EPL-1 vs. EPL-2 vs. EPL-3 -- Value?

[Peter Guy]

I've been trying to get a sense for the "value" of the 3 vs the 2 vs the 1 and hope that some of you who had worked with at least two of them can jump in here.

In reading reviews of the three cameras, as af as I can tell they all share the same sensor, the 1 & 2 the same processor and the 2 and 3 the same "kit" lens. There are differences in the body of all three but I'm not sure how much effective difference there is -- especially when housed.

At the moment, for example, Costco has the "1" as a kit with two lenses for $399 (14-42 and 40 -150) whereas the "3" is $599 (Amazon) while the "2" is $459 (both with the 14-42 Kits "2" lens).

IF someone was asking (as so many do), what should I get when money is an object, does getting the "1" make more sense than getting the "2" or "3?" What is the "value added" for underwater photography of the "3" over the "2" over the "1?" (Yes, I know that the "2" and "3" have faster focus -- but is it "value added" for underwater? And the "3" is 1080 vs 720 in High Def video -- so there ARE differences.)

 

[jetlife2]

I have the 2 only. But I will throw in my 2 cents. The cost difference at the camera level may be small compared to the total system cost that results from your choice, because the housing options are different for the 1,2 and 3. Specifically the Oly housing for the 3 is more expensive than the 1 or 2 whereas (from memory) the other housing options (nauticam, 10bar) are not much different in cost, but higher than Oly. So if you are looking to minimize total system cost, add the other elements of the system before comparing.

The "value" to you of each capability (AF speed, HD video)...only you can answer depending what you use it for. For me, I change systems only once every 5-8 years...so I tend to max out the options every time, to maximize useful life...YMMV.

 

[mjh]

Typically over the long term stepping up to buy the better model pays off. The real money savings here will be in how you decide to house it. Oly vs. 10Bar vs. Nauticam. In addition to strobes, trays, etc.... In general you get what you pay for. The Oly housing is plastic but well done and the buttons are quite useable for cold water divers. MFG puts max depth at 130fsw. 10Bar is an excellent, entry level, aluminum housing loved by warm water divers but cold water divers find some buttons a little hard to access. Nauticam of course is the best but they do not give them away.

Lots of options it will come down to the way you put the package together.

 

[chris196]

I have the epl2 only in an oly housing with the Zen dome. However, I tested the epl1/2/3 in stores.
The epl1 with original kit lense feels slow. The upgrade to the epl2 is well worth it. The epl3 is slightly faster than the epl2 but not near the difference between the 1 & 2. Now, the epl1 is supposed to speed up a lot with the 14-42II lense. But, at that point, you might as well get a the epl2.
If 1080p is important to you, then there is no choice.
As someone pointed out the housing cost becomes almost paramount in making this decision.
From what I see the epl1 & 2 housing are the same price. Of course, the 3 is more expensive. I'm talking oly housings here. I take it your concerned with cost. If so, the oly housings are the only way to go. They are well made housings with excellent ergonomics (ok, I've only used the epl2, but they kind of all look the same).

So, if you could find someone getting rid of an epl1 to upgrade and get a big discount, that would be the way to go. Then add the 14-42II. If used isn't an option and you don't have to have 1080p, then the epl2 still seems like the sweet spot to me.

Like jetlife, I don't change often, so I have kind of maxed out my kit also. I have the epl2 in the oly housing with Zen dome and the 14-42II & 9-18. This is a very versatile setup.
My only complaint is that the 14-42II is not as sharp as I'd like at the long end. I have read this same complaint on photography web sites that the lense is very sharp up to about 35mm or so, then falls off. I have found this to be true underwater as well.

Hope that is all clear as mud.

 

[Peter Guy]

Thanks for the responses so far. While this is in the nature of an idle question, it is one that is asked often -- "What should I get?"

For the record, I have the "1" and got a second body with the 40-150 mm lens a while ago as a backup and to allow me to have one body for the surface (with telephoto) and one for the housing. I have since purchased a second housing (both Oly) because my wife decided she really did take better pictures with my setup than with her PnS. I figure this package will be good for at least three or four years and maybe more if I finally step up to the Zen port and 9-18 lens.

BTW, one thing I've heard is that the original Kit lens is sharper at the 42 mm length than the "II" lens -- although I don't know that to be true -- I have been very pleased with the sharpness of the macro images with it. One comment about the Oly housing -- I've had it to 160 feet several times and had no issues with it. I have found that I need to reposition the "stoppers" on the inside of the housing because they seem to compress just a tad and I have lost functionality of the buttons. This takes about 2 minutes and everything is then good to go again.

 

[nudibranco]

My 2 cents on the EPL1 versus the new versions: if you have a good mask the EVF is usable and VERY useful underwater. I do not see very close things that well anymore and for critical framing the EVF is GREAT. The better resolution monitors on the EPL2 and EPL3 are better though.

cheers

 

[deeper thoughts]

I have the Epl 1 and am very happy with it. The zen dome and 9-18mm set up is fantastic

 

[BluewaterPhoto]

I've tested all 3 cameras quite a bit.. you'll get fairly similar image quality from all 3 of them. They all focus faster than a compact, slower than a dSLR. Image quality of all 3 is better than a compact. The E-PL3 focuses noticeably faster than the E-PL1 and E-PL2. Hope this helps! - Scott

 

[Peter Guy]

Scott -- this is really the information I was hoping to get. In the scheme of things, is one camera a better UNDERWATER CAMERA than the other? Of course, the 3's 1080 HD may well be a desired function that would preclude the other two.

 

[slowhands]

The E-PL1, -2, and -3 have the same 12.3mp sensor. Image quality is the same, for a particular lens. With the very latest firmware in all versions, I doubt you will know the difference. The kit lens is much better on the -2 and -3 (same 14-42mm II lens), and if you have the -1 it is worth upgrading to the newer lens. (The newer lens is quieter during video, faster focusing, and does not have the shutter vibration problem at shutter speeds between 1/100th and 1/150th that the original loosy-goosey lens had.)

I upgraded the firmware in my E-PL1 to the latest version and upgraded the lens to a type II. I'm content. Rather than upgrading, I'm buying lenses and ports. But if buying today, I would go with the E-PL2 because of its better kit lens. At this date, mid-December 2011, the E-PL3 is not widely available in the USA, but can be bought from Europe or Japan. So again the E-PL2 is the better option if you are in need of a camera and housing immediately. By January the E-PL3 will be more available if you care to wait.

Cost differences are significant at the level of the camera and housing, but not when you consider the whole system. After you add strobes, tray and arms, focus light etc., you spend perhaps $2500 for the E-PL2 system, or perhaps $2800 for the E-PL3. I reckon this is about half the cost of a tricked out DSLR system, and it's much more compact for traveling.