Lenstip from Poland has a review of the Olympus M.Zuiko 60mm Macro lens, which is quite simply the best macro available for µ4/3rds. It’s also useful as a portrait lens even when used wide open, which the nice test photos show. These were taken with an E-PL1 by the way, showing that for something like that, this older camera is still a good choice.
That said, the sensors of newer or other cameras beat them of course. DxOMark has measured and reviewed the new E-PL5 with getting practically the same results as with an OM-D E-M5, which was to be expected. It’s lots better than an E-PL1, which you can see here, and practically on the level of a Nikon D90 now, slightly worse than a Nikon D5100.
The problem is: with a price of 699€ including its kit lens, both mentioned Nikons are cheaper right now, and as typical SLRs, they both offer built-in optical viewfinders and also better focus following/tracking. So while for us and our nice lenses we have already, an Olympus E-PL5 or even an OM-D E-M5 are compelling upgrade paths for the future, for a new buyer or for anyone’s typical Christmas shopping, these older Nikons look like a much better choice (in case you don’t need the small weight and size of a µ4/3rds camera). Now that the D5200 is announced, those who are interested in saving should probably run instead of walk to their local camera stores to get a D5100 instead, or – for a bit more “pro” appearance – a D90.
I really like those Olympus cameras. But compared to a mechanically much more complex (and more expensive to build) DSLR, they are way overpriced IMHO. That’s why I waited and bought my E-PL1 for under 240€ – including its good kit zoom.
Oh, and one more thing to consider: tho the sensor of a D5100 might be better than the one of an E-PL5, don’t give too much weight to these low-light-high-ISO measurements: first you seldom really need them (at least I don’t, YMMV), and second the image stabilization which is built into the Olympus bodies more than makes up for this. You can still hand-hold exposure times at low ISOs with Olympus of which you could only dream of with using other brands with a prime lens which is not stabilized.
Choices, choices, I know. I wish everyone a nice Xmas shopping. 
Most important: go to your local store and handle them. And then also buy one from your local store, as long as you’re lucky enough to have one around.
Thanks for reading.
My next lens is the Lumix 25mm 1.4. I have tried it out and I love the look of it. Would suit me nicely. That 60mm macro is a stunner, not in my plan though. I have enough trouble backing up with the 45mm 1.8
Yeah, the 50mm Lumix (or PanaLeica) surely is a nice one. Kirk got one and loved it, same with Bill Beebe and lots of others.
The problem with all Nikon Dxx00 bodies is the use of a dark and small pentamirror OVF as apposed to the Nikon D90′s true pentaprism OVF. Even though the D90 is four years old, I’d buy it over the current Dxx00 series. Nikon may have advanced the sensors over the years, but they’ve cheapened the body materials considerably. The true heir to the D90 is the D7000.
Yes I know Bill – I’d also prefer a D7000. Handled one in a store, it’s really nice. And if you add an EVF to an E-PL5, then prices are about the same. I’d love to have both maybe – the Olympus for more slow work, with pre-visualizing the effects of white balance, exposure and so on in the EVF, the Nikon for faster action. But an E-PL5 with EVF (or an OM-D) plus a D7000 also add up to something like a D600…
I’m a convert to EVF after years of intoning that I’d *never* leave ground glass… never is apparently a much shorter time interval than I originally thought…
The D7000 is truly a great camera… but I still gave it up for the OM-D E-M5. I have left some lens capability behind, but the lenses are catching up and I’m so in love with my set of great Olympus and Panasonic primes and the versatile Olympus 9-18mm that I don’t really feel limited.
The expose-to-the-right abilities of an EVF are what finally made me say, “wow, I don’t want to go back”. That feeling started when I was testing the OM-D at a very dark wedding reception and realized I could see everything I was framing — noisy perhaps but visible — so that when I fired the flash there were no surprises.
Even a pentaprism viewfinder is darker than “life” and when life itself is even too dark alone, the EVF can potentially show you detail you can’t see with your eye even!
I know, I know: I’m sounding like an Olympus “fan-boy” and so forth — but I really think this technological “sea change” brings us a lot and really loses us very little. Admittedly, us early adopters will pay the price — but I’m okay with that (until I look at my bank balance anyway, lol…)
Still, if you are going DSLR, you surely could do much worse than a D7000 and I still heartily recommend that camera.
John
I’m also no sports shooter and never really missed the tracking and following AF capabilities (my E-520 also isn’t the best in that regard), so I probably won’t need a faster DSLR.
Faster single AF would come handy of course – and if I understood you right in that regard, the E-P(x)3 generation and upwards made a big change here. Plus the newer sensor of the E-PL5, E-PM2, and E-M5 seems to be more or less in the same league as that nice 16MP sensor of the D7000. Which probably means, today you could take *any* camera with a Sony sensor, and be more than happy.
We have some nice lenses already, I like IBIS, so changing to Nikon isn’t really an option. That said, I’m sure I’d love it.
Yes, Wolfgang, you are correct on the autofocus. The OM-D E-M5 is most situations — particularly in lower light — is actually better than my D7000.
If the D7000 has a wart that stands out, it is that it’s autofocus performance in low light is actually worse than some previous generation Nikon systems. That can be seen in the specs for what the minimum EV is for the system, as well as my experience shooting a couple of Nikon DSLR generations and various autofocus systems. It’s good — it’s just that the OM-D manages to somehow be better.
That article about the football league (American football) on my blog encapsulates using the OM-D for fast moving sports though: it’s not the best –though admittedly that was on a pretty dark field. I’ve done relatively little sports but the tracking was nice to have sometimes. But, I’m willing to give it up for the size and other capabilities on the OM-D system.
There is no perfect camera, lol.
Yes I saw your article. Nice photos, these are really remarkable results.