Comprehensive List of Micro Four Thirds Bodies

[DeeJayK]

UPDATE: I went ahead and created a Micro Four Thirds comparison spreadsheet which compiles all the relevant specs for the available bodies. As of today, 20 :43: bodies have been released or announced (or 19 if you choose not to count the E-PL1s upgrade). With this spreadsheet I'm attempting to provide an at-a-glance resource for comparing the specs. This was partially inspired by [thread=24679]dhazeghi's similar lens resource[/thread].

Please feel free to share any feedback (positive or negative). I've made the spreadsheet available for editing by anyone which allows you to use the filtering functionality. If you see any errors or omissions, please feel free to edit the sheet.

Original post:
Does anyone know of a post or a site that really breaks down the advantages/disadvantages of the various :43: bodies that are available? Ideally, I'd like to find something where I can compare the various features of two cameras side-by-side.

I know about the list available on Four-thirds.org, but that really just lets you look at the details of one body at a time and doesn't give any "real world" advice as to where a particular camera shines (or falls down). As an example of the "real world" advice I'd like to see, many feel that the controls of the GF-1 make that camera better than it's successors the GF-2 and GF-3. Someone who is new to the system would probably just assume that the later model supersedes it's predecessor.

What I'm looking for is something like this list I found on Digital Camera Review or this table that Amin posted on Serious Compacts. The problem with both of these resources is that they are woefully out-of-date.

If no such resource exists, I may try to create something myself that I can post here, but I don't want to go to all the effort if something similar exists.

 

[everythingsablur]

You can go to DPR, go to a review of an m43 camera (or any camera), head to the conclusion, and where they give the ranked scores, you can add in other cameras for a comparison. Add in all of the other m43 (or competitor cameras) that you're interested in. As you hover over the other models in your list, the scores will change, but the baseline scores of the primary review item are highlighted for easy comparison.

This lets you at least weight the relative quantitative review scores against each other at least, but it isn't a super detailed comparison on a feature by feature breakdown, if you are looking for that level of granularity.

 

[pxpaulx]

Why not use dpreview's comparison chart? Here are the models:

Olympus:
e-p1
e-p2
e-p3
e-pl1
e-pl2
e-pl3
e-pm1
e-m5

Panasonic:
Gh1
Gh2
GF1
GF2
GF3
G1
G2
G3
GX1
(GF5 announced)

It might just be better for you to ask any questions (like the one you posed) as you'll only get that sort of info from reading an in-depth review or asking owners their thoughts and experience.

 

[5115]

snapsort.com is reasonably good as a first step, too. There's no ubermatrix that I know of.

 

[DeeJayK]

You can go to DPR, go to a review of an m43 camera (or any camera), head to the conclusion, and where they give the ranked scores, you can add in other cameras for a comparison.

Good suggestion. I was aware of that functionality, but hadn't thought about it in light of what I had in mind. What I'm looking for is really more of a "lay of the :43: land" type of table, rather than an X to Y type of comparison. But there's certainly some great value in what DPR has.

It might just be better for you to ask any questions (like the one you posed) as you'll only get that sort of info from reading an in-depth review or asking owners their thoughts and experience.

I'm not necessarily looking for a particular model, I just want to get an "at a glance" sense of what's available and where each model's strengths lie. I'm not looking for something exclusively for myself but something that could be a resource for those new to :43: or looking to upgrade to a different body.

snapsort.com is reasonably good as a first step, too. There's no ubermatrix that I know of.

Snapsort looks promising...wish there were a way to limit it to :43: model, though. Thanks for your input.

 

[DeeJayK]

OK...had some downtime this weekend and put this little spreadsheet together.

It lists the 20 :43: that have been released or announced and attempts to note the differences between them. This is very much a work in progress, but putting it together has helped me to understand the differences amongst the various models (which was a primary impetus of this undertaking).

I'm not sure where I'll take this from here -- it will depend on my time as well as the feedback I receive. I'll probably expand the spreadsheet somewhat to capture other specs that seem noteworthy. Any suggestions are very much welcomed.

If I really get ambitious I may dump this into a database and build a web front end that would allow a user to filter the models they wish to compare and/or the specs that they are interested in.

Let me know if you find this resource useful.

 

[dhazeghi]

Does anyone know of a post or a site that really breaks down the advantages/disadvantages of the various :43: bodies that are available? Ideally, I'd like to find something where I can compare the various features of two cameras side-by-side.

The DPReview comparison tool is a little awkward, but by limiting the search to large-sensored Olympus and Panasonic cameras, you get a pretty good list of things, and you can compare them side-by-side.

I thought of trying to make a list, but unlike with lenses, there are too many features to put into a readable spreadsheet, and in any case, only the more recent models are of much interest.

DH

 

[5115]

OK...had some downtime this weekend and put this little spreadsheet together.

It lists the 20 :43: that have been released or announced and attempts to note the differences between them. This is very much a work in progress, but putting it together has helped me to understand the differences amongst the various models (which was a primary impetus of this undertaking).

I'm not sure where I'll take this from here -- it will depend on my time as well as the feedback I receive. I'll probably expand the spreadsheet somewhat to capture other specs that seem noteworthy. Any suggestions are very much welcomed.

If I really get ambitious I may dump this into a database and build a web front end that would allow a user to filter the models they wish to compare and/or the specs that they are interested in.

Let me know if you find this resource useful.

This is terrific! Wish I had access to this when I was first looking for my GH2. It should be a sticky somewhere.

 

[DeeJayK]

I've updated my spreadsheet (see initial post) to include DXOMark scores (for whatever value they might have) as well as some additional notes.

Can anyone suggest any additional specs that might make this more useful?

 

[dixeyk]

I've updated the :43: comparison spreadsheet to include DXOMark scores (for whatever value they might have) as well as some additional notes.

Can anyone suggest any additional specs that might make this more useful?

Thanks for doing this it is wonderful resource. I have a few thoughts (and they are just suggestions)

I would think about grouping them by body style and/or sensor size as a way of helping someone sort through it more quickly. Maybe color code the ones that aren't current so if someone is looking for a new camera they know where to start.

You might also want to take something into account...I have always been a bit suspect of the DPR and DXO scores. First off the G1, G2, GF1, GF2, GF3, E-P1, E-PL1, E-P2, E-PL2, E-P3, E-PL3 and E-PM1 all share the exact same sensor so IQ is going to be pretty much identical between them.There are some small differences (such as the E-PL1 having weaker AA filter) but in my experience (having quite a number of these bodies) you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between them. Maybe add some editorial comment to that effect rather than having folks sort through Venus Engine this and TruePic that.

Photos of the bodies?

Retail price and current selling price in separate columns.

Perhaps color code standout features like fastest AF, burst mode, or # of AF points.

 

[DeeJayK]

Thanks for doing this it is wonderful resource. I have a few thoughts (and they are just suggestions)...

Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to implement as many of these as I can.

As far as the DXOMark scores, I didn't include them in my first iteration as I just don't feel that add a lot of value. However, I figure if a user feels that same way they can just ignore (or hide) those columns. I think I will add a note as you suggest.

As to the comment on the processors (TruePic, Venus Engine, etc.), I agree that the proc names don't really mean much to anyone (outside Olympus/Panasonic). The only reason I've kept that column is to help show which cameras share the same proc. Maybe I should just remove that spec.

I agree that photos would be good, but they don't necessarily work well in a spreadsheet. Do you think perhaps links to the product (or DPReview) pages would suffice?

When you say "retail price" do you mean price at launch or current retail price?

 

[dixeyk]

Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to implement as many of these as I can.

As far as the DXOMark scores, I didn't include them in my first iteration as I just don't feel that add a lot of value. However, I figure if a user feels that same way they can just ignore (or hide) those columns. I think I will add a note as you suggest.

As to the comment on the processors (TruePic, Venus Engine, etc.), I agree that the proc names don't really mean much to anyone (outside Olympus/Panasonic). The only reason I've kept that column is to help show which cameras share the same proc. Maybe I should just remove that spec.

I agree that photos would be good, but they don't necessarily work well in a spreadsheet. Do you think perhaps links to the product (or DPReview) pages would suffice?

When you say "retail price" do you mean price at launch or current retail price?

Photos in the spreadsheet would be a bit better but links to photos would work. Linking to reviews would also be helpful but URLs (content gets archived) change so you'd just need to make sure it got updated from time to time.

I was thinking of MSRP but current selling price is also pretty useful.

As to the image processors...I can see your point.

 

[ttan98]

I've updated the :43: comparison spreadsheet to include DXOMark scores (for whatever value they might have) as well as some additional notes.

Can anyone suggest any additional specs that might make this more useful?

I think there is a misprint listed under G2 camera, the image quality should be 53 instead of 23? BTW how do you arrive at this figure?

 

[DeeJayK]

I think there is a misprint listed under G2 camera, the image quality should be 53 instead of 23? BTW how do you arrive at this figure?

Good catch, thanks. This has been fixed.

These scores come from testing done by DXOMark. You can find a description of this score on their website.

FWIW, I'm dubious as to how much real-world value these scores have, especially when comparing cameras which have the same sensor (as Kevin has pointed out above). I've included them in the table as others may find them useful, but I wouldn't suggest giving these scores a lot of weight.

 

[DeeJayK]

I would think about grouping them by body style and/or sensor size as a way of helping someone sort through it more quickly.

I was thinking that the filtering feature would allow that, but now that I test it that feature apparently doesn't work in "view only" mode. I've changed the link to point to the "list" view, which allows filtering. The drawback to that is that the images don't appear to behave correctly in list view in some browsers.

I'm kinda running into the limits of what can be offered in Google Docs spreadsheet at this point. If I do a version 2.0, I'll probably use some other tool (or create a database and code up a web form).

Maybe color code the ones that aren't current so if someone is looking for a new camera they know where to start.

Not a bad thought, but I have a hard time defining "current". Many of the older bodies are still being sold at retail (new or refurbished), so I'm not really sure of the value of this distinction. The date the camera was announced is listed, so I figure people can use that to determine how current the camera is.

You might also want to take something into account...I have always been a bit suspect of the DPR and DXO scores. First off the G1, G2, GF1, GF2, GF3, E-P1, E-PL1, E-P2, E-PL2, E-P3, E-PL3 and E-PM1 all share the exact same sensor so IQ is going to be pretty much identical between them.There are some small differences (such as the E-PL1 having weaker AA filter) but in my experience (having quite a number of these bodies) you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between them. Maybe add some editorial comment to that effect rather than having folks sort through Venus Engine this and TruePic that.

Added.

Photos of the bodies?

Added (along with links for each model to the Four-Thirds.org page).

Retail price and current selling price in separate columns.

After giving this some more thought, I'm not sure what value listing MSRP really has. I've attempted to list approximate current selling prices, which I feel are much more relevant.

Perhaps color code standout features like fastest AF, burst mode, or # of AF points.

Added.

 

[DeeJayK]

I've updated the spreadsheet (see link in first post of this thread) to add images of the backs and tops of all of the bodies to allow comparison of control layouts.

Take a look and let me know what you think. If you want more ability to sort and rearrange the spreadsheet, PM me and I'll grant edit access.

 

[Oli]

Thanks for taking the time to do this

 

[Amin]

Great job on the list. I just stickied it. Hope you don't mind that I changed the title!

 

[DeeJayK]

Just updated spreadsheet (see initial post) to include the newly announced G5.

 

[DeeJayK]

Updated spreadsheet (see initial post) with today's announcements (GH3, E-PL5, E-PM2), in case anyone finds this useful.