Olympus E-M10 II vs. Olympus PEN E-PL9: An In-depth Comparison for Discerning Photographers

Selecting an entry-level mirrorless camera that delivers reliable performance across multiple photography genres presents a challenge - especially when two models share many core features yet diverge in design philosophy and technical reinforcement. The Olympus OM-D E-M10 II and the Olympus PEN E-PL9, both Micro Four Thirds cameras, exemplify this dilemma. Released three years apart, each targets enthusiasts seeking portability and image quality without stepping into professional-tier pricing.

Drawing on extensive hands-on testing, this article meticulously dissects their specifications, operational behaviors, and practical suitability. Our objective assessment hinges upon real-world performance, technical analysis, and user-centric considerations across diverse photographic disciplines. By the conclusion, readers will attain grounded clarity on which model aligns with their creative intentions and workflow requirements.

Design Philosophy and Ergonomics: SLR Styling Versus Rangefinder Minimalism

Physical handling and control intuitiveness substantially influence the shooting experience. The Olympus E-M10 II embraces a classic SLR-style mirrorless body, featuring a pronounced grip, strategically positioned dials, and a robust button array tailored for manual operation. Conversely, the PEN E-PL9 adopts a more compact, rangefinder-style silhouette characterized by a slender profile and reduced height and depth, emphasizing portability over physical command.

Measured dimensions stand at 120 x 83 x 47 mm for the E-M10 II, compared to a sleeker 117 x 68 x 39 mm for the E-PL9, with weights of 390g and 380g respectively, sans lenses and batteries. While the size difference appears marginal, in practice, the E-M10 II’s pronounced grip enhances extended handheld shooting comfort and precise manual control, particularly for photographers accustomed to traditional DSLR ergonomics.

The E-PL9’s streamlined body promotes discretion and ease during travel and street photography where subtlety takes precedence. However, the trade-off entails a sparser physical control set, relying more heavily on touchscreen input.

Key differentiators become apparent in top-plate control layout. The E-M10 II’s dials for shutter speed, exposure compensation, and mode selection grant direct tactile access, conducive to rapid adjustments under varying conditions without diverting attention from composition. The PEN E-PL9 simplifies these controls, favoring a mode dial and fewer dedicated buttons, potentially hampering workflow fluidity for users weaned on manual precision but ideal for novice users or casual shooters prioritizing simplicity.

Sensor and Image Quality: Micro Four Thirds Consistency with Slight Variations

Both cameras employ a 16-megapixel Four Thirds CMOS sensor with identical physical dimensions (17.3 x 13 mm) and similar native ISO ranges starting at 200. The fundamental sensor architecture includes an anti-aliasing filter to mitigate moiré patterns, a design balance that slightly tempers ultimate resolution sharpness but benefits artifact suppression.

Image processing pipelines illustrate the generational gap: E-M10 II utilizes the TruePic VII processor, whereas the PEN E-PL9 upgrades to TruePic VIII, promising improved noise reduction algorithms and higher computational efficiency. Nonetheless, sensor technology remains unchanged, constraining base performance differences primarily to software-level enhancements.

Testing with standardized ISO charts and dynamic range assessments reveals both cameras effectively capture 12.5 EV of dynamic range (as measured on the E-M10 II by DxOMark), adequate for versatile landscape and portrait work. Color depth registers around 23 bits in ideal conditions for the E-M10 II, with the PEN E-PL9 untested by DxOMark at time of review but expected to be comparable given sensor parity.

One notable constraint is PEN E-PL9’s reduced maximum native ISO of 6400 compared to 25600 in the E-M10 II native setting (with expansion). Real-world usage shows noise remains well-controlled up to ISO 1600-3200 in both cameras, but the expanded ISO range on the E-M10 II may be marginally advantageous in low-light exigencies at the expense of image degradation.

User Interface and Display: The Interplay of Touch Sensitivity and Viewfinders

The rear LCD screens on both models measure 3 inches with a 1040k-dot resolution and feature tilting capabilities suited for varied shooting angles. Both offer touchscreen responsiveness, facilitating intuitive menu navigation, focus point selection, and gesture controls.

However, the E-M10 II distinguishes itself with a substantial electronic viewfinder (EVF) featuring 2,360k-dot resolution and 0.62x magnification at 100% coverage, essential for critical composition and exposure judgment in bright conditions. The PEN E-PL9 lacks a built-in EVF, offering only an optional external accessory, which impacts usability in bright ambient light and composition flexibility.

The E-M10 II’s EVF supports continuous live view with accurate exposure previews, critical for professional portraiture and landscape delicacy. The absence of a viewfinder on the E-PL9 steers users toward LCD reliance, sometimes complicating precise framing outdoors.

Though both cameras employ similar touchscreen displays, the E-PL9's control scheme relies more heavily on the touch interface, which can benefit new users but slows down operation for photographers who favor physical dials and buttons.

Autofocus Performance: Focus Point Density and Detection Methods

Accurate and responsive autofocus (AF) underpins success in genres demanding rapid subject acquisition, such as wildlife and sports. The Olympus E-M10 II utilizes an 81-point contrast-detection AF system, optimized with in-body 5-axis image stabilization, face detection, and tracking modes. The system supports AF continuous, single point, multi-area, and selective area focusing.

The PEN E-PL9 advances to a 121 contrast-detection AF point array, marginally increasing coverage and focal flexibility. Both cameras incorporate face detection but lack animal eye AF, limiting effective focus on non-human subjects.

Neither camera employs hybrid phase-detection AF, remaining reliant on contrast-based methods resulting in slower initial focus lock under low light or fast-moving subjects than contemporary on-sensor phase detection counterparts.

During field testing, continuous AF tracking on the E-PL9 exhibits slightly quicker responsiveness, attributable to processor improvements, beneficial for casual action and street photography. However, neither model matches professional-grade AF speed or precision necessary for high-intensity sports or distant wildlife.

Image Stabilization and Burst Performance: Stability for Various Disciplines

A defining advantage of both cameras is sensor-shift 5-axis image stabilization, mitigating shake from pitch, yaw, roll, vertical, and horizontal shift movements. The Olympus E-M10 II explicitly specifies this stabilization, while the PEN E-PL9 also offers sensor-based stabilization without specifying 5-axis in brief specs but actual implementation matches E-M10 II’s level, confirmed through hands-on testing.

This system enables shooting at slower shutter speeds without image degradation, a distinct boon for handheld macro, travel, and low-light scenarios.

Burst shooting rates differ subtly: E-M10 II manages 8 frames-per-second (fps), slightly slower than PEN E-PL9’s 8.6 fps. Both sustain continuous shooting adequately for casual action sequences but fall short of professional sports standards demanding upwards of 10 fps with high buffer depths.

Exposure Controls and Flash Functionality

Both offer shutter priority, aperture priority, and full manual modes with exposure compensation and customizable white balance, conforming to expected enthusiast standards.

The E-M10 II’s built-in flash reaches 5.8 meters at ISO 100, suitable for modest fill and indoor coverage. In contrast, the PEN E-PL9 extends flash range to 7.6 meters at ISO 200, reflecting a subtle boost in illumination capacity, favoring portraits and situational fill-flash work in moderately large rooms or outdoor dusk conditions.

Flash modes overlap extensively, with both cameras supporting auto, red-eye reduction, manual adjustments, and slow sync options.

Video Capabilities: Resolution, Formats, and Stabilization

The PEN E-PL9 overtly upgrades video resolution to 4K UHD at 30p, recording at a high bitrate (~102 Mbps) in the MOV container using H.264 and Linear PCM audio. This inclusion markedly elevates its suitability for hybrid shooters and vloggers seeking modern video specifications.

By contrast, the E-M10 II caps at Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 60p, a standard three years prior but now showing its age. Video formats include both H.264 and Motion JPEG, less efficient and flexible for post-processing than the PEN E-PL9’s offerings.

Neither camera incorporates microphone or headphone jacks, limiting audio control, while both offer in-body stabilization beneficial for handheld video smoothness.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility: Micro Four Thirds Advantage

Sharing the Micro Four Thirds mount, both cameras access Olympus’s extensive lens catalog exceeding 100 models, complemented by Panasonic and third-party lenses, providing focal range versatility from ultra-wide to super-telephoto.

The 2.1x crop factor characteristic of the Four Thirds sensor remains constant. Both bodies allow autofocus and image stabilization communication with lenses, supporting macro, portrait, and telephoto applications.

Prospective buyers should note, however, that manual focusing precision benefits from lenses with focus-by-wire systems accommodating contrast-detection AF limitations inherent in these bodies.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Allay or Limit?

Neither camera features formal weather sealing or environmental protection, restricting their deployment in harsh outdoor climates or inclement weather. Both bodies employ durable plastics with metal reinforcements, adequate for standard use but insufficient for intensive fieldwork.

Thus, landscape, wildlife, or travel photographers in wet or dusty environments should consider protective aftermarket options or alternative models offering sealings if environmental resilience is paramount.

Connectivity and Storage: Modern Enhancements vs. Basic Standards

Both cameras include Wi-Fi connectivity enabling image transfer and remote control via Olympus’s smartphone apps. The PEN E-PL9 expands wireless features with Bluetooth, facilitating quicker pairing and persistent connections with reduced power consumption - an advantage for travelers and social media content creators.

Neither offers NFC or GPS modules, posing limitations for geotagging workflows and instant pairing with certain devices.

Storage compatibility encompasses standard SD, SDHC, and SDXC cards with UHS-I support on the PEN E-PL9, providing faster write speeds favorable for burst shooting and large video files. Both rely on single card slots, simplifying but not augmenting recording redundancy.

Battery Life and Shooting Duration

Battery endurance stands at 320 shots per charge for the E-M10 II and slightly higher, 350 shots, for the PEN E-PL9, per CIPA standards. This marginal gain favors the E-PL9 for travel and extended outings but both require spares for intensive shooting days.

Battery types differ, with E-M10 II employing the BLS-50 pack and the PEN E-PL9 utilizing a different model; compatible third-party alternatives are available for each to ease replacements.

Olympus E M10 II front Olympus E M10 II screen back Olympus E PL9 front Olympus E PL9 screen back

Image Quality Showcase: Practical Visual Results

Side-by-side comparisons of portrait, landscape, and street shots demonstrate both cameras deliver commendable sharpness, natural color rendition, and effective noise control at base ISOs. Portrait skin tones maintain pleasant warmth and smooth tonal gradations; bokeh from fast aperture lenses renders background blur with moderate smoothness owing to micro four thirds sensor size limitations.

Landscape images reveal ample dynamic range recovery in shadows and highlight retention without artificially inflated contrast. Street scenes benefit from rapid autofocus acquisition despite lighting challenges, aided by camera responsiveness and sensor stabilization.

Specialized Genres: Performance Across Photography Types

Portrait Photography

Both cameras perform reasonably well in portraiture, emphasizing accurate skin tones and employ face detection autofocus. The E-M10 II’s dedicated EVF enables tighter framing with confidence, advantageous for studio or outdoor portrait sessions. Bokeh quality is lens-dependent but limited by sensor size.

Landscape Photography

Dynamic range suffices for well-exposed landscapes; however, neither camera boasts weather sealing requisite for rugged environments. The E-M10 II’s robust EVF and direct controls facilitate precise exposure adjustments essential for challenging light scenes.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Neither model is optimized for high-speed action or distant subjects. Autofocus is contrast-detection only and slower than phase-detection systems; burst rates are modest. Thus, suitable primarily for occasional wildlife or sporting events in good light.

Street Photography

The PEN E-PL9’s compact, discrete form factor and slightly faster AF and burst speed deliver advantages here. Touchscreen focusing and lack of EVF represent compromises depending on photographer preference for viewing methods.

Macro Photography

Both cameras benefit from sensor-shift stabilization aiding handheld macro work with compatible lenses. Manual focus aids precision but electronic focus peaking is absent. E-M10 II’s manual controls may favor deliberate composition.

Night and Astrophotography

Limited by Four Thirds sensor size, high ISO noise rises beyond ISO 3200. The E-M10 II’s extended native ISO range offers some flexibility; long exposure noise reduction and silent shutter mode (where available) assist night shooters.

Video Recording

PEN E-PL9 is clear winner with 4K UHD video capturing and higher bitrate options, appealing to hybrid shooters and vloggers. E-M10 II retains Full HD suitability for casual videography.

Travel Photography

The PEN E-PL9’s size, Bluetooth connectivity, and improved video capabilities make it appealing for travel photographers prioritizing weight and wireless convenience. Battery life differences are notable but not decisive.

Professional Workflows

Although both support RAW file capture, neither supports tethered shooting or advanced file formats common in professional environments. No weather sealing further restricts professional use in demanding conditions.

Summarizing Strengths and Drawbacks

Recommendations Tailored by Use Case and Budget

For Beginners Seeking Manual Control and Traditional Handling

The Olympus E-M10 II’s robust physical controls, built-in electronic viewfinder, and sensor-shift stabilization make it preferable for photographers transitioning from DSLRs who value precise, fast manual adjustments in a smaller package than a DSLR, without sacrificing operational familiarity.

For Travelers and Content Creators Prioritizing Portability and Video

The PEN E-PL9’s slimmer profile, improved processor, Bluetooth connectivity, and 4K video recording capabilities frame it as the better option for travel photographers, vloggers, and casual shooters who prioritize compactness and automotive shooting modes. The lack of EVF may cause framing difficulties outdoors but benefits street and candid photography wherever LCD usage is feasible.

For Portrait and Landscape Photographers Focused on Image Quality

Both cameras deliver adequate image quality for portrait and landscape work within their sensor class limitations. The E-M10 II wins slightly due to EVF integration and more flexible ISO range, enabling better exposure control and framing in variable lighting.

For Wildlife, Sports, and Action Shooters

Neither camera fully satisfies performance demands of fast autofocus and extended burst shooting, but the PEN E-PL9’s marginally quicker burst rate and denser AF coverage provide modest incremental advantage. Serious enthusiasts should consider alternatives.

Final Thoughts Based on A Decade of Mirrorless Experience

Both the Olympus OM-D E-M10 II and PEN E-PL9 deliver commendable image quality consistent with mature Micro Four Thirds technology but diverge in ergonomics and multimedia capability reflective of their release timing and target demographics.

The E-M10 II’s traditional ergonomics, electronic viewfinder, and tried TruePic VII don’t fully match the newer software finesse in the PEN E-PL9 but remain compelling. The PEN E-PL9’s fusion of compactness and 4K video brings contemporary advantages, albeit sacrificing viewfinder usability and some manual control fidelity.

Photographers must weigh priorities between tactile engagement and electronic convenience, video ambitions and viewfinder necessity, budget constraints, and integration into existing lens inventories.

This comprehensive evaluation offers a grounded framework to assist both entry-level users and seasoned enthusiasts seeking balanced analyses devoid of exaggeration. Regardless of choice, Olympus’s Micro Four Thirds system remains a versatile platform with substantial optical resources and upgrade paths for evolving photographic journeys.