Olympus should make better midrange options..

I think what's missing most in m43 is something that lets a user benefit fully from the size/weight of the format without compromising on core photographic features (EVF, AF, sensor) - there are no longer compelling bodies which are "premium" and compact.

I'd exclude video from that set of premium features, because I know 'premium' video demands processing and heat dissipation better suited to a larger body like the GHs.

By not updating the Pen F or M5.ii, Oly has left a big gap between the excellent (but large and expensive) M1.ii and the rest.

There is a budget/entry level which is reasonably served by some light inexpensive lenses and bodies. There is a top level well served by all the Pro lenses and GH5/G9/M1.ii bodies. I think the OP has a point about the mid-level, especially, I think this premium & compact thing.

Panasonic is no better. They update their models more often, but manage to avoid making a premium compact model every time. GX8 - too big. GX9 - still using that awful FS EVF they must have a warehouse full somewhere because they keep putting them into cameras where they aren't wanted (latest being the LX100 Mkii). GM5 is the example people often use on the forum - a body produced for about 1 year and discontinued about 3 years ago I think.

I admit I come at this only as someone looking at times for a smaller second body to complement another system (Nikon FX in my case). I don't need a G9/M1.ii and pro lenses - too big and expensive relative to my FX. I don't want entry-level performance - at least not today in MILC - the entry level AF and EVFs aren't good enough, and the perception of aging sensors doesn't help (forgive me, it feels to me that a small sensor format should be stretching to the best and latest sensor tech). But I can't be alone in that surely? There must be committed m43 high-end users who want a light second body but don't want entry level performance?

To a lesser extent, the same applies to lenses. For me the single most compelling lens in m43, in terms of size/speed, is one of the very first - the Pany 20/1.7. There are many pancake lenses around and many f1.7 lenses around, but it's the only lens in any system to combine a genuine pancake compactness with a useful fast aperture. I have no idea whether more pancake lenses are optically possible, but wider and longer pancakes in this range, preserving the speed and compactness, would be a great addition to the system.

In a world where MILC competition has intensified a lot in just the last few weeks, I think the m43 system is missing out on the full competitive differentiation it could offer in 'enthusiast' (not pro, not entry level) compactness.

VBLondon wrote:

To a lesser extent, the same applies to lenses. For me the single most compelling lens in m43, in terms of size/speed, is one of the very first - the Pany 20/1.7. There are many pancake lenses around and many f1.7 lenses around, but it's the only lens in any system to combine a genuine pancake compactness with a useful fast aperture. I have no idea whether more pancake lenses are optically possible, but wider and longer pancakes in this range, preserving the speed and compactness, would be a great addition to the system.

I think this is spot-on. The Panny 20mm was my first lens purchase, and still one of my favorite lenses. It combines excellent IQ with a tiny size and a fast aperture, and it was this unique combination of qualities that tempted me to m43 in the first place. I'd love to see similar pancakes at slightly longer and shorter focal lengths.

jwilliams wrote:

String wrote:

As the owner of both a Mk1 and Mk2 E-M1 I can tell you that there really isn't a whole of of real world difference between the 16 and 20Mp sensors.

Huge difference - no. Better - yes. Both m43 sensors are behind every other format out there, so why would you not want to use the best sensor available? Why stay 'more' behind?

They did switch to a 20Mp sensor and I'm sure the new Pen and 5-III will also have a 20Mp sensor and if rumors are to be believed, the new top end model will once again introduce a new sensor. Not sure what the problem is here?

If you think they "ALL" switched to the latest tech, you need to take a really close look at Canon.

I also shoot Canon. From the first APSC with 24MP, all future cameras had it. Every APSC camera has had a 24 MP or better sensor for years.

Number one complaint I've read and heard from Canon users is how far their sensors lag behind Sony/Nikon.

My last camera purchase was a Canon SL2. Paid $500 for it new. Great camera. IQ is noticeably better than any of my 16 MP m43 cameras. What will $500 buy you in m43? - an old used 16 MP camera.

Awesome! You can buy a dirt cheap Nikon D3XXX as well. Economies of scale; You can buy a brand new E-M10 III for $549 or wait for a sale and get it cheaper which is hardly "an old used 16 MP camera".

Like a lot of users on here, you seem to want all the tech from the top end model but on something thats about half the price. Really like to know how that would benefit any company who is in business to make a profit. Seriously, why would anyone buy an EM-1 if the EM-5 had all the same tech/features at half the price?

Lots of features you can add besides sensor. I'll gladly take the model that doesn't do 60 fps. Go ahead and charge others more for that. I can skip weather sealing. etc. etc.

Yes, you certainly can however you were complaining about the sensor. Buy a PenF or wait for the E-M5III.

If you want all the high end "stuff", buy a used EM-1 mk1; they are cheap and even after all this time, a great camera.

No thanks, I have three 16MP cameras now. Why would I buy another one?

I agree, you shouldn't buy another one. You are probably much better off buying another Canon. I hear they are dirt cheap and IQ is noticeably better than any 16 MP m43 cameras.

MaciekPruski wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

Well, the mid-range options are plenty: E-M10-III, E-M5-II, Pen-F, many Panasonic...

What I miss the most are very light / small bodies. There was the GM5 at ~200g. There are many options in the 400-500g range. What I really want is a GM5++ around 300g.

That $999 for Pen F is a great deal. Unfortunately where I live (Europe) it still sells for about $1500 body only which is hardly midrange. And that is quite a long time after release date. They need a good cheaper midrange model IMO

That is not true. You can easily get a Pen F body for 1000 € / $1200, including VAT.

SpinOne wrote:

I have to disagree with you there. E-M1, E-M5 ii, GX9, Pen-F are all premium and compact.

If "compact" to you means "ultra-tiny," that was the GM5, which failed.

Seriously, this again? Are you just trolling?

The E-M1 and G9 are the largest m43 cameras. They can hardly be "compact", at least not in m43 world. If you want to define compact in terms of all cameras, FF included, then they are rather mid-sized (NOT compact), dwarfed by old DLSRs and giants compared to cameras like the GM5 or GX850. At any rate, in no way on god's green earth can they be considered "compact".

The midsize range--the topic of this thread--is currently occupied by cameras like the E-M10, E-M5, and GX9. If you have something to add to this discussion about midi-size cameras, please offer. If not, please stop hijacking it with your stupid re-definitions of what it means to be a mid-size camera.

Ah, screw it . . . not worth the irritation . . . don't bother replying because you're on ignore.

tjuster1 wrote:

SpinOne wrote:

I have to disagree with you there. E-M1, E-M5 ii, GX9, Pen-F are all premium and compact.

If "compact" to you means "ultra-tiny," that was the GM5, which failed.

Seriously, this again? Are you just trolling?

The E-M1 and G9 are the largest m43 cameras. They can hardly be "compact", at least not in m43 world. If you want to define compact in terms of all cameras, FF included, then they are rather mid-sized (NOT compact), dwarfed by old DLSRs and giants compared to cameras like the GM5 or GX850. At any rate, in no way on god's green earth can they be considered "compact".

The midsize range--the topic of this thread--is currently occupied by cameras like the E-M10, E-M5, and GX9. If you have something to add to this discussion about midi-size cameras, please offer. If not, please stop hijacking it with your stupid re-definitions of what it means to be a mid-size camera.

Ah, screw it . . . not worth the irritation . . . don't bother replying because you're on ignore.

The size definition and grouping is what you think it should be.  Other people have other definitions and groupings.

Anyhow, MFT needs a range of cameras from Low price to high end in all size ranges.

SpinOne wrote:

VBLondon wrote:

I think what's missing most in m43 is something that lets a user benefit fully from the size/weight of the format without compromising on core photographic features (EVF, AF, sensor) - there are no longer compelling bodies which are "premium" and compact.

I have to disagree with you there. E-M1, E-M5 ii, GX9, Pen-F are all premium and compact.

The E-M1 doesn't fall into my definition of compact, or most peoples.

The EM5.ii is a wonderful premium compact, it's just too old. CDAF is a big fail, despite all the other features.

Nothing with the Pany Field Sequential EVF used in the GX9 is a really premium camera.

Pen-F, ditto as per EM5.ii

This is all just IMHO. I am sure views will differ.

If "compact" to you means "ultra-tiny," that was the GM5, which failed.

I don't know what it should be, my point is there's nothing smaller than the G9/M1.ii which is up-to-date, premium and compact. There are bodies which tick 2 of those three boxes, but nothing IMHO which ticks all three.

By not updating the Pen F or M5.ii, Oly has left a big gap between the excellent (but large and expensive) M1.ii and the rest.

The E-M5 needs a refresh, but... Let's face it, digital cameras are mature, and both Olympus and Panasonic jam these tiny cameras with tons of features.

This suits the segment who love those features, which to many non-m43 users are somewhat "secondary" but doesn't suit people wanting the core attributes (sensor, AF, EVF) to be as good as available by market standards.

The only thing lacking in Olympus is better C-AF with the midrange cameras. While that is a competitive disadvantage, it's not a fatal one, as the Pen-F has supposedly sold very well.

Of course, but the market has moved on and expectations are higher.

To a lesser extent, the same applies to lenses. For me the single most compelling lens in m43, in terms of size/speed, is one of the very first - the Pany 20/1.7.

Bleh.... most overrated M43 lens ever

The small primes aren't much larger than the pancake, and are generally better quality.

It's great that there are both small primes and pro primes in the 100-odd (?) native lenses in m43. I'm just saying that this large range of lens choices might be nicely complemented by a couple more fast pancakes.

In a world where MILC competition has intensified a lot in just the last few weeks, I think the m43 system is missing out on the full competitive differentiation it could offer in 'enthusiast' (not pro, not entry level) compactness.

Yeah, well. I am mystified why people think that a camera line that did not sell in the past will suddenly start selling.

But the m5 line and Pen line sold well. So why haven't they been updated?

Personally, I think a GM5 for 2018 would be great, however I can just about buy the "it didn't sell" thing. But not for the EM5 or Pen!

The new competition isn't even trying to make compact mirrorless systems, either. M43 keeps a size advantage just by maintaining its current lineup.

Yes, in the sense that the flagship m43 bodies are a similar size to Fuji, Sony and now Nikon and Canon MILCs. But it dissipates some of the format size advantage if in addition to the larger flagship bodies (which pair most naturally with the larger Pro lenses) there aren't compelling, premium and more compact body choices to fully take advantage of the more compact lenses.

To be fair, just about all of the other makes have 'neglected the middle' recently; launching new flagships bodies, with token refreshes of the entry level, so m43 is not alone in this. But compactness is the most unique advantage of the system, so under-serving it seems a loss to me.

DLBlack wrote:

The size definition and grouping is what you think it should be. Other people have other definitions and groupings.

Anyhow, MFT needs a range of cameras from Low price to high end in all size ranges.

The thing is, they tried that and it really didn't work so why would they do it again?

Right now (at least in Olympus) you can buy from around the $500 mark to the $2000 mark. You can buy decent consumer zooms and inexpensive (but still very good) primes. If you want better, you can buy "Pro" zooms and high end primes. With m43 you have a system choice that really isn't matched by any other brand unless you want to shoot FF Canikon.

MaciekPruski wrote:

They can save other features for the flagships like weather sealing, better autofocus, high framerate, bigger battery life etc. But the cheaper options should also have appeal for real photographers.

One of the things that Olympus did well in the FourThirds area was produce relatively inexpensive, high quality, larger aperture, weather-sealed lenses.  There were several weather-sealed ones in the $400-$800 range including the 14-54mm, 50mm Macro, 12-60mm, 11-22mm etc.  However, Olympus kinda dropped the ball there as the only bodies with weather sealing were the relatively expensive and large Pro bodies (E-1, E-3, and E-5).

Now, with microFourThirds, Olympus has had options in the  mid-range weather-sealed bodies (E-M5, E-M5.2), but their inexpensive, large aperture, weather-sealed lenses are largely missing: Only the 60mm Macro, 14-150 mk.II, and 12-50mm are below $800 and weather sealed, and of those only the 60mm has the f/2.8 (the others are f/3.5 or smaller).  Panasonic has a couple other weather-sealed inexpensive options (12-60mm and 45-200mm mk 2), but they're also small aperture (f/3.5-5.6 and f/4-5.6, respectively).

I feel like Olympus have proven they can do weather sealing on both sides of the camera mount, at a good price point, and with mid-grade features, but they haven't done both lenses and bodies at the same time on the same system.

Weather-sealing is something that I've greatly appreciated when I've had it:  I feel confident bringing my camera on hikes/vacations, without nearly as much worry about rain or splashes.

jwilliams wrote:

String wrote:

As the owner of both a Mk1 and Mk2 E-M1 I can tell you that there really isn't a whole of of real world difference between the 16 and 20Mp sensors.

Huge difference - no. Better - yes. Both m43 sensors are behind every other format out there, so why would you not want to use the best sensor available? Why stay 'more' behind?

If you think they "ALL" switched to the latest tech, you need to take a really close look at Canon.

I also shoot Canon. From the first APSC with 24MP, all future cameras had it. Every APSC camera has had a 24 MP or better sensor for years.

My last camera purchase was a Canon SL2. Paid $500 for it new. Great camera. IQ is noticeably better than any of my 16 MP m43 cameras.

The performance of the 16MP sensors is actually quite competitive, even compared to this 24MP Canon. As per DxO sensor tests, it lags behind the Canon by 0.5-1 stops, which is more or less what the sensor size difference would lead you to expect. Such lag is to be expected and its part of the design compromises of the system (for the benefit of a smaller form factor). I don't think the sensor tech accounts for the IQ differences you observe. The 20MP sensors are better of course.

Regarding the general point, I agree that the current offering from Olympus is lacking. it's really unclear to me why we haven't seen an updated mid-range E-M5 with the new sensor and with middle-tier level of PDAF. I have an E-M10mk1 from April 2014 and since then Olympus offered no upgrade path for the newer sensor, stabilization and AF in less than 1.7K$. I'm waiting to see what the new announcement brings, it could be that we will see a price cut on the E-M1mk2 due to re-positioning in the lineup and/or competition with cameras like X-T3 (that sells for less...). This might make it more affordable, but at the moment I'm not sure I'll stay in this system for much longer.

What will $500 buy you in m43? - an old used 16 MP camera.

Like a lot of users on here, you seem to want all the tech from the top end model but on something thats about half the price. Really like to know how that would benefit any company who is in business to make a profit. Seriously, why would anyone buy an EM-1 if the EM-5 had all the same tech/features at half the price?

Lots of features you can add besides sensor. I'll gladly take the model that doesn't do 60 fps. Go ahead and charge others more for that. I can skip weather sealing. etc. etc.

If you want all the high end "stuff", buy a used EM-1 mk1; they are cheap and even after all this time, a great camera.

No thanks, I have three 16MP cameras now. Why would I buy another one?

dinoSnake wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

The 16mpx sensor is an antique and needs to be replaced immediately. The apologists on this board are doing the format NO favor by constantly saying that the 16mpx sensor is an adequate offering in 2018, and it's high time we all stop doing so. Its time has passed, period.

There's actually at least 3 16MP sensors. The oldest is the Sony IMX109 (Chipworks confirmed was in E-M5 from early 2012, others confirmed was in E-PM2).

Then the Panasonic MN34230 in the E-M1 from late 2013 (and likely other Panasonics).

The Sony IMX159 is about 3 years old and came out in 2015 at the same time as the 20MP IMX269. Given the full width 4K capabilities of the E-PL9 and E-M10 III, it's pretty certain those cameras are using this newer sensor and not the older IMX109. So that sensor is not that old actually.

The point is that 16mpx with strict CDAF is an antique in the marketplace. No other compan[y] - no other format - is getting away with selling 16mpx on an interchangeable-lens camera in 2018. Not one. Panasonic is even using the same sensor, with pretty equivalent output resolution, in their "pocket" cameras (LX100), so think of that for a second: you get the same sensor in their "advanced ILC system" as other parts of their line.

For the average consumer, that's a damning phrase.

Well these are entry level cameras. The LX100 is a top level compact (one of the most expensive, but with best IQ).

It's not just that it is 16mpx for, as even CNET noted in the EM10.3 review where they gave it 'no buy'

I tried to find that review, but couldn't. Only found the E-M10 II review where they gave it 4 stars.

My bad, sorry! It was the PCMag review, pcmag.com/review/355875/olympus-om-d-e-m10-mark-iii

They gave it only 3 stars and a good rating (one less than the E-M10 II) but they didn't give it a "no buy" rating.

The OM10.3 gets the nod for features but, based on AF, families are pretty much told to stay away.

This is not a way to endear yourself to the market.

Well it's more nuanced that that. It says if you are subjects that moves quickly (sports, kids, pets), then that's an issue, but for mostly static subjects, it's not. So depends on your family composition. I have no experience with Olympus AF, so I can't comment on how theirs perform.

I don't know about Olympus, but the DFD CDAF in my GX85 has no problems performing as well as the PDAF sensor in my D5000 (actually better in low light). And the reviews point to it being as quick as any option in SAF. A sensor having PDAF doesn't mean it performs any better (for example Fuji is still behind in AF even with OSPDAF).

Also, the sensor being 16MP doesn't really have anything to do with AF performance, that depends more on the AF technology being used. The resolution isn't the limiter here.

As I said, it is not just the 16mpx, it's the entire appearance of the tech being left behind by rivals who are now offering 24mpx minimum and OSPDAF on their MILC's, even if pure CDAF can be made to perform pretty well. Potential customers comparison shop features and the modern line of m43 bodies is being left behind, and being left wanting.

DfD is great but a limiting factor: you can only get it on Panasonic bodies fitted with Panasonic lenses. The large system that [we] want to hype to potential buyers gets a performance downgrade on DfD-equipped Panasonic bodies once you start mixing-and-matching lenses based upon your personal tastes. This is not a great selling point.

The mid-level DSLRs (like D7500) and flagship APS-C DSLRs (D500, 7D II) actually have 20MP sensors, not 24MP. For mid-level enthusiasts, I think DR, noise performance, and speed is more important than outright resolution.

For entry level it's hard to say. Actually in cell phones there's an enforcement that lower res means better noise performance (however true that is), like for example insistence of Apple still using 12MP sensors (while Sony uses 19MP in their phones). I'm not sure if the megapixel war is still as strong as it is was in the past.

dinoSnake wrote:

assaft wrote:

Regarding the general point, I agree that the current offering from Olympus is lacking. it's really unclear to me why we haven't seen an updated mid-range E-M5 with the new sensor and with middle-tier level of PDAF. I have an E-M10mk1 from April 2014 and since then Olympus offered no upgrade path for the newer sensor, stabilization and AF in less than 1.7K$.

Upon logical analysis, there can be only one reasonable assumption: Olympus got caught with its pants down. The EM5 mkIII was scheduled for earlier this year but the anticipated introduction was canceled for a later date; logic would dictate that a competitive answer to other available products in the marketplace would warrant an immediate release.

Therefore, the only answer was that the EM5.3 was not competitive and had to go back to the drawing board. Most likely, IMHO, Olympus was ready to give us yet another 16mpx pure-CDAF camera, to protect the market placement of the EM1.2, but they realized that it would be a market embarrassment, behind the times by years.

Yeah, but let's not forget that we are talking about a company that has a record of puzzling releases like the E-M10 mk3 and E-PL6-9 - cameras that I don't even understand how they left the drawing board, since most of their new features were cosmetic and/or could be added by a paid firmware upgrade mechanism. So I'm not so sure that the E-M5 mk3 was postponed on the grounds of lack of innovation / competitiveness. Anyway, I hope there'll be a viable mid-range offering soon.