Olympus PEN E-PL5 vs. E-PL7: An Expert Comparative Analysis for Photography Enthusiasts

Selecting an entry-level mirrorless camera often involves balancing features, ergonomics, image quality, and price. Olympus’ PEN E-PL series has long catered to photography enthusiasts seeking compact design paired with competent optics and imaging capabilities. Within this lineage, the PEN E-PL5 (2012) and the PEN E-PL7 (2014) represent two successive generations offering refinements and new technologies.

This in-depth comparison evaluates these two models across all major photographic disciplines, with detailed technical appraisals grounded in hands-on testing experience. Our aim is to provide rigorous, unbiased insights that assist both beginners upgrading within Olympus’ ecosystem and seasoned photographers considering system augmentations.

Ergonomics and Physical Handling: Size, Control Layout, and Build Quality

At first glance, both cameras share the typical rangefinder-style mirrorless body with Micro Four Thirds mount. However, a closer examination reveals subtle but meaningful differences impacting usability and grip comfort.

Dimensions and Weight

• E-PL5: 111 x 64 x 38 mm; 325 g
• E-PL7: 115 x 67 x 38 mm; 357 g

The E-PL7 is slightly larger and heavier, owing largely to a beefed-up chassis and additional features. For photographers prioritizing portability, the E-PL5’s more compact footprint and 32-gram lighter weight confer an advantage, especially for street and travel shooting where discretion and packability matter.

Controls and Handling

• Both models employ tilting rear LCDs (3-inch), but with varied resolutions and UI responsiveness (discussed later).
• The E-PL7 features 81 autofocus points versus 35 on the E-PL5, necessitating additional buttons and navigation features to handle the AF system, impacting button placement and tactile feel.
• Neither camera has a built-in electronic viewfinder (EVF), offering an optional accessory in the Olympus VF-4 for the E-PL7; the E-PL5 can also accept an EVF but with reduced functional integration.

From a control ergonomics perspective, the E-PL7 introduces minor refinements in dial placement and grip contours, improving operation with larger lenses but potentially requiring adaptation for users migrating from the E-PL5. Notably, neither model includes illuminated buttons, a feature common in more advanced models that aids low-light operations.

Regarding construction, neither camera offers environmental sealing which limits reliability in inclement weather, an important consideration for landscape and outdoor photographers.

Sensor, Image Quality, and Processing: Evaluating the Core Imaging Performance

The heart of any camera’s performance lies in its sensor and image pipeline. Both the E-PL5 and E-PL7 utilize a 16-megapixel Four Thirds CMOS sensor sized at 17.3 x 13 mm, equating to a sensor area of approximately 225 mm². This sensor size yields a 2.1x crop factor relative to full-frame 35mm.

Resolution and Detail Rendering

Both cameras output a maximum resolution of 4608 x 3456 pixels common to 16 MP sensors. Practically, this resolution supports large prints up to 16x20 inches with fine detail retention.

Dynamic Range and Color Depth

The DxOMark scores reveal near-identical metrics:

• Color depth: 22.8 bits (E-PL5) vs. 22.7 bits (E-PL7)
• Dynamic range: 12.3 stops vs. 12.4 stops
• Low-light ISO: 889 vs. 873

These results indicate negligible differences in sensor quality and raw image outputs. The E-PL7’s marginally better dynamic range likely stems from its updated TruePic VII processor, which also marginally optimizes noise reduction algorithms.

ISO Performance

Both cameras provide an ISO range extending from 100 or 200 (E-PL7 and E-PL5 respectively) up to 25,600. While extended ISO values exist, practical noise levels restrict usable ISO in low-light contexts. Testing confirms: usable ISO tops out at approximately 1600-3200 with tolerable grain, where post-processing can further alleviate noise for JPEG and RAW workflows.

Image Stabilization

Both models integrate sensor-based image stabilization (IBIS) that compensates for camera shake across multiple axes. However, the E-PL7 benefits from incremental refinements in IBIS algorithm efficiency, delivering slightly better handheld low-light and video stabilization results. For macro and telephoto work, this advantage becomes more pronounced.

Autofocus System: Precision, Speed, and Tracking Capabilities

Autofocus (AF) is often the most critical feature influencing decisive capture, especially in genres requiring speed or tracking accuracy.

Both cameras rely on contrast-detection autofocus, which, by its nature, is slower and less reliable in low-contrast or fast motion scenarios compared to phase detection systems.

The E-PL7’s expanded 81 AF points offer more precise autofocus area selection and improved tracking granularity, beneficial for sports and wildlife photography. The presence of central AF points on the E-PL7 allows for more accurate focus in center-weighted compositions, unlike the E-PL5. Both cameras support touch-based AF point selection on the rear LCD, enhancing focus flexibility during live view composition.

Continuous Shooting Rates

Both cameras support burst shooting at 8 frames per second (fps), a favorable rate for entry-level mirrorless cameras in their era. Practically, buffer depth and AF accuracy during burst shooting favor the E-PL7 slightly due to algorithm improvements.

Build Quality, Weather Resistance, and Durability

Neither the E-PL5 nor the E-PL7 offer official weather sealing or ruggedization features such as dustproofing or freezeproofing. Both incorporate plastic composite bodies with metal chassis reinforcements. For casual travel or indoor use, this is acceptable, but photographers intending to shoot in challenging environments may require dedicated protective housing or alternative models.

Display and User Interface: Articulating the Shooting Experience

The rear LCD interface is a primary interaction point and differs markedly between the two models.

The E-PL7’s higher-resolution screen offers superior clarity and brightness, aiding critical focusing and menu navigation. Importantly, the E-PL7’s tilting screen can flip upward to face the front, a key advantage for selfie and vlogging applications. The E-PL5’s screen tilts upward only about 90 degrees, limiting frontal composition.

The touchscreen on the E-PL7 is more responsive and integrated with touch AF/shutter functions, which enhances compositional speed and intuitive control adjustments. The E-PL5’s touchscreen, while functional, feels less sensitive and slower in response.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Both cameras share the Micro Four Thirds mount, providing access to over 100 compatible lenses from Olympus, Panasonic, and third-party manufacturers. The shared mount ensures seamless lens interchangeability.

• The focal length multiplier of 2.1x remains consistent, impacting field of view equivalence relative to full-frame systems.
• Both bodies support the same array of autofocus and manual focus lenses, including specialized primes for portrait and macro.

Lens compatibility is not a differentiating factor between these cameras. Instead, optimizing final image quality depends on the glass chosen and application-specific demands.

Battery Performance and Storage Capabilities

Battery life and storage options can strongly influence usability during extended shoots.

While both use Lithium-ion packs with nearly identical estimated shot capacities (~350-360 per charge), practical battery life varies based on use case; e.g., frequent use of LCD screen or Wi-Fi connectivity impacts consumption.

Wireless Connectivity

The E-PL7 includes built-in wireless capabilities, facilitating direct image transfer and remote control via Olympus apps - a significant enhancement over the E-PL5, which relies on Eye-Fi card support to enable wireless functions. For photographers relying on instant image sharing or remote shooting, the E-PL7 offers a more robust solution.

Video Capabilities: Resolutions, Formats, and Usability

Both cameras capture Full HD (1920x1080) video at 30 frames per second, with additional lower resolutions for HD and SD modes:

• E-PL5: MPEG-4, H.264, and Motion JPEG
• E-PL7: H.264 and Motion JPEG

The E-PL7 captures smoother H.264 files, reducing compression artifacts and facilitating streamlined post-processing workflows. Neither camera supports 4K video or advanced video features such as headphone jacks or microphone inputs, limiting their applicability for serious videography.

Sensor-based stabilization further enhances hand-held video usability, although neither model provides active lens-based stabilization during video.

Discipline-Specific Comparative Performance

To contextualize technical specifications and real-world usability, frame-specific assessments across photography genres reveal practical strengths and constraints.

Olympus E PL5 front Olympus E PL5 screen back Olympus E PL7 front Olympus E PL7 screen back

Portrait Photography

• Skin Tone Rendition: Both cameras render natural skin tones with accurate color depth, although the E-PL7’s improved processing slightly reduces noise in shadows.
• Bokeh Quality: Determined largely by lens selection, the sensor and aperture compatibility is equal; however, stabilization on the E-PL7 marginally aids handheld shallow-depth-of-field shots.
• Eye Detection: Supported and functional on both, but the E-PL7’s superior touch AF and higher AF point count enhance eye autofocus precision during live view or video.

Landscape Photography

• Dynamic Range: Both cameras deliver roughly equal dynamic range (~12.3 stops), sufficient for high-contrast scenes when combined with HDR bracketing.
• Resolution: 16MP resolution remains competitive for landscape prints up to 20x24 inches without discernible detail loss.
• Weather Sealing: Both lack environmental protection, necessitating careful handling or aftermarket covers for rugged conditions.

Wildlife Photography

• Autofocus Speed: Both cameras’ contrast-detection AF systems are slower compared to phase-detection rivals, which can impede reliable focus on fast-moving animals.
• Telephoto Compatibility: Shared Micro Four Thirds mount supports extensive telephoto lens options.
• Burst Rate: 8 fps offers good potential for action sequences when combined with pre-focusing.

Sports Photography

• Emphasis on fast AF tracking favors cameras with phase detection; the PEN E-PL series’ contrast-only system limits absolute performance in rapid sports scenarios.
• The E-PL7’s 81 AF points and improved tracking algorithms provide modestly better results over the E-PL5.
• Both cameras’ continuous shooting buffers are finite, requiring burst discipline.

Street Photography

• The E-PL5’s lighter and smaller build benefits gram-conscious street shooters seeking discretion.
• The E-PL7’s superior screen responsiveness and selfie-tilting screen aid quick framing and candid shots.
• Silent shooting is limited by shutter maximum speeds (1/4000s) and lack of electronic shutter modes.

Macro Photography

• Both cameras lack dedicated enhanced macro focus features such as focus stacking or bracketing.
• Sensor-shift stabilization aids handheld macro shooting, with the E-PL7 offering slightly improved stability performance.
• Lens choice again is paramount.

Night and Astrophotography

• High native ISO capabilities (up to 25,600) exist but usable noise levels limit effective ISO to ~3200.
• Sensor dynamic range supports shadow detail capture in star fields.
• In-camera noise reduction and long-exposure support enable astrophotography, although neither camera offers bulb mode or dedicated astro features.

Travel Photography

• Versatility: Both cameras provide balanced combinations of portability, image quality, and lens compatibility ideal for travel.
• The E-PL7’s wireless connectivity and articulated screen offer additional convenience.
• Battery life remains relatively comparable, but supplemental batteries advisable during extended outings.

Professional Workflow Integration

• Both support raw image capture, facilitating sophisticated post-processing workflows essential for professional applications.
• USB 2.0 connectivity represents a basic standard suited for casual tethering but suboptimal compared to USB 3.x or faster interfaces.
• Lack of an integrated EVF mandates reliance on optical accessories or external monitors for precise framing under bright conditions.

Summary of Key Performance Ratings

Recommendations: Choosing Between the Olympus PEN E-PL5 and E-PL7

Who Should Choose the Olympus PEN E-PL5?

• Budget-Conscious Buyers: Priced approximately $100 less, the E-PL5 delivers nearly equivalent image quality and 16MP capability.
• Travel and Street Photographers: Smaller size and lighter weight favor discreet handling and portability.
• Basic Video Needs: Equipped with competent Full HD video performance.
• Users Comfortable with Minimal Wireless: Lack of built-in Wi-Fi requires Eye-Fi cards or wired transfers.

Who Benefits from Upgrading to the Olympus PEN E-PL7?

• Users Needing More Precise Autofocus: Expanded 81-point AF system improves tracking and composition flexibility.
• Selfie and Vlogging Enthusiasts: Fully articulating higher resolution touchscreen dramatically enhances framing ease.
• Wireless Connectivity Users: Built-in Wi-Fi simplifies instant sharing and remote shutter control.
• Video Shooters Prioritizing Compression Efficiency: H.264 codec integration improves video quality and post-production workflow.

Final Verdict

Both the Olympus PEN E-PL5 and E-PL7 stand as capable entry-level mirrorless solutions delivering solid image quality and versatile creative control within the Micro Four Thirds ecosystem. The E-PL7 introduces evolutionary improvements in autofocus coverage, user interface, and connectivity that serve to elevate everyday shooting flexibility and ergonomic comfort. Conversely, the E-PL5 remains attractive for photographers prioritizing compactness, simplicity, and cost-effectiveness.

Given the relatively narrow imaging differentials and shared limitations such as lack of weather sealing and no built-in viewfinder, the choice largely hinges on user preferences around handling, connectivity, and autofocus performance relative to intended photographic disciplines.

The analytical comparisons and visual documentation outlined here are based on extensive empirical testing in a variety of controlled and field conditions, reflecting real-world user experiences beyond manufacturer claims.

This detailed breakdown should aid both enthusiasts upgrading within the Olympus lineup and new buyers evaluating Micro Four Thirds entry-level mirrorless cameras with clear, practical, and authoritative insights.

End of Article.