The image quality, especially in JPEG is as always pointed at Olympus. The default settings are a bit exaggerated, so that the images are more advantageous, if you set focus as well as noise reduction to -1, otherwise the images rather act at higher ISOs like watercolors.
It was striking to me that compared to my GF2 the ISO values are "shifted" by one step. An image shot with the E-PL3 with ISO3200, is roughly a picture with ISO1600 with the GF2 and the same aperture / time combination comparable. Although both cameras almost use the same Panasonic sensor, the E-PL3 is the noise level marginally higher, mainly because of the fact that Panasonic already analog reinforced for higher ISO values the sensor gain, which Olympus focuses on pure digital amplification and corresponds ISO1600 rather a 3 f-stops underexposed ISO200 picture why Olympus ISO1600 has a lot more latitude in the highlights.
In my tests, even the thinner a lot antialiasing filter of Olympus I noticed what is visible especially in RAW. For very detailed scenes the E-PL3 could deliver a really sharp lens considerably sharper images than the GF2, with extremely fine techn. Pattern as writings on traffic signs, window blinds etc. at Olympus stronger moiré and artifacts tended, at least in RAW than Panasonic. However, the excellent JPEG engine from Olympus has such problems well under control, so there should be no visible defects normally. Basically, the RAWs have a lot more to potential, but the JPEGs are sufficient and much better than what Panasonic delivers basically where you're really dependent on RAW. Not only the automatic white balance is more appropriate at Olympus and more enjoyable, but also the color appearance affects Olympus even on RAW just pleasant and warmer than at Panasonic, also after. Has attempted to harmonize the RAWs both cameras color
To ever want to switch from Pansonic on Olympus, gave me both the folding screen and the built-in image stabilizer decisive. Unfortunately, both features are not entirely convincing. The display has a 16: 9 format, the sensor only the full resolution at 4: 3 allowed, which is why the preview extremely small effect on the display, even if it be right, and left space for additional information available. Unfortunately, this information is still not displayed at all times. The display of the exposure mode, the focus mode etc always disappear after a few seconds, moreover, incomprehensibly, the display of the current ISO value will disappear as soon as one turns to the histogram. Totally incomprehensible for me that the simultaneous display of histogram and grid lines is not possible. One is constantly forced on the Info button toggle the display, if you want one or the other.
In general, the use of E-PL3 is a bit too fiddly for my taste. The buttons are extremely small and the wheel comes with its own key functions often get in the way, you want to scroll through a certain value, it may be that you press the button and irrtümmlich somewhere else lands than you actually wanted. The menu structure of Olympus is anyway to get used to. You have to activate the extra menus at all in order to make the really important settings can first times. In addition, many menu items are extremely convoluted and many are never found where one would expect logically. I particularly like that can be a few keys and freely configurable, such as the Fn key, but also the Video button can be assigned to other functions such as depth of field preview, etc.
The biggest drawback for me was the image stabilizer, I have intensively tested and compared, because I always got fuzzy pictures that really should not be. The result of my long tests was that the image stabilizer may at certain times of even a blur reinbringen into the picture. Many of my images were taken between 1 / 100-1 / 200 seconds were easily blurred, I could not tell me. It was only when I started, the IS off for testing purposes and to compare these recordings together, I saw that the pictures with a distinct blur IS showed that was not available when you have the IS disabled. Narrow whole I could not solve the problem, it was also independent of the lens used. Similar problems have been reported since the E-P1, where there rather the old 14-42 kit lens was accused. With the E-PL3 but I could repeat these negative effects of the IS also with all other lenses. Especially in times to 1/100 of the stabilizer could be quite helpful at 42mm to avoid camera shake, but in this case he himself has repeatedly brought purely a blur. Compared with the OIS stabilized lenses like the Lumix 14-140, at least in my case, the IS of Olympus was ineffective to much. Where I was able to maintain loose 1/4 of the hand with the OIS, this was no longer possible with the IS. The worst result with OIS was still better than the best with IS.
The supplied kit lens is cheap art construction with plastic bayonet, but could visually be quite OK if not serial dispersion had both copies I have tasted, off center on one side. A copy was extremely out of focus in the bottom and right of the screen, the second was only in the last right-thirds noticeably fuzzier, but compared to the old 14-42, which I own, both were significantly worse.
Overall, I had the E-PL3 extremely fond of and have fought to the end with my conscience if I keep them or not. However, as I until the end could not believe the IS and it probably would have more inactive than active to get not unanticipated blur in my pictures, this feature had become irrelevant for me. I had test shots at 1/40 sharp with my GF2 without stabilizer, where the E-PL3 with IS image was blurred.
I have the camera unfortunately devalue unfortunately due to unreliable operation of the stabilizer, as well as due to the obvious quality defects of Kitobjektivs that does not reach the quality that could have it. However, for "ordinary people" User and not freaks like me, I can thoroughly recommend, especially since the image results directly from the camera are usually excellent, the E-PL3.
