Canon EOS M3 vs Olympus PEN E-PL2: An Expert Comparison for the Discerning Photographer

Choosing between two entry-level mirrorless cameras from different generations and sensor formats is always a nuanced exercise. The Canon EOS M3, launched in early 2015, offers a solid APS-C sensor and modern usability features, while the Olympus PEN E-PL2, dating back to 2011 and sporting a Four Thirds sensor, brings a compact form factor and sensor stabilization into the mix. Having personally tested thousands of cameras across genres, I’m excited to take both of these through their paces in equal measure to guide photographers - from enthusiasts considering an upgrade to pros seeking a capable backup - through their strengths, weaknesses, and practical applications.

Let's unpack each contender carefully, then evaluate how they fare across today’s popular photography styles and user expectations.

Size Matters: Handling and Ergonomics in Real-World Use

We often overlook how size and grip influence shooting experience until a camera is in hand. The Canon M3, built with a 2015 design sensibility, aims to balance compactness with usability, whereas the Olympus E-PL2’s older Micro Four Thirds body is notably svelte and minimalist.

The Canon M3 measures approximately 111×68×44 mm and weighs 366 grams, while the Olympus E-PL2 is very close at 114×72×42 mm and 362 grams. The difference is negligible on paper, but the ergonomics tell a different story. The M3 offers a pronounced grip, which benefits photographers shooting for longer periods or using larger lenses. Its rangefinder-style body accommodates a thumb rest towards the rear, providing better balance - particularly useful when pairing with telephoto or portrait lenses.

In contrast, Olympus’s PEN E-PL2 adopts a much more minimalist, flat-front design, lacking a significant grip. This can make it tricky for users with larger hands or when using manual focus lenses frequently. However, its slim profile works well for street, travel, and casual photography where discretion and portability take priority.

Both cameras include a built-in flash, albeit with different ranges and flash mode options, but neither is robustly weather-sealed or ruggedized. So, outdoor shooting demands care with either model.

Control Layout and User Interface: Sophistication Meets Simplicity

Reviewing the cameras’ top plates is revealing for understanding user interaction and operational speed.

The Canon M3 incorporates a more modern control layout with dedicated dials for exposure compensation and drive modes, plus a tactile mode dial that includes priority and manual exposures. It also features a better-placed shutter button and a responsiveness that shines during intermittent shooting. The real standout is its touchscreen LCD, which vastly improves menu navigation and focus selection, something that the E-PL2 sorely lacks.

Speaking of the Olympus, the PEN E-PL2 maintains a very simple and clean top layout. It has fewer physical dials and leans heavily on menu navigation for settings adjustments. There’s no touchscreen, and the rear LCD is non-articulated and lower resolution. This older design reflects its era and target market: newcomers who prefer a straightforward point-and-shoot workflow. However, for enthusiasts who like fast manual control and mid-session tweaks, the M3 feels more fluid and hands-on.

The Heart of the Image: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

Here lies one of the primary differentiators between these two mirrorless cameras: sensor size and resolution. Canon’s M3 sports a 24MP APS-C CMOS sensor, whereas Olympus’s E-PL2 comes with a 12MP Four Thirds sensor. Let’s delve deeper.

The Canon sensor measures 22.3×14.9 mm, offering an area of roughly 332.27 mm², almost 50% larger than Olympus’s 17.3×13 mm Four Thirds sensor area of 224.9 mm². This larger sensor not only enables higher resolution - 6000x4000 pixels versus Olympus’s 4032x3024 - but also lends itself to shallower depth of field and superior low-light performance.

According to DXOMark’s scores, the Canon M3 tops Olympus with an overall score of 72 compared to 55. Specifically, the Canon scores significantly higher in color depth (22.8 vs. 21.4), dynamic range (11.8 vs. 10.2), and low-light ISO performance (1169 vs. 573). In real shooting, this translates into better skin tone rendition, richer colors, and more latitude in post-processing, making the Canon the stronger tool for demanding portrait and landscape photographers alike.

That said, the Olympus sensor is not without merit. Its native ISO ceiling is 6400, which is respectable for an older sensor, and the built-in sensor stabilization (IBIS) somewhat compensates for noisier high-ISO shots by allowing slower shutter speeds without blur - a boon for macro and handheld shooting.

The presence of an anti-aliasing filter on both sensors slightly blunts their ultimate resolution potential, but this was typical for their release epochs.

Display and Viewfinders: Seeing Your Shot

Both cameras rely heavily on LCD screens for composition, though image framing aids differ.

The Canon EOS M3 features a 3.0-inch tilting touchscreen with 1,040k dots resolution. This screen is bright, responsive, and extremely helpful for composing shots from high or low angles. Touch autofocus and menu navigation significantly enhance usability - especially in fast-paced environments like street or event photography.

The Olympus E-PL2’s 3.0-inch screen is fixed (non-articulating), with a lower 460k dot resolution. Without touchscreen capabilities, this display requires reliance on physical buttons for navigation, which can slow adjustments. While its HyperCrystal AR coating reduces reflections in bright conditions, its lower resolution sometimes hampers critical focusing assessment.

Neither camera includes a built-in electronic viewfinder (EVF), but optional EVFs can be attached. Given the rapid eye detection and tracking capabilities of newer mirrorless models, this is a limiting factor for both cameras. Users spending a lot of time outdoors or in bright sunlight might find their framing and focus confirmation compromised.

Autofocus Systems: Fast and Accurate or Modest Entry-Level?

Autofocus (AF) capabilities are crucial for many photography styles, especially wildlife, sports, and event shooting. Here, we see a notable distinction.

The Canon M3 features a hybrid AF system with 49 focus points, including phase-detection and contrast-detection pixels. This significantly improves speed and accuracy. Plus, it supports continuous AF with face-detection, even in live view and video modes, making it versatile for everyday and creative scenarios.

The Olympus E-PL2, meanwhile, relies exclusively on contrast-detection autofocus with just 11 focus points. It lacks phase detection and eye detection AF. This system is slower and less reliable under low light or with moving subjects.

In hands-on field testing, the Canon M3’s AF hunted far less and locked onto subjects more quickly, performing admirably tracking slow-moving wildlife or people. The Olympus, while capable of nailing static or slow-moving subjects, struggles with fluid tracking and burst shooting, limiting its effectiveness for sports or fast action.

Burst Rates and Buffering: Capturing the Decisive Moment

Fast frame rates and buffering capacity become critical when shooting action sports, wildlife, or decisive moments.

Canon M3 delivers a max continuous shooting speed of 4.2 fps, while the Olympus lags at 3 fps. Although neither matches the blazing speeds of high-end mirrorless or DSLRs, the M3’s slight advantage provides more frames per second when capturing fleeting moments.

In practical use, the Canon’s buffer fills slower and clears faster, letting you maintain shooting longer without frustration. Olympus’s older processor and storage interface slow things down more noticeably. For photojournalists or sports shooters on a budget, these differences can impact image selection and coverage depth.

Lens Ecosystem: Compatibility and Variety

Lens choice directly affects creativity and image quality.

Canon’s EF-M mount offers 23 native lenses from Canon, covering a reasonable range of primes and zooms. However, the EF-M lens ecosystem remains relatively limited compared to Canon’s main EF and EF-S DSLR lenses. The workaround - using an adapter - opens access to Canon’s extensive DSLR glass, but at the cost of added bulk and less autofocus speed.

Olympus leverages the Micro Four Thirds mount, shared with Panasonic and others, boasting over 100 compatible lenses. From ultra-wide to super-telephoto, plus a strong lineup of macro and specialty lenses, this ecosystem is well-developed and affordable relative to full-frame options.

While the Canon M3’s APS-C sensor enjoys a natural advantage in resolution and image quality, Olympus’s broader lens range and built-in stabilization may sway photographers seeking compact versatility with extensive optics.

Image Stabilization: Stabilizing Without Shakes

The Olympus E-PL2 includes in-body sensor stabilization, which compensates for camera shake by moving the sensor itself in 3-5 axes depending on implementation. While newer versions are more effective, even this generation aids in handheld shooting especially useful in macro, low light, and telephoto applications.

Canon EOS M3, by contrast, lacks in-body stabilization. Its image stabilization depends on lenses with built-in IS (optical stabilization). Many EF-M lenses include IS, but it’s still lens dependent and less versatile than sensor-level correction.

For handheld travel and approaching challenging light without a tripod, Olympus’s approach shines.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long and How Much?

Not often glamorous, but battery and storage performance are critical for extended shoots and travel.

Canon M3 uses the LP-E17 battery, rated for about 250 shots per charge. Olympus E-PL2’s BLS-5 battery lasts slightly longer at 280 shots, but in practical terms, both require spare batteries for day-long usage.

Each camera has a single SD card slot supporting SDHC/SDXC cards. File write speeds are adequate but slower by today’s standards.

If you shoot video or continuous burst often, prepare for frequent card formatting and recharging.

Video Capabilities: From Vlogs to Cinematic Ambitions

Video remains a vital secondary function for many photographers.

Canon M3 supports Full HD 1080p recording at 30, 25, and 24 fps, with H.264 compression. It also features a microphone input for higher quality sound, which is a rarity in entry-level models at its price point.

Olympus E-PL2 tops out at 720p HD at 30 fps, with Motion JPEG format. It lacks a microphone port, limiting audio quality options.

Neither camera provides 4K video. For content creators with modest video needs, the Canon’s better resolution, codec, and audio connectivity deliver a more flexible package.

Shooting Styles and Use Cases: Matching Cameras to Photography Genres

Bringing all factors together, we can examine which camera proves stronger in various real-world scenarios.

Canon M3 front Canon M3 screen back Olympus E PL2 front Olympus E PL2 screen back

We can see sample crops exhibit Canon’s cleaner high ISO and more detailed files, especially evident in low light portraits and landscapes - a tribute to the APS-C sensor's inherent advantages.

Performance Ratings and Industry Benchmarks

Bringing numeric scores into the picture allows objective comparison.

Canon M3’s DXOmark score of 72 outstrips Olympus’s 55 by a comfortable margin, confirming our empirical observations. Color fidelity, dynamic range, and low-light capabilities pull the Canon ahead, while Olympus’s sensor stabilization and lens ecosystem soften the difference.

For specific genres:

Portrait, landscape, and night photography ratings favor Canon, while macro and travel edge towards Olympus thanks to stabilization and size.

Connectivity and Modern Features: Bridges to the Digital Workflow

The Canon EOS M3 includes built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, facilitating quick image transfer to smartphones or cloud storage - a boon for social media enthusiasts and modern workflows.

The Olympus E-PL2, being an older generation, lacks any wireless connectivity, compelling users to remove SD cards or use wired USB transfers. For photographers engaged with fast sharing or remote control via apps, the M3’s connectivity is an important convenience.

Neither camera has GPS or Bluetooth, limiting geotagging and accessory control.

Summing Up: Who Should Choose Which Camera?

Both cameras have notable merits, and your decision boils down to your priorities, budget, and shooting affinity.

Choose Canon EOS M3 if you:

• Demand higher image quality, particularly for portraits, landscapes, or events.
• Want faster autofocus with eye detection for humans.
• Crave Full HD video with external mic inputs.
• Appreciate touchscreen controls and wireless image sharing.
• Don’t mind a slightly larger body for better handling.

Choose Olympus PEN E-PL2 if you:

• Prioritize portability and discreet shooting (street, travel).
• Rely heavily on in-body stabilization, beneficial in low-light and macro.
• Want access to an extensive Micro Four Thirds lens lineup.
• Operate on a tight budget or need a simple, straightforward camera.
• Don’t need advanced AF or video capabilities.

Final Thoughts: Balancing Legacy and Modernity in Entry-Level Mirrorless

In reviewing these cameras side by side, I’m reminded how quickly mirrorless technology has evolved and how much sensor size still matters in image quality. The Canon EOS M3, despite its age, punches well above its weight class - offering features aimed at the enthusiast level with a modern user experience. The Olympus PEN E-PL2 embodies the Micro Four Thirds philosophy of compactness and versatility but can’t quite keep pace where speed and resolution count.

For photographers seeking the best all-around performance with room to grow, the Canon M3 remains a compelling pick. Conversely, budget-conscious or travel-focused photographers might find the smaller and simpler Olympus E-PL2 an easier daily driver.

Whichever side you lean on, understanding these nuanced trade-offs is key. After all, the best camera is the one that fits your creative vision and shooting style most comfortably.

This comprehensive comparison draws from hands-on testing, sensor benchmarks, and field shooting to provide photographers with an informed roadmap - feel free to dive deeper and let your hands confirm what your eyes read here.