E-P3 vs Leica M9 (Steve Huff) and manual focusing test (Digitalrev)
The video above shows a manual focusing test made by Digitalrev. They compared the E-P3 vs GF3 vs NEX-C3[/shoplink].
Crazy Comparison – The Olympus E-P3 with 12mm vs the Leica M9 with 24 Summilux by Steve Huff (Click here).
Peter Lueck (Click here to read the google english translation) tested the new 12mm lens.
REMINDER: Those are the direct search links to all the new Pana/Oly stuff:
Panasonic G3 search page at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Panasonic GF3 search page at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Panasonic-Leica 25mm f/1.4 search page at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Olympus E-P3 search page at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Olympus 12mm f/2.0 search page at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.
Olympus 45mm f/1.8 page at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay.

Nick Clark
10 months ago |Interesting comparison by Steve – to my eyes I see no real difference in ‘look’ (ignoring AWB) until the last shot, where no wide-angle on Four Thirds is going to give you that kinda subject/background separation.
Looks to me like the Mp is blowing highlights quicker in the first shot (or perhaps just more ‘abruptly’…)
alexander
10 months ago |the money saved could be invested in a lot of other things without bad feelings!
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |Frankly what do you expect when viewing OOC JPGs resized for the web?
NiKo
10 months ago |Isn’t this the exact purpose of buying a digital camera nowadays? hipstering on flickr or 500px? :p
Boooo!
10 months ago |One of the reasons why stupidly shallow DOF became popular recently is – Flickr. The smaller the photo, the less DOF seems pronounced. A friend of mine has a FF system and he says many of his photos are unprintable in large dimensions. Even I have such problems with several photos made by my poor “tiny sensor” Olympus.
deniz
10 months ago |ah yes. its all about that full frame wide open look nowadays. who cares about composition as long as the camera can turn everything to creamy soft clouds.
Mr Hipsta
10 months ago |Kai do not seem to be a big Sony fan… lol
Per
10 months ago |Is it only me? But I hate his stupid radio / advertising voice. It feels complitely maladjusted to his body. And he feel he is so funny.. Is he?
Marcel
10 months ago |I enjoy his style of reviewing very much. He does not take it too seriously, a refreshing approach.
Agrivar
10 months ago |It’s only u.
Eric
10 months ago |It’s not only you. I despise listening to him. I appreciate that he tries ti inject humor into his reviews, but as a fan of Top Gear it’s painfully obvious he’s simply doing a second rate Jeremy Clarkson impression.
ebbesen
10 months ago |If Kai rubs you the wrong way, then why don’t you just stop watching, no one’s forcing you.
Eric
10 months ago |I already have, I simply responded to the question above.
don knizi
10 months ago |Well looks like Sony was not amused about Kai bashing at Sony. He obviously doesn’t back up but fights back with even more irony. Thumbs up for being bold and not giving us the typical whitewash from other review sides who only rely on hard date when saying their verdicts. And he also said that Sony is probably the best option if you have to shoot legacy manual (because there are no proper system lenses available)
dac38
10 months ago |Not Sony, but people like me who crapped on his youtube page asking for a more objective comparison. He needs more crap now.
eM
10 months ago |Yes…like Jeremy Clarkson was ever funny…
Sho-Bud
10 months ago |Why should a review be objective? A camera is a tool through which you express your creativeness, what you like may not be what I like, but who cares, you need to have a connection with it and like it.
Did you objectively pick your wife??
dumbo
10 months ago |yes just do a [bad] clarkson seems to be the moto of so many british web presenters nowadays
Duarte Bruno
10 months ago |It’s not just you. I like the light and practical way he dives into cameras, but the humor was so stupid and forced on this one that I missed the conclusion altogether…
Was the Sony really the best camera for MF?
JeremyT
10 months ago |Yes – no surprise there, either. APS-C’s sensor size is better suited for full-frame legacy lenses, and he ultimately seemed to actually like peaking. Of course he also got in a dig about how you’ll *need* those legacy lenses since the native lineup is so meager.
I was interested in his demo of the GF3 – I hadn’t seen Panasonic’s MF assist in action before. Not bad! (definitely better than Olympus’s)
elflord
10 months ago |yes, the peaking feature got the thumbs up even though he had a hard time finding it in the menu, and the Sony decisively won the second part of the review (image quality test)
NiKo
10 months ago |He’s been probably doing a bit too much lately, but I really appreciate the bit of fresh air he brings to the digital consumer reviews land, so boring usually…
An0n
10 months ago |Yes, it’s just you. And yes, he is so funny.
joesiv
10 months ago |Could it be that he went to a linguistic school to learn english, and that school taught him British english rather than american? This is actually quite typical of asian language schools, I’m not sure why, maybe it seems more refined, and actually I think it is (less slurring, especially compared to canadian “accents” like mine).
I find it strange that people would be so negative on the way people sound when they talk, as if any of us had a choice in how/where we learnt our languages/accents…
Mr. Reeee
10 months ago |Or maybe the fact that the British occupied Hong Kong for 100 years or so might explain something?
elflord
10 months ago |no, he sounds like a Brit. Most Hong Kong natives (including those schooled in English) do not.
Pablo
10 months ago |Seems that this dilletant is paid by Oly…
Agrivar
10 months ago |Kai actually likes nikon n leica. He’s not an oly fanboy
NiKo
10 months ago |Or Pablo’s talking about Steve, who has been loaned the EP-3 directly by Olympus if I understood correctly… Anyway, look at the hi-res shots, notably the one with the fallen tree… The Leica rendering is just brilliant. Isn’t worth the price gap though, sure.
Eric
10 months ago |The Leica rendering is clearly better in the trees. However, and I hate to question Steve, but it almost seems as though the cameras are focused on two different things. There is clearly some difference in DOF at wide angles between the two formats, but it almost looks like the E-P3 is focused on the trunk of the tree and the M9 is focused on the leaves themselves.
That said, shallow DOF at wide angles is clearly the biggest short coming for m4/3′s as far as I’m concerned (although some view that as a bonus). There are work arounds of course, but there are simply some things full frame cameras can do that m4/3′s can’t. It really is surprising to me that no one will make a smallish somewhat affordable full frame camera. If Leica can make a digital M9 what exactly is preventing Nikon from making a digital Nikon FE? I for one would sell every single piece of m4/3′s gear I have and jump ship if they’d make such a camera. Well, so long as bring back their old 50mm f/2 pancake to go along with it.
Mr. Reeee
10 months ago |Who doesn’t like Nikon and Leica?
Kai’s reviews are great. He gets all the main points across without resorting to technobabble, egomania, or both. Laughs are a bonus!
flash
10 months ago |DOF is noticeably different in FT then FF, but that does not make it worst. I have found it useful at times.
At other times I wish there was a “super size” 43 format that added high to the FF sensor, not a crop of it. I think the 35 mm perspective is a vestige of my slide shooting past. I remember early on using film and doing some shooting in which the boss looked and made lines on on the focusing screen to show me not to use the left or right edge for composition, he needed more square photos.
But who doesn’t like Leicas not me I started out seriously shooting with their lens (used and borrowed).
don knizi
10 months ago |How about shooting MF in a 4/3 ration?
Scott
10 months ago |There are things 4/rds can do that Full Frame cant. Like if I need more light I can open up and still take a picture that has enough dof for 2 people or in my case I can shoot a bride walking down the isle with dad at 2.0 and both are in focus. With full frame if your at any angle at all you have to stop down to 4.0 to get the same shot.
swat
10 months ago |!
swat
10 months ago |Pablo. You are a total idiot.
Adi
10 months ago |Just realize all 3 cameras don’t start with ISO 100 anymore. May be a stupid question… is the IQ between ISO 100 and ISO 200 on new generation of sensor have no difference anymore?
Dummy00001
10 months ago |Old sensors had the *base* sensitivity of ISO 100. Now most sensors have the base sensitivity of ISO 200.
IOW, the ISO 200 now is the same as ISO 100 few years ago. But a full stop EV more of light captured, thanks to the better tech. IQ isn’t affected by that.
Shift has happened because sensils have limited capacity and people want to have more higher ISOs. And to reach the higher ISOs, one unfortunately also had to raise the base ISO.
WT21
10 months ago |IQ is affected. The sensors are tweaked for higher ISO (so ISO 1600 now looks better than two years ago), but the lower ISOs aren’t as good. There’s far more noise in the base ISO200 than in the base ISO100 of years ago, and there’s no ISO50, etc. Bad news for those of us who actually shoot when it’s light out, as opposed to those who like to shoot in the dark
(yes, there are legit reasons to have high ISO — sports, really small aperture street shooting, etc. But there is far too much attention paid, IMO, to IQ shot in a dimly lit bar, or shooting candles, which is a pretty common test you see in user reviews).
Adi
10 months ago |I guess there are more market research people than photographers in the product design teams nowadays.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |I guess low ISO is easily solved with ND filters, while available light / high ISO requires advanced sensor technology.
WT21
10 months ago |How does adding an ND filter help clean up the noise in the image in low ISO? That only addresses shutter speed, and I don’t care how good the filter is, there is still some level of IQ degredation. So I disagree that an ND filter solves the issue, unless it can also reduce the noise in the image.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |OK I get your point, thanks.
Scott
10 months ago |its easier to underexpose an image with processing and firmware that to overexpose. So iso 100 is 200 underexposed
Adi
10 months ago |Interesting… In my film camera day, under expose an ISO 200 film makes the grain on the photo looks like it was shot in ISO 400.
Mike
10 months ago |At least it means you have to use shorter shutter times in bright light. Can be a problem especially with the limited X-Sync time for the flash – big minus in my opinion. E-P3 has 1/180 X-Sync Time at iso200 compared to 1/250 an the E30 for ISO100 (would be equal to 1/500 at ISO200). So it’s about 3 times worse! Good reason to keep your old camera…
Eric
10 months ago |+1
It seems like high ISO ability is the new megapixel race. However, anyone that knows anything at all about photography understands that ISO100 is as important to have as clean ISO1600 is. Heck, I’d even like to see someone make a camera that goes down to ISO50. Not everyone use f/5.6 glass, it would be nice to be able to use f/2 in the daytime without fiddling with ND filters.
Mike
10 months ago |A77 is rumored to have ISO50 + 1/1000 X-Sync (with electronic shutter) – now that’s a development.
That in a weather sealed body with oled evf, 12fps, ultra fast AF, GPS, tiltable screen, 24MP sensor (=G3 pixel density) and everything else you can image.
I wish this would be the E-50…
Ulli
10 months ago |Again Kai has a gorgeous model around him(i don’t mean the smurf)!
I am gettin more and more interested in the focus peaking stuff..
Surprised to see he used the Nokton 1.1 as thats my main lens on my E-P2
And did i already mentioned the model?
Simon
10 months ago |+1
NiKo
10 months ago |+2
WT21
10 months ago |OK, this didn’t help my newly acquired Lecia-lust. The “Leica look” is SO clearly evident, especially in the backyard shot. I really, really, really want an M9, and there is no way on earth that I could ever afford one of the better lenses, let alone the M9 itself. I gotta stop looking at Leica shots!
deniz
10 months ago |i suspect this leica look everyone is talking about is actually full frame look. with the shallow dof and all…
WT21
10 months ago |I agree that maybe 70% is the “full frame look” — having been shooting a 5D for the last two years. But the lenses are also important — how they handle the tonal gradations, the vignetting characteristics (which you lose when mounting on a crop), the weak AA filter, the color and contrast. But yes, if someone came out with an affordable FF mirrorless, then I’d be very happy
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |I think the FF a99 and NEX (9?) are due in 2012. So is Leica’s mirrorless if I’m not mistaken, but it should cost about $3K for the body only.
Ricoh could have pulled this off with their m mount GXR module but they chose to use an APS-C sensor… bummer. Nevertheless, it has offset microprisms and no AA or IR filters… so it should have some seriously good IQ.
Mr. Reeee
10 months ago |Since I have no spare organs or children to sell, I content myself with Voigtländer M mount lenses.
Yeah, it’s not the same, but still, I can pretend…
But I DO have Leica binoculars!
Boooo!
10 months ago |I have a Panaleica 25mm f/1.4 (the 4/3 version, of course) and there really is something very special about that lens. It’s not the sharpest ever, it’s a bit soft in the corners, but I can’t exactly put my finger on WHY I like it, compared to my other lenses (mind you, I shoot at f/5.6 most of the time, as I’m not that much into shallow DOF).
dac38
10 months ago |Its the Leica Tax getting to you. It truly is a rubbish lens for the price.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |Coming back from a walk with it, I beg to disagree.
Actually it is quite lovely and I can explain why I think so: it renders colors beautifully, has excellent micro contrast and very nice transition from focus to OOF making the subjects pop. It lends images a smoothness and clarity that is quite unique, and I have a few very good lenses.
Boooo!
10 months ago |I paid about $600 / 425€ for that lens, which isn’t all that bad. Leica tax or not, the closest thing is a Sigma 30 f/1.4, and I don’t think it would compare well to the Panaleica.
JeremyT
10 months ago |Yeah, I own that lens, and while it’s pretty good it’s just stupid that it costs so much. I’m kind of annoyed at myself for owning it, but I only bought it because there really wasn’t any competition in 4/3 mount. I don’t know how Boooo! got it for $600 but that’s somewhat more close to what it’s worth.
There’s no “magic” to the 25mm. It’s just a fast normal with slightly soft corners wide open.
Felix
10 months ago |I have a different approach: How about trying old fast 24mm lens? Nikon F and Canon FD mount 24mm f2 old manual lens. Recently I own Tamron 24mm f2.5 F mount, it may not fast enough but I can try to shoot at low light with high ISO.
Rob. S.
10 months ago |If you look at Sony, these days they start doing everything right what Olympus and Panasonic keep doing wrong for the last two or three years.
And it’s not only manual focus with the NEX. But speaking of it, I’ve always wondered how hard it can be for Olympus to at least implement the picture-in-picture feature Panasonic has – and even Olympus used to have many years ago, in principle, in cameras like the C-8080WZ, although so poorly implemented that it was ridiculous, unusable.
No, it’s their attitude to DLSR vs. mirrorless. Sony, just like inofficial sources from within Olympus/Panasonic hinted already two years ago, seems to think that contrast AF cannot be the be-all, end-all substitute for phase detection AF, and so they keep and improve phase detection AF, too, and they continue to improve their DSLR line, with the highly interesting A77 appearing next, which will probably surpass each and every Olympus DSLR in about every aspect, and for a price far below the only remaining Olympus DSLR.
More than that, they are about to introduce an A-mount adapter for the NEX featuring the fixed mirror of recent Alpha DSLRs, phase detection AF, and an AF motor which will make not only current Alpha lenses, but even the oldest Minolta A-mount lenses fully compatible!
With full access to the complete A-mount lens lineup, without any AF performance penalty at all, and with the ambitious NEX-7 on its way, I predict that the NEX system will outclass Micro Four Thirds within the next one or two years, just like Four Thirds has already been outclassed by virtually every other player in the field.
As an Olympus digital camera enthusiast since 1999 and a Four Thirds enthusiast since 2005, the only remaining question for me these days seems to be, which of the other systems will be the one best suited to provide my photographic gear in the future. While I’m still not in a rush to switch head over heels, right now it seems that Sony is about to become the strongest contender.
Robbie
10 months ago |It would be great for the backward compatibility of other lenses.
but the ultimate question will still come to the size of it.
And I don’t quite understand the confidence you have in Sony for A-Mount AF speed rather than in Olympus. The transition won’t be that smooth initially. It’s still a long battle between m43 and APSC mirrorless I hope.
Rob. S.
10 months ago |Size is no problem at all, when I have the choice – with the NEX and the new adapter, I can use the bigger DSLR lenses if I that’s what I want, just as I can leave the adapter at home and only take some smaller NEX lenses with me.
If I had a NEX which I was already carrying, it would be even more size and weight if I had to pack not only the DSLR lens I need, but an additional DSLR body for it, too
And then there are interesting new NEX lenses coming, too, like a Zeiss-branded 24mm f/1.8.
I’d rather wish Olympus would get a grip so that there was a future for their gear in my photo bag, but as the last two years went that seems less and less probable.
ken van sickle
10 months ago |I carry my camera at all times, I don’t want a big camera, the 3/4 cameras
are small enough and sharp enough for me, what is the point of the extremely small size of the Sony since the A P S sensor requires a very large lens?
Rob. S.
10 months ago |Did you check how much larger the NEX lenses than the Micro-FT lenses really are? Just as the size difference between FT sensor and APS-C sensor is rather small, the size difference of lenses is rather small, if there is one at all (look at the E16mm F2.8 for NEX, for example). The biggest difference is in the telephoto range, and APS-C cameras like the upcoming NEX-7 will more than make up for it by offering significantly higher sensor resolution. With a decent lens, you’ll even get more telephoto range out of the same focal length with such an APS-C camera than you get with one of the existing PENs.
JeremyT
10 months ago |The 16mm E-mount lens is still pretty large when you consider how slow it is. Not to mention, it’s performance is decidedly mediocre; I don’t think you should really hold that up as a bastion of how awesome Sony’s lens lineup is…
APS-C lenses *will* be bigger than equivalent µ4/3 lenses, that’s just the way it is. Whether or not that difference is significant to a buyer is a matter of personal taste.
Rob. S.
10 months ago |If the 16mm E-Mount pancake is mediocre, which is probably true, it’s just what the 17mm M.Zuiko is – with the same aperture and virtually the same size and weight. Only that it’s more of a super-wide-angle lens compared to the moderate wide-angle perspective of the M.Zuiko. So comparing the 16mm E-mount lens is clearly both valid and meaningful.
And please, don’t accuse me of saying things I never said. I never said the NEX lens lineup was “awesome”. It isn’t. It isn’t even decent yet. But it has no significant size disadvantage compared to Micro FT, either, just as there never was a general compactness advantage for Four Thirds lenses over APS-C DSLR lenses, and there’s not only the 16mm pancake to prove it.
And more than that, with the new A-mount adapter the Sony/NEX lens lineup *will* indeed become awesome, because every A-mount lens starting with the very beginning of the old Minolta AF analog SLR system will be fully compatible including full-speed phase detection AF. Even if that will make the NEX camera lose its compactness – but then again there still is the choice to either stick to NEX lenses or make use of the adapter, too.
Something Olympus hasn’t even managed for the majority of their comparatively modern Four Thirds lenses when fitted to a Micro Four Thirds camera.
JeremyT
10 months ago |Rob – the closest equivalent to the 16mm Sony pancake is going to be the Panasonic 14mm, which is faster and substantially smaller. There’s no Sony lens as small as that.
I think it’s reasonable to say that the 16mm is small enough for *you*, but the difference between it and the smallest µ4/3 mount lenses is still big enough to be significant to other people. Just as people who enjoy larger sensors might find the 4/3 size sensor unacceptably poor, I might find NEX lenses unacceptably big. In neither case are the things worlds apart, but the small differences will tip a person’s purchasing decision one way or another.
Luckily we live in a world with a spectrum of products to fill all such requirements (which is why I’m happy to see the even smaller systems like e.g. Fuji’s come to market, too).
PS – in my experience many 4/3 lenses *are* smaller than equivalent APS-C lenses, but beyond a certain point “big is big” and the difference becomes meaningless (which I really believe is one of the reasons that 4/3 never did very well – a slightly smaller DSLR system is still just too big). When you start to get really small, though, the minor differences start to become more relevant, and can determine whether you fit that camera in your purse or pocket or you don’t.
Rob. S.
10 months ago |I actually agree with most of what you’re saying, especially with your conclusion.
But keep in mind when you compare lenses across the two sensor sizes that the larger format gets about 2/3 of an EV stop more light out of the same aperture, so actually 14mm f/2.5 (FT) would have to be compared to something like 18mm f/3.2 (APS-C), and my comparison of the 17mm M.Zuiko vs the 16mm E-mount pancake is in fact unfair against the Sony lens.
I certainly agree with your statement regarding “big is big”, but I fear that mirrorless systems are still too “big”, too. There is no mirrorless camera-lens- combination yet (maybe the new Pentax, but that’s a mere toy camera) which would fit comfortably in any of my pockets, be it jacket, trouser or shirt. And, except for the pancakes, most of the existing lenses have become as small as they are not because of the properties of the mirrorless mount, but because optical distortion and vignetting correction were economised and given over to the software. The more ambitious the lenses will become which arrive for mirrorless systems, the more we will start to recognize the fact that the major factor determining lens size is not flange distance, but firstly the focal length and aperture and secondly sensor size, and that only a very limited focal length range, roughly between the mirrorless flange distance and its double, really profits because lenses can be built without having to resort to retrofocal designs.
Miroslav
10 months ago |Panasonic and Olympus executives should be made to watch “peaking mode” demonstrations until they decide to implement it in next m4/3 firmwares. Why it’s so hard to divert software R&D team from developing new art filters to make something much more useful?