip, especially if you have larger hands or use grip accessories. Its robust, layered body construction feels solid - I could easily imagine it withstanding casual bumps on the road.

By contrast, the Olympus E-PM2 is significantly smaller and lighter (269g, 110x64x34mm), perfect for travel or street shooting when you want to pack light and stay nimble. The mirrorless form factor and absence of an optical viewfinder contribute to this slim profile, but that comes with compromises which I will unpack later.

Ergonomically, the Canon 1000D’s controls favor beginners, with its top-plate mode dial, well-marked buttons, and a handgrip allowing one-handed steadiness. I found it comfortable during longer sessions, especially in portrait or landscape settings where stability is crucial.

The Olympus opts for a minimal control layout, relying on touch interface on a 3-inch screen and a few mechanical dials. It’s less intimidating for novices but offers faster menu diving for power users who prefer touchscreen input. I describe the control differences in detail in the next section.

Control Layout and User Interface: Intuitive or Frustrating?

The shooting experience is intimately tied to how quickly and naturally you can tweak settings.

The Canon 1000D sports a traditional DSLR top dial for exposure modes - Program, Av (aperture priority), Tv (shutter priority), Manual, and more - with an info button to cycle through settings on the rear LCD. Although the rear screen is small and quite low resolution (2.5-inch, 230k dots), the optical viewfinder provides immediate feedback for framing and exposure, which I preferred outdoors in bright conditions.

The Olympus E-PM2, on the other hand, has no built-in optical viewfinder. The optional external EVF attachment must be purchased separately. Its top plate is minimal - a power switch, shutter button, and mode dial - relying heavily on the touchscreen for settings adjustment. The 3-inch LCD screen boasts a much sharper resolution (460k dots) and supports touch focus and menu navigation.

Coming from a DSLR background myself, I initially found the Olympus menu-driven approach less tactile but appreciated the quick touch focusing and ease of browsing settings on the bright, sharp screen.

For street and travel photography, the Olympus’s touchscreen responsiveness offers an edge in quick shooting scenarios or live view framing. However, for sports or wildlife photography, I found the Canon’s dedicated buttons and reliable optical viewfinder better at staying focused on the action without diverting attention to menus.

Sensor Size, Image Quality, and Resolution: The Heart of the Matter

Image quality begins with the sensor, and this is where these cameras markedly differ.

The Canon 1000D features a 10.1MP APS-C sized CMOS sensor (22.2 x 14.8mm). The physical size gives a decent light-gathering advantage over smaller sensors and a 1.6x crop factor which influences lens focal length equivalency.

Olympus E-PM2 sports a smaller 16.1MP Four Thirds (17.3 x 13mm) CMOS sensor, with a 2.0x crop factor. The higher resolution helps with image detail, but the smaller sensor area means each pixel is physically smaller and potentially more affected by noise.

From my hands-on tests, the Canon 1000D while lower in megapixels, produces rich color depth and smooth tonal gradations, with a DxO overall score of 62. It maintains impressive dynamic range for an older sensor (around 10.9 EV), allowing recovery of shadow and highlight details, especially critical in landscape photography.

The Olympus scores higher on DxOmark (72 overall), boasting better color depth and dynamic range (~12.2 EV), plus superior high ISO shots - meaning it handles low light and astrophotography with less grain. Boosted ISO options soar to 25600 on the Olympus (though practical use is at lower ISOs), while the Canon maxes out at ISO1600 natively.

For me, this means the Canon 1000D shines in well-lit conditions, generating pleasing skin tones with less noise at base ISO, ideal for portraits and daylight shooting. The Olympus E-PM2 is more versatile for varied lighting, including indoor and night scenes, albeit with a tighter depth-of-field due to the smaller sensor.

Reviewing the Rear LCD and Viewfinder Experience

The Canon’s rear display is fixed, relatively small (2.5 inches), and low resolution (230k), limiting sharp focus checking or composition via live view. However, the pentamirror-based optical viewfinder covers 95% of the frame, delivering clear and lag-free viewing, with 0.51x magnification.

The Olympus, with no native viewfinder, relies on its larger 3-inch touchscreen LCD with 460k resolution. It’s bright, crisp, and excellent for touch autofocus and framing from unusual angles. While the lack of a built-in viewfinder may be a downer for some, the option to add an external EVF offers flexibility.

In bright sunlight or fast-moving sports contexts, an optical viewfinder’s immediacy is a strong advantage. For casual shooting or travel, the Olympus’s screen excels, especially for selfie framing or street photography disguising the camera’s presence.

Autofocus Performance: Speed, Precision, and Tracking

AF systems make or break many shooting scenarios, from fast-paced sports to delicate macro shots.

• Canon 1000D: 7 phase-detection AF points - basic but reliable. It supports single and AI Servo continuous AF but lacks advanced tracking or face detection.

• Olympus E-PM2: 35 contrast-detection AF points with face detection and continuous tracking support.

In my experience testing wildlife and sports scenarios, the Canon’s phase-detection system lags behind modern AF expectations. While satisfactory for static subjects or portraits where you can focus and recompose, it struggled to maintain focus on erratic bird flights or rapid action.

The Olympus’s contrast-detection AF is impressively accurate and benefits from face-detection and continuous AF tracking, greatly improving usability for street and candid photography. It also offers touch autofocus right on the LCD for pinpoint or selective focusing.

Neither camera supports eye AF or animal-eye tracking - a feature now common in newer mid-tier cameras - but given their age and segments, this is understandable.

Burst Rates and Shutter Capabilities: Catching the Decisive Moment

With fast-moving subjects, frame rates can make a decisive difference.

• Canon 1000D: 3 frames per second (fps) continuous shooting rate, shutter max speed 1/4000 sec

• Olympus E-PM2: 8 fps continuous shooting, shutter max speed 1/4000 sec

As someone who frequently shoots street scenes and children in action, the Olympus’s faster frame rate translated into more keepers with dynamic subjects. The Canon’s 3 fps is conservative, suitable for slower, deliberate shooting.

Neither camera offers silent electronic shutter or very fast shutter speeds beyond 1/4000 sec, so shooting bright scenes often requires ND filters or aperture adjustments.

Image Stabilization and Low Light Ability

One advantage the Olympus PEN E-PM2 offers is sensor-based image stabilization (IBIS). This works with any compatible Micro Four Thirds lens, improving sharpness handheld in low light or at slow shutter speeds.

The Canon 1000D has no in-body stabilization and relies wholly on lens IS where available - many EF-S kit lenses from its era lack this feature.

Practically speaking, the IBIS system allowed me to shoot handheld at shutter speeds 2-3 stops slower than usual without blur on the Olympus, invaluable in dimly lit environments. This is a big edge for travel and indoor shooting.

Regarding low light image quality, the Olympus’s higher max ISO and IBIS combo gives it a distinct advantage over the Canon’s older sensor and lack of stabilization.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Canon 1000D front Canon 1000D screen back Olympus E PM2 front Olympus E PM2 screen back

Canon’s EF and EF-S lens mount supports an enormous lineup of lenses - over 300 options, from budget primes to professional-grade L-series zooms. This extensive ecosystem remains a huge selling point if you plan to grow your kit. I personally often paired the 1000D with the EF-S 18-55mm IS lens for general use, which is versatile and affordable.

The Olympus uses the Micro Four Thirds mount, which also boasts a very wide lens selection (over 100 native lenses), including many compact primes, fast apertures, and stabilized zooms. The smaller sensor and 2.0x crop factor mean slower lenses can deliver equivalent reach in telephoto and macro scenarios.

If portability is a priority, the Micro Four Thirds lenses are generally smaller and lighter than Canon's APS-C range, balancing out the Olympus’s smaller body size.

Video Capabilities: A Functional Contrast

The Canon 1000D does not offer video recording. It was designed before video DSLRs became mainstream and thus lacks video functionality altogether.

Olympus E-PM2 supports 1080p Full HD video at 30fps with MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs, plus features like face detection during video. No headphone or external mic port exists, limiting professional audio capture, but the video quality is surprisingly decent for an entry-level camera. IBIS works in video mode as well, smoothing handheld footage.

For hybrid shooters wanting stills and video, the Olympus is clearly the better option.

Battery Life and Storage

Canon 1000D delivers impressive battery life - rated at about 500 shots per charge using its dedicated battery pack. This is partly due to lack of power-hungry video and simpler LCD controls.

Olympus E-PM2 rates a more modest 360 shots per charge, understandable due to live view reliance, EVF use (if added), and touchscreen.

Both use standard SD cards for storage, although Olympus supports SDXC while Canon sticks to SDHC/SD cards. Neither supports dual slots.

Weather Sealing, Durability, and Reliability

Neither camera features advanced weather sealing or ruggedized builds. Both are best kept away from rain and dust.

The Canon's DSLR shell feels more robust and durable in the hand, suited for steady year-round use. Olympus E-PM2’s compact, plastic-heavy body prioritizes lightness over ruggedness.

For professional fieldwork or heavy outdoor use, neither camera ranks high here, but the Canon’s bulk improves handling in tough conditions.

Price-to-Performance and Value Analysis

• Canon 1000D: Typically priced around $160 secondhand or in budget market segments today. Its entry-level DSLR design, solid image quality for the era, and affordability make it an enticing choice for beginners on a strict budget.

• Olympus E-PM2: Retails around $450, a mid-range price point for an entry-level mirrorless camera with modern features like IBIS and 1080p video. It represents better performance per dollar if you value portability, autofocus speed, and video capability.

How They Perform Across Photography Genres

• Portraits: Canon’s APS-C sensor and pleasing color science deliver natural skin tones and decent background separation with fast lenses. Lack of live view AF and face detection slows workflow. Olympus with face detection AF and IBIS shines here, especially in low light.

• Landscape: Canon’s larger sensor and wide dynamic range provide superior tonal range and very good resolution for printing. Olympus’ higher resolution and dynamic range are also strong, but smaller sensor size limits ISO range and noise control.

• Wildlife: Olympus’ faster continuous AF and 8 fps burst give it an upper hand; however, Canon’s lens selection and longer telephoto options through EF are hard to beat if budget allows.

• Sports: Olympus with faster burst and continuous AF offers better tracking; Canon’s slower 3 fps and basic AF limit usability.

• Street Photography: Olympus’ compact size, silent shutter mode (though limited), and touchscreen make it ideal. Canon’s bulkier DSLR and audible shutter are more conspicuous.

• Macro: Olympus’ IBIS and high-resolution screen help with handheld macro; Canon’s lens choices include excellent macro EF lenses but require solid support for stability.

• Night/Astro: Olympus wins with higher max ISO and sensor stabilization; Canon’s limited ISO and no video restrict options.

• Video: Olympus E-PM2 is the clear winner with Full HD recording, while Canon 1000D lacks video entirely.

• Travel: Olympus’ compact, lightweight design and IBIS enable versatility, while Canon’s battery longevity and out-of-the-box ease hold sway.

• Professional Use: Canon’s solid raw support, widespread lens ecosystem, and reliable DSLR interface appeal to budget-conscious pros; Olympus less so due to less rugged build and niche sensor size.

Overall Performance Scores and Summary

These DxOmark and real-world performance scores reflect their respective strengths and technological generations.

• Canon 1000D: Solid but clearly outdated on high ISO and AF speed.

• Olympus E-PM2: Better modern sensor and performance features for the price.

Final Takeaways: Which Camera Should You Choose?

Choose the Canon 1000D if:

• You want a budget-friendly DSLR offering fundamental photography education.

• You prefer an optical viewfinder with good battery life and solid handling.

• You value access to an extensive EF/EF-S lens lineup potentially from the used market.

• Your shooting will mostly be in daylight and static scenes like portraits or landscapes.

Choose the Olympus E-PM2 if:

• You desire a lightweight, portable camera ideal for street, travel, and casual video.

• You need better autofocus, sensor stabilization, and full HD video recording.

• Low light and video capabilities are important in your shooting plan.

• You want a modern touchscreen interface and face detection for ease of use.

My Personal Verdict

Having spent countless hours with both cameras, let me be clear: the Olympus E-PM2, despite being a bit pricier, represents a significant leap in versatility and modern features. It’s an excellent choice for creative photographers who want a compact body that can handle a variety of genres with ease, especially where autofocus speed, video, and low light performance matter.

The Canon 1000D remains a venerable learner’s DSLR and budget workhorse. If you are just beginning your photographic journey or are on a tight budget, it offers dependable still image quality and a traditional DSLR experience that still imparts valuable fundamentals.

Ultimately, your choice should hinge on your photographic style, budget constraints, and preferences for portability versus traditional handling. Both cameras have their charm and will teach you the fundamentals well.

Through this detailed, hands-on comparison, I hope you now have a clearer roadmap to select the camera that complements your photography workflow and creative aspirations.

Happy shooting!

End of Review