How to tell my new EM5iii is better camera?

bobo_05 said:

Happy Holidays!

I need your help. I bought the em5iii to replace my 5yo em10ii. I got it at a good price so I took the plunge for that incremental improvement in autofocus, resolution, low light performance etc.

Well, I am testing it at home in artificial lighting conditions (its dark out so we have the lights on) and using the exact same camera settings (noise, jpeg LSF etc), exact same lenses, exact same photo settings in A mode (aperture, iso etc), exact same composition and I see no improvement.

I.e. given a set aperture and using auto ISO and shutter, I get literally the same exact shutter and ISO values set by the camera. I tried this with two primes and for two different aperture settings (1.8 and 4.0) and no difference.

You guys would say the picture should be a lot cleaner on the newer camera (especially at F 4.0 and higher ISO), but the curious thing is this is not even the case. I am using the back panels to review the photos (both cameras have identical LCD) at pixel-peeping 14x magnification and I do not see a difference frankly. If I doubted my eyes I would post comparison photos, but I doubt there is a point since difference would be immaterial.

Is there anything that I am missing? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Yes, there is something missing: the two photos hat you neglected to share. There may be some interesting information that others may notice.

I could ask a thousand questions but the photos, with EXIF, will paint a thousand answers.

By all means, apologies. See below. There are differences, but for me the most obvious one is the color scheme - even though both are in Natural profile and without adjustments, the older Em10ii seems to have a bit brighter colors.
Any other differences are very pixel-peeping of a nature unfortunately. Let me know if you disagree.

Of course there are other good things about Em5iii that I still have to test (pro-capture, phase-detect auto focus, strong sun and ultra low shutter performance), but unless I am crazy the real sensor differences dont seem all that material. Let me know ideas, or even if I have a dud.

All photos below are with the Olympus 45mm 1.8 and both cameras are at their respective maximum software update (as is the lens on both).

thanks for looking!


EM5iii - F1.8 ISO 200 - shutter auto at 1/6


EM10ii - F1.8 ISO 200 - shutter auto also at 1/6


EM5iii - F5.6 ISO (auto) 6400 shutter (auto) at 1/20


EM10ii - F5.6 ISO (auto) 6400 shutter (auto) also at 1/20

The better camera will show up in more difficult conditions, like when the IBIS is pressed into service. perhaps in faster more accurate sports focusing, shutter burst mode, video, etc,|


I'm sure you will grin when you get there.

Thanks Baxter, I hope so. It is not a free upgrade unfortunately, but indeed I bought it because I hoped to produce more "keepers" - the old does struggle in low light and cannot deal well with anything moving unless the sun was directly above. So I have high hopes for this one! Cheers,

The difference in IQ is negligible. The e-m5 III is markedly better than the e-m10 II when it comes to tracking moving subjects. With the additional MP, you also have slightly more freedom for cropping/printing purposes. And if you ever get caught in the rain with your camera, the e-m5 III will survive

And this explains that when for the pictures you take a camera works fine (meaning you don't need faster AF, better C-AF, better IBIS, etc.) then getting a new camera isn't going to make a significant difference. Electronics are improving but not that fast, so image quality in terms of signal to noise ratio isn't dramatically improving in a short time (5 years is a short time). A resolution difference going from 16 to 20MP is negligible. (You need to double the resolution to see a meaningful difference.)

So the difference the OP was expecting isn't there. But when you learn to appreciate the differences in handling and shooting capabilities there is a big difference. A few years ago I made the move from the E-M5 to the E-M5 II. The pictures are the same, but it's more pleasant to use, especially because of EFC for faster action while having anti-shock. The III adds PDAF for better C-AF (which I don't need) and a more easily crackable tripod mount (which I certainly don't need)... so I'm not doing that "upgrade"...

I agree with everyone else that you are expecting differences from a 16Mpix to 20Mpix sensor step that aren't there. The differences between the bodies lie mainly in other things. As far as I know, the sensor technology is similar in the two bodies. Even the most modern 20Mpix sensor wouldn't show much improvement in quantum efficiency, which is what counts.

16Mpix is enough resolution for most subjects apart from the most demanding landscapes viewed large.

I regularly shoot a 16Mpix GM1, a 20Mpix EM1.2 and a 61Mpix A7Riv, so this view is based on practical experience.

If you want best IQ, then you need to think about which lens you use and what settings produce the best results for your composition.

The 45/1.8 is quite a good lens, but f1.8 and f5.6 are not its sweet spot, which I'm guessing is around f3.2 to f4. It's also a lens with relatively worse high cycle resolution than other fast lenses. Look at the 30lp/mm curves compared to the 75/1.8 https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-mtf-charts-micro-43-lenses/ . High cycle resolution is important to IQ, at least it is for me.

Stopping down to f5.6 was a good idea but using a higher ISO introduces enough noise that any minor IQ differences will be lost to the combination of noise and Noise Reduction. If you want best IQ, always shoot at base ISO and use a tripod in poor light. Alternatively explore the IBIS differences between the bodies and see how much extra light you can get using the newer body.

Enjoy your new body - it can help you take better pictures.

Andrew

PS most of your test images at ISO 200 has detail either in darker parts or out of critical focus.

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

bobo_05 said:

Happy Holidays!

I need your help. I bought the em5iii to replace my 5yo em10ii. I got it at a good price so I took the plunge for that incremental improvement in autofocus, resolution, low light performance etc.

Click to expand...

For that - you should buy Canon RP.
If you shooting mainly still subjects in the dark - than IBIS will help you to stay at base ISO longer than with em10II, images will be sharper and more detailed too

The RP does not have IBIS. Neither does the R.

Elchanan said:

The RP does not have IBIS. Neither does the R.

Click to expand...

I know. second sentence was for EM5III

bobo_05 said:

Is there anything that I am missing? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Essentially the E-M5 Mark III is a mini version of the E-M1 Mark II. When the E-M1 Mark II came out in 2016, there were a lot of enthusiasm surrounding this new camera as well as the new GX-8 when it came out. A few well-known professional photographers took upon themselves to test drive those 2 cameras and reported back vastly improved clean images from these cameras.

I was skeptical nonetheless. How could a 20MP has vastly improved quantum efficiency to improve image quality over the 16MP sensor that I have on my E-P5? But when I actually did field tests of the E-M1 Mark II and the GX-8 with their 20MP sensors against my E-P5. Aside from the improved higher resolution and some modest improvement in noise grain and a very slight improvement in dynamic range, the results I got with all my pro grade lenses and primes told me the exact results as you were getting. There is no significant marked improvement in noise performance between the 16MP sensor then and the newer 20MP sensor we have now.

Since I didn't need C-AF and PDAF on the E-M1 Mark II and the DFD AF of the GX-8, I settled for another body which is the E-M5 Mark II which has weather sealing to complement my weather sealing lenses. It has improved IBIS over my E-P5. It also has focus stacking (which came later) which support my 7-14 Pro lens and it also has Hi-Res mode which gives a significant improvement when shot on tripod on static objects at lower ISOs. Those improvements were more noticeable to me and so I bought a used E-M5 Mark II as a result of that.

Camera sales have been shrinking for years now, because of precisely your experience. Many cameras today are good enough. Unless you need additional shooting envelope available on the E-M1 series or you need more megapixel and more dynamic range which the full frame and medium format cameras can offer, many of us already have a very capable camera. The improvement can only then come from the photographer, not the camera. Buying a camera simply adds to the tool set the photographer needs to create an image.

And that is because, ultimately, you always get what you bring to field. How much are you willing to carry with you to where you want to create those images. Cameras don't walk by themselves nor shoot by themselves, so it's pointless to even imagine bringing the best ultimate camera if you don't carry it with you to hypothetical situations which people like to bring up to justify a better camera purchase.

bobo_05 said:

Happy Holidays!

I need your help. I bought the em5iii to replace my 5yo em10ii. I got it at a good price so I took the plunge for that incremental improvement in autofocus, resolution, low light performance etc.

Well, I am testing it at home in artificial lighting conditions (its dark out so we have the lights on) and using the exact same camera settings (noise, jpeg LSF etc), exact same lenses, exact same photo settings in A mode (aperture, iso etc), exact same composition and I see no improvement.

I.e. given a set aperture and using auto ISO and shutter, I get literally the same exact shutter and ISO values set by the camera. I tried this with two primes and for two different aperture settings (1.8 and 4.0) and no difference.

You guys would say the picture should be a lot cleaner on the newer camera (especially at F 4.0 and higher ISO), but the curious thing is this is not even the case. I am using the back panels to review the photos (both cameras have identical LCD) at pixel-peeping 14x magnification and I do not see a difference frankly. If I doubted my eyes I would post comparison photos, but I doubt there is a point since difference would be immaterial.

Is there anything that I am missing? Thanks!

Click to expand...

As others have already mentioned, there is not much improvement for general purpose photography. But, if you try to do this:





Or this:







You will be disappointed with the results and likely need a new camera,

IMO, the weather sealing and PDAF are reason enough to upgrade, even if you don't shoot sports. I have the Olympus 14-150 II that is weather sealed. It makes a great travel lens.

I was in Norway a few years ago where I was told that there is no bad weather, only bad clothing. I packed my rain gear and my E-M1 and 12-40 pro. I took a nice two hour hike in the pouring rain. A tram takes you up to the top of a hill. When I got up there, the conditions were like this:





20 minutes later, they were like this:





The sleet turned to rain and I spent the next two hours walking in the rain with my camera out and a lens hood on taking photos. No issues.

The PDAF is useful for any moving subject, including children or grand children, animals, cars, etc.

There are other useful features as well.

There are difference in the images, but part of that is a function of the default camera settings for the E-M5.3 vs the E-M10.2. It appears that the default jpeg settings for the E-M10.2 are like those of my E-M10.1 and the E-M5.3 settings are like those of the E-M1s.

The default E-M10.1 settings for sharpening, noise filter, contrast and saturation are more aggressive than the E-M1s. You could compare RAW images (downsizing the E-M5.3 to the same size as the E-M10.2), but you are likely to see relatively small differences unless the images have a wide dynamic range.

Where you will see a dramatic difference is in CAF focus with moving subjects.

--
drj3

Wow, thanks guys and gals! I didnt expect this many answers, all of which good. I will pick one randomly to conclude this thread.

Thank you for your advice. It all makes sense and the main reason I upgraded was to get more keepers in tough situations (movement - PDAF, low light - better IBIS and ISO) so I hope this little upgrade delivers on that promise. I just thought there will be bigger improvement in the picture clarity, somehow magically, alas this was wishful thinking.

What this does tell me is exactly what one of you highlighted - these cameras are already so good that image quality alone is tough to improve by the next model (or the next next in this case).

Which explains why so many m4/3 shooters end up exploring FF (certainly better low light, albeit not IBIS), but that is whole another topic I dont want to open. And frankly I have no interest in it for the next 5y hopefully - this EM5iii should serve me well this long, and by then I will decide whether weight and features or better low light is priority.

Thanks again and happy shooting. I now have to find opportunities to put this camera through its paces and test that PDAF and other perks it has over my old one.

Cheers

bobo_05 said:

Happy Holidays!

I need your help. I bought the em5iii to replace my 5yo em10ii. I got it at a good price so I took the plunge for that incremental improvement in autofocus, resolution, low light performance etc.

Well, I am testing it at home in artificial lighting conditions (its dark out so we have the lights on) and using the exact same camera settings (noise, jpeg LSF etc), exact same lenses, exact same photo settings in A mode (aperture, iso etc), exact same composition and I see no improvement.

Click to expand...

16Mpix and 20Mpix isn't that much of a difference. Noise should be ever so slightly better at 20, but it will be subtle at best.

bobo_05 said:

I.e. given a set aperture and using auto ISO and shutter, I get literally the same exact shutter and ISO values set by the camera. I tried this with two primes and for two different aperture settings (1.8 and 4.0) and no difference.

Click to expand...

I do hope so! Same light = same aperture, speed and ISO!

bobo_05 said:

You guys would say the picture should be a lot cleaner on the newer camera (especially at F 4.0 and higher ISO), but the curious thing is this is not even the case. I am using the back panels to review the photos (both cameras have identical LCD) at pixel-peeping 14x magnification and I do not see a difference frankly. If I doubted my eyes I would post comparison photos, but I doubt there is a point since difference would be immaterial.

Click to expand...

Reviewing and comparing images on the back LCD, really? You shouldn't and won't see a difference at that resolution. Finer details and texture will be ever so slightly better on the EM5iii, but again very subtle and the tests shots you've shown us won't show that.

bobo_05 said:

Is there anything that I am missing? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Yes you are, but not in terms of overall IQ. There will be a small improvement, but if you look at your pictures on the back LCD it won't matter to you. As you have by now figured out, the overall improvement in IQ isn't worth the upgrade IMO. If you need the better AF, IBIS and high res imagery, the EM5iii will deliver, but if you don't there are few compelling reasons to upgrade. There is a reason why I still shoot with the 7yrs old EM10MK1, I don't feel deprived.

--
Roger

I've used the original E-M10 for six years and just got the E-M5 III two months ago. It is better in so many regards. The 20MP sensor does give better IQ than the 16MP sensor. I see this easily when checking in post at 1:1 to check what's actually in and out of focus. Noise levels also seem to be reduced.

Of course, the focusing is faster and C-AF with tracking actually works...not at the Sony level, but it immediately raised my hit ratio for fast moving subjects like small birds and insects from near zero to around 80%.

Thanks! Yea I havent had the chance to test it yet. Cheers

What did you expect? 16 MP to 20 MP are 25 % more pixels in the area = 12 % more pixels in length and 12 % more pixels in high. So if you use a high-end-lens (eg. one of the 1:1,2 primes) you will see a very small increase in sharpness. But sharpness is not the only aspect of a camera of a newer generation. AF faster and more accurate? Better dynamic range? More features? Wheater sealed? Better rear screen? Better OVF? .......If a VW Golf has 85 HP instead of 75 it is not that difference, but it is also new in many other aspects ....