Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320
85 Imaging
47 Features
47 Overall
47
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0db25/0db25b50f5db0e38bf19b46696bb0e06a463d704" alt="Olympus PEN E-PL2 front Olympus PEN E-PL2 front"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f3ced/f3cedb69b934f7169f253825ad9ca28abd57cd22" alt="Olympus TG-320 front Olympus TG-320 front"
94 Imaging
37 Features
33 Overall
35
Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 12MP - Four Thirds Sensor
- 3" Fixed Display
- ISO 100 - 6400
- Sensor based Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- Micro Four Thirds Mount
- 362g - 114 x 72 x 42mm
- Introduced February 2011
- Superseded the Olympus E-PL1s
- Later Model is Olympus E-PL3
(Full Review)
- 14MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 2.7" Fixed Screen
- ISO 80 - 1600
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 28-102mm (F3.5-5.1) lens
- 155g - 96 x 63 x 23mm
- Announced January 2012
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9df93/9df93b830615ba08ba0f7e31492fca23710a884c" alt=""
Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Overview
On this page, we will be evaluating the Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320, former being a Entry-Level Mirrorless while the latter is a Waterproof and both of them are sold by Olympus. The image resolution of the E-PL2 (12MP) and the TG-320 (14MP) is relatively comparable but the E-PL2 (Four Thirds) and TG-320 (1/2.3") offer totally different sensor sizing.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40b17/40b178b2c2a7887c950c5d80f9aa0bc017ad9376" alt=""
The E-PL2 was brought out 11 months earlier than the TG-320 which means that they are both of a similar age. Both cameras have different body design with the Olympus E-PL2 being a Rangefinder-style mirrorless camera and the Olympus TG-320 being a Compact camera.
Before delving into a comprehensive comparison, here is a short synopsis of how the E-PL2 grades versus the TG-320 when considering portability, imaging, features and an overall rating.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85299/85299aa0d77ee8b6a2d3435fdb68ab0ccaabf584" alt=""
Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Gallery
Following is a preview of the gallery photos for Olympus PEN E-PL2 & Olympus TG-320. The entire galleries are viewable at Olympus E-PL2 Gallery & Olympus TG-320 Gallery.
Reasons to pick Olympus E-PL2 over the Olympus TG-320
E-PL2 | TG-320 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Manual focus | ![]() | Very accurate focusing | ||
Screen dimensions | 3" | ![]() | 2.7" | Bigger screen (+0.3") |
Screen resolution | 460k | ![]() | 230k | Sharper screen (+230k dot) |
Reasons to pick Olympus TG-320 over the Olympus E-PL2
TG-320 | E-PL2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Announced | January 2012 | ![]() | February 2011 | Fresher by 11 months |
Common features in the Olympus E-PL2 and Olympus TG-320
E-PL2 | TG-320 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Screen type | Fixed | ![]() | Fixed | Fixed screen |
Selfie screen | ![]() | Neither contains selfie screen | ||
Touch screen | ![]() | Neither contains Touch screen |
Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Physical Comparison
For anyone who is going to carry your camera often, you have to factor in its weight and size. The Olympus E-PL2 has got outer dimensions of 114mm x 72mm x 42mm (4.5" x 2.8" x 1.7") accompanied by a weight of 362 grams (0.80 lbs) whilst the Olympus TG-320 has specifications of 96mm x 63mm x 23mm (3.8" x 2.5" x 0.9") accompanied by a weight of 155 grams (0.34 lbs).
Check the Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 in our brand new Camera & Lens Size Comparison Tool.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6ef8/a6ef8f16e8deba30cb986caafd44d83681e96a75" alt="Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses"
Take into consideration, the weight of an ILC will change dependant on the lens you are utilising at the time. Following is a front view sizing comparison of the E-PL2 and the TG-320.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19f46/19f46853b2152baea9328ae86eb51321dd3a05d9" alt="Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 size comparison Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 size comparison"
Using dimensions and weight, the portability score of the E-PL2 and TG-320 is 85 and 94 respectively.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a40e/3a40e64e122f9c5a26d3c1e453c0ba4da996f2f9" alt="Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 top view buttons comparison Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 top view buttons comparison"
Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Sensor Comparison
Normally, it is hard to see the difference in sensor sizing just by going through technical specs. The visual below may give you a stronger sense of the sensor sizes in the E-PL2 and TG-320.
As you have seen, the 2 cameras provide different megapixel count and different sensor sizing. The E-PL2 featuring a bigger sensor will make shooting shallower DOF easier and the Olympus TG-320 will show extra detail having its extra 2 Megapixels. Higher resolution will enable you to crop photographs more aggressively. The older E-PL2 will be disadvantaged when it comes to sensor innovation.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e983e/e983ebfb05873f03ca523da201a880da344c5f6d" alt="Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 sensor size comparison Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 sensor size comparison"
Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Screen and ViewFinder
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4126a/4126a822bd2a5350e00839ff0c69fb5675960d62" alt="Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Screen and Viewfinder comparison Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Screen and Viewfinder comparison"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfda9/bfda97b4ea42610c4d033bdc3102b7af07982c04" alt=""
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8876b/8876ba1234536f7f948b3ad54614ecbba59fd0b6" alt=""
Street Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/427ef/427ef51d855b8f8d8523699aa2b0465afb765511" alt=""
Sports Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09f89/09f89c6b5dc0c8e793ce323afb658e7f43d45612" alt=""
Travel Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d588/6d5886e45f6ed46a44c58516180e79dc4c09297f" alt=""
Landscape Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3338/c3338e925c8d47c26e739e490d039a1411046530" alt=""
Vlogging Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fad8/4fad8be6e5d8cb84d21f21424f73546c57bfca20" alt=""
Olympus E-PL2 vs Olympus TG-320 Specifications
Olympus PEN E-PL2 | Olympus TG-320 | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Manufacturer | Olympus | Olympus |
Model | Olympus PEN E-PL2 | Olympus TG-320 |
Category | Entry-Level Mirrorless | Waterproof |
Introduced | 2011-02-11 | 2012-01-10 |
Body design | Rangefinder-style mirrorless | Compact |
Sensor Information | ||
Processor | Truepic V | TruePic III+ |
Sensor type | CMOS | CCD |
Sensor size | Four Thirds | 1/2.3" |
Sensor measurements | 17.3 x 13mm | 6.17 x 4.55mm |
Sensor surface area | 224.9mm² | 28.1mm² |
Sensor resolution | 12 megapixels | 14 megapixels |
Anti aliasing filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 4:3 | - |
Highest resolution | 4032 x 3024 | 4288 x 3216 |
Highest native ISO | 6400 | 1600 |
Minimum native ISO | 100 | 80 |
RAW format | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Focus manually | ||
Touch focus | ||
Autofocus continuous | ||
Autofocus single | ||
Autofocus tracking | ||
Autofocus selectice | ||
Center weighted autofocus | ||
Multi area autofocus | ||
Live view autofocus | ||
Face detect focus | ||
Contract detect focus | ||
Phase detect focus | ||
Number of focus points | 11 | - |
Cross focus points | - | - |
Lens | ||
Lens mounting type | Micro Four Thirds | fixed lens |
Lens focal range | - | 28-102mm (3.6x) |
Highest aperture | - | f/3.5-5.1 |
Macro focus range | - | 3cm |
Available lenses | 107 | - |
Crop factor | 2.1 | 5.8 |
Screen | ||
Display type | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
Display sizing | 3" | 2.7" |
Resolution of display | 460 thousand dot | 230 thousand dot |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch friendly | ||
Display tech | HyperCrystal LCD AR(Anti-Reflective) coating | TFT Color LCD |
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder | Electronic (optional) | None |
Features | ||
Lowest shutter speed | 60 seconds | 4 seconds |
Highest shutter speed | 1/4000 seconds | 1/2000 seconds |
Continuous shooting speed | 3.0 frames/s | 1.0 frames/s |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Expose Manually | ||
Exposure compensation | Yes | - |
Custom white balance | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Inbuilt flash | ||
Flash range | 10.00 m | 5.80 m |
Flash modes | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in, Slow Sync, Manual (3 levels) | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye, Fill-in |
External flash | ||
AE bracketing | ||
WB bracketing | ||
Highest flash sync | 1/160 seconds | - |
Exposure | ||
Multisegment | ||
Average | ||
Spot | ||
Partial | ||
AF area | ||
Center weighted | ||
Video features | ||
Supported video resolutions | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps) | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps), 320 x 180 (30fps) |
Highest video resolution | 1280x720 | 1280x720 |
Video file format | Motion JPEG | MPEG-4, H.264 |
Microphone input | ||
Headphone input | ||
Connectivity | ||
Wireless | None | None |
Bluetooth | ||
NFC | ||
HDMI | ||
USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
GPS | None | None |
Physical | ||
Environment seal | ||
Water proof | ||
Dust proof | ||
Shock proof | ||
Crush proof | ||
Freeze proof | ||
Weight | 362g (0.80 lb) | 155g (0.34 lb) |
Physical dimensions | 114 x 72 x 42mm (4.5" x 2.8" x 1.7") | 96 x 63 x 23mm (3.8" x 2.5" x 0.9") |
DXO scores | ||
DXO All around score | 55 | not tested |
DXO Color Depth score | 21.4 | not tested |
DXO Dynamic range score | 10.2 | not tested |
DXO Low light score | 573 | not tested |
Other | ||
Battery life | 280 images | 150 images |
Form of battery | Battery Pack | Battery Pack |
Battery model | BLS-5 | LI-42B |
Self timer | Yes (2 or 12 sec) | Yes (2 or 12 sec, pet auto shutter) |
Time lapse recording | ||
Storage media | SD/SDHC | SD/SDHC/SDXC |
Storage slots | 1 | 1 |
Cost at launch | $0 | $0 |