Hands-on with the Olympus E-M5 Mark III

A7 + 24-240 is pretty compact FF set.
A6xxx + 18-135 is small as well.
RX-10V4 with 24-600/2.8-4 is pretty good too if you don't insist on best low light performance.

Almost any Current panasonic with the superb 14-140-II (prob the best superzoom made) .... or an RX10-IV of course

@AdamT

Lens is not fast enough for travel.

TEdolph

Indoor photography.

Tedolph

@mwhyte

The problem is that, in some locales and conditions, the new EM5 mkIII is not less expensive than the EM1 mkII.

Right now the EM1 mkII is $1499...but you can apply for an additional $300 trade-in bonus coupon (I did the last time they had the deal), making the EM1.2 $1199 out of pocket when you take that path.

And in Switzerland, the report is currently that an EM1.2 bundle costs *less* than the EM5.3 with the same lens, but the EM1 bundle even includes an EXTRA lens plus the optional battery grip!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63212654

As a photographer and engineer you should just buy the EM1.2 - it was made for you.

dear C-at-light; I did it some months ago; I was waiting for the m5 III being 'sure' that they would use the large battery (it was the obvious thing to do); therefore I was right and lucky buying the M1 ii. Dear Zvonimir, I agree that charging the battery through USB is a good and useful thing. however, even though they certainly worked on improving the camera (few % better on consumption), physics is physics. and these mirrorless EVF cameras are very hungry on energy and it needs large batteries.

This one is a rare breed, optimised in an unusal way. I think Mk3 does not deserve so moch nitpicking criticisim, considering that Olympus has cameras with room for beefy batteries.

I somewhat agree that the EM5 iii should have a bigger not smaller battery, but it is a trade off of what else could have occupied that space.

For upgraders from the EM5 ii is means that they have to by one or 2 new spare batteries instead on none.

Carrying a spare battery isn't much hardship, but the purchase price stings

@catlight- Here is an em5-2 card speed comparison. Note the uhs2 cards are faster in the camera.
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/olympus-e-m5-ii/sd-card-comparison/

It’s not “Sony’s strategy”. If anything, it’d be Leica’s, or Nikon’s (i.e. brands that have taken refuge in high-price products to protect their earnings way earlier in time).
But Sony (and Samsung, to be honest) were, by far, the first ones to see where the market would be today. They deserve some credit for that, and especially for sticking around despite the grim prospect (so much for the “Sony are pulling the plug on Alpha” myth that surfaces every so often).

Sadly, it is overpriced. Upon very serious consideration not by much, it's just a question of appearances. $1199, that is $1200 in everything but the name, seems expensive due to the stiff competition in the marketplace as the X-T3 is only $100 more on street pricing, that is what people will actually pay.

If the EM5 mkIII was priced at $1,099, a modest $100 difference, I bet people would give it more of a chance, as a $200 street price difference feels more "real" to the average buyer; $200 buys a true accessory, a flash or especially a small lens, while $100 is an "in for a penny, in for a pound" level of difference.

Well, I have issues with my shoulders and neck, then, weight is very important for me. Also, the 'small' sensor of the Olympus is rarely a problem in low light, because their stabilization system is outstanding, and 1600 ISO is more than I need. Finally, for landscapes, there is the possibility of using the high res (50 MP) - but it kills the weight argument.

People don't understand is that the m43 format is really about about the lenses. What is the weight of a full frame or APS equivalent to an Oly 12-100? I'll answer: There is nothing equivalent that weighs anything reasonable. For those of us who are getting older, or who like to hike with our cameras around our neck, every ounce counts.

Belgarchi sorry to hear you have problems makes sense then. I would have argued the X-T3 could be better but it is pretty heavy for its small size. I don't have to worry about weight because I nearly always have it on a tripod so no weight to hold.

Mark I like the E-M1X as it is, really nice handling Im going to possibly pick it up when its discontinuing far too expensive at the moment.
If I was going to walk that far (I feel ill just thinking about it!) Id rather take a bigger sensor and fewer lenses to make it worthwhile. The Z6 is small and light for instance... depend what you want the pictures for I suppose. We have a pixel arms race going on at our camera club but all we ever do is post small files on Purpleport!

@ Abrasive Reducer: I would really be interested to know what could be achieved if Googles / Apples processing tricks would be applied with Olympus hardware (esp. high resolution mode via Olymus' sensor shift technology). I think M43 and APS-C could really benefit from such features like portrait mode and night sight mode.

Sorry. No Sony news for you this week. Go to SAR. The Admin creates news out of thin air.

Frankly, FF choices aren't that far off either in size or price. The Z6 and A7Rm2 are $1800 new.

$1200 body versus $1800, that's a significant difference to those of us who can't afford to light that extra six bills on fire for expensive, limited glass selection and Sony ergos, respectively.

Full frame choices are very, very far off in terms of size and weight. if that doesn't matter, then this camera makes little sense.

Don't forget that these are system cameras. FF glass costs more (unless you go down the EF lenses + adaptor route) and weights significantly more.

This E-M5 MkIII + the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 costs (and weights) significantly less than let's say a Z6 + the S-line 50mm f/1.8.

I totally disagree. $1,200 does not buy you a "camera system", it buys you a camera body. The entire system will cost a good bit more than that. ILC cameras generally have, you know, lenses. And flashes/bags/tripods/filters/laptops/lots of gaffers tape/etc etc. $600 is a significant but still reasonable amount of money to be talking about. Maybe you get a slow FF lens compared to a fast m43 lens and save $600 there, certainly possible. There are expensive m43 and cheap FF lens choices. Then the body cost is balanced.

Size/weight for FF is totally different? No. Not if you factor in the total light gathering of the larger sensor. F2.8 m43 gear is roughly equivalent to f5.6 FF gear. That balances out size, weight, and generally price as well.

Take the Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7, one of the most interesting m43 lenses. Coupled with say this new body, that's a lot of money/size/weight but very similar to money/size/weight of say a Z6 with the 24-70mm f4 lens. Different but comparable.

The M43 f1.7 lens will have a slight bokeh advantage, DoF being equiv. 3.6 versus 4; but it would still have two and a half stops more sensitivity. f1.7 is f1.7, regardless of sensor size. And that Leica derived zoom will have superior optics to the S line f4 Nikon. Also, I'm really looking forward to see how the new Oly's AF tracking does compared to the Nikon. Win or lose, this is going to be an interesting race.

"The Nikon is capturing 4 times as much light in that equation." It has to, it has a 4x bigger sensor.

High end M43 zooms are optically excellent, weather sealed-and are more expensive than cheap kit zooms for full frame for a reason. And that reason is they're better equipment in every meaningful way. Nicer glass, better mechanism, faster focusing, etc.

If we're going to compare Oly primes to Nikon zooms, then let's compare the Oly 1.2 primes. Still a thinner DOF slice than an S series Nikon zoom, and yes being weatherproof matters in my world.

And Oly Pro zooms are optically some of the sharpest lenses ever made, according to DPReview themselves. Very much competitive with expensive and yes heavier Nikon full frame zooms.

I think the 50mp high resolution shows the limits of most of these "high end" m43 zooms and primes. The 42.5mm f1.2 for example was too soft for 50mp. The 12-40 f2.8 worked but it's not exactly a small lens. Using that with this new body makes the cost and size even more comparable to the A7m2 with the 28-70 f3.5-f5.6. The Sony resolves a good bit more (42mp vs 20mp) and is brighter on the wide end but has a smaller focal length range (2.5x vs 3.33x). Size wise, this is now very close:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#835.412,624.396,ha,t
And price wise, we're within 10% on camera+body cost

Not that I'd recommend the 28-70 Sony lens but it presents a reasonable equivalent for the Olympus "pro" zoom.

There are differences sure, but they are very competitive and that's the point. For the same budget, you should well consider one or the other depending on your needs and not toss out FF as inherently more expensive than m43.

You should also not toss out M43 because of equivalence. Also the E-M5 3 is significantly smaller than the Sony. Yet somehow easier to use and more comfortable to hold, if it's anything like its predecessors.

Yes more light hits a bigger sensor at a given aperture because there's more sensor to hit (although each square millimeter of sensor gets the same number of photons regardless of overall surface area). The advantages are DoF and resolution. The disadvantages are size and weight, because bigger glass is needed to cover a bigger sensor. Sensor read speed (rolling shutter) is a factor too. Also in favor of the smaller sensor, it's easier to make really high quality glass cover it, because there's less glass to make, and a smaller focus group to shift over a shorter distance.

Leica's 10-25 f1.7 zoom would be a LOT bigger if it had to cover four times the surface area that it does.

You have to love how the release of a new camera brings all this rage and long messages.

As String suggested, the FF camera needs 4x the amount of light. If you consider the relative light gathering to the sensor, the f/1.8 with a 4/3 sensor will give you the same exposure settings as an f/1.8 in FF. This is a double-edge sword; i.e. you get less bokeh, but you also get more depth without having to crank-up your aperture (and, therefore, slower your shutter speed or increase your ISO). This can be useful at some situations like wildlife, macro, or even urban photography.

At the end of the day, there is simply no system that is perfect in everything.

PS: there is more to a lens than just its aperture. E.g. construction, sealing, handling, rendering characteristics (sharpness, contrast, etc)...

I am not saying one is better than the other, I am saying this camera body is expensive enough where it competes to some extent with full frame bodies.

Yep, but as said above, you need to think of lenses too, not only bodies. Also, other than the Canon RP, there is no other full-frame body targeting the same audience. The A7(R) II is priced similarly, but is a two-models behind model meant for landscape photographers who want that extra resolution albeit the worse handling and WR. This is meant for the traveler/urban photographer/casual amateur who wants a no-frills camera with some extras there and in here to speed-up/ease-up capturing that photo (e.g. ProCapture, Live Composition, Live Bulb, etc).