E-M10 III Very Underrated

[Okapi001]

BTW Dont you have an m10 ii? If so, what is your feeling about the continous 25 photos? enough or you need more?

Even if you don't need it, it doesn't hurt to have it. Perhaps in a certain situation, it comes handy.

 

[CanonSharpShooter]

Refurbished camera with kit lens, memory card and camera bag were 20% off bring its total with shipping to under $400. Great deal!

 

[plantdoc]

20% off refurb is how I bought mine. It seemed new. However, be sure to run the camera and lens through extensive tests. You only have a 90 day warranty and bad weather, etc can eat the days. I discovered mine had a marginal IBIS just a few days before the 90. Comparison with a new camera showed a vast difference. Return shipping for hopeful service offset some of the savings. EZ lens had some decentering as well. Apparently no free shipping for warranty service.

greg

 

[Helen]

I have not used my 2 omd10 III enough to compare performance or the menus with previous version. However, I do miss be ability to store at least 1 set of settings. Seems like a curious mix of keep and deletes based on reading. Still has plenty of functions available but irritated by the inability to reduced the steps in f stops and iso. I have never found all theses steps to be useful on my dslr cameras and reduce them. Unfortunately, one camera, Oly refurb has a problem with Ibis compared to the new camera. Just discovered that at 42mm the new can shoot sharp pics at 1/8 while the refurb needs at least about 1/30 or faster. It off to Oly just beating the 90 warranty

Greg

This is very interesting to read, as I've had somewhat similar experience but never posted about it as it seemed so mystifying and illogical. I've had 3 E-M10 Mk III cameras, all bought new. Sorting them by date of manufacture rather than purchase, they were a silver one, a black one, and a more recently produced silver one. I was able to test them side by side for a period, set up identically and indeed even with the same individual lens to rule out a lens manufacturing variation. One camera had very useful IBIS, at least as good as the good one you mention. The other two are very poor, just like the figures you give. Almost better with IBIS disabled. Since they were all purchased new, you'd expect the final silver one would be the good one, but in fact it's the black one, built in the middle of this trio's production dates. Strange. The factor in common is therefore the silver body, but it's hard to say why and could just be coincidence/luck of the draw.

 

[Zoonami]

I have not used my 2 omd10 III enough to compare performance or the menus with previous version. However, I do miss be ability to store at least 1 set of settings. Seems like a curious mix of keep and deletes based on reading. Still has plenty of functions available but irritated by the inability to reduced the steps in f stops and iso. I have never found all theses steps to be useful on my dslr cameras and reduce them. Unfortunately, one camera, Oly refurb has a problem with Ibis compared to the new camera. Just discovered that at 42mm the new can shoot sharp pics at 1/8 while the refurb needs at least about 1/30 or faster. It off to Oly just beating the 90 warranty

Greg

This is very interesting to read, as I've had somewhat similar experience but never posted about it as it seemed so mystifying and illogical. I've had 3 E-M10 Mk III cameras, all bought new. Sorting them by date of manufacture rather than purchase, they were a silver one, a black one, and a more recently produced silver one. I was able to test them side by side for a period, set up identically and indeed even with the same individual lens to rule out a lens manufacturing variation. One camera had very useful IBIS, at least as good as the good one you mention. The other two are very poor, just like the figures you give. Almost better with IBIS disabled. Since they were all purchased new, you'd expect the final silver one would be the good one, but in fact it's the black one, built in the middle of this trio's production dates. Strange. The factor in common is therefore the silver body, but it's hard to say why and could just be coincidence/luck of the draw.

How can you check mfg date?

 

[Loga]

(...)

ALSO from IMAGING RESOURCE, if you look at the IQ section and the ISO testing contained within, and you can also look at ISO testing comparisons from Trusted Reviews, the mk iii has excellent noise performance. It is easily beating the mk ii, and even beating Canon's APS-C sensors. Canon's M50 high ISO performance is atrocious at Trusted Reviews, and the M6's is as well at Imaging Resource. The e-m10 is nearly keeping up with Fuji's APS-C sensor. (...)

What about low ISO noise?... I think Canon's APS-C sensor beats the Oly.

Look at how insanely noisy the Canon m50 and M6 are in tests. Looks a lot noisier than Oly. Canon intentionally limits the performance of it's APS-C mirrorless line.

I checked them in dpreview's studio scene. As for low ISO, they look about the same. For high ISO, they also look the same to me, maybe a very-very tiny edge to the OM-D, however the Canon has more resolution, and also seems a bit sharper.

 

[Zoonami]

(...)

ALSO from IMAGING RESOURCE, if you look at the IQ section and the ISO testing contained within, and you can also look at ISO testing comparisons from Trusted Reviews, the mk iii has excellent noise performance. It is easily beating the mk ii, and even beating Canon's APS-C sensors. Canon's M50 high ISO performance is atrocious at Trusted Reviews, and the M6's is as well at Imaging Resource. The e-m10 is nearly keeping up with Fuji's APS-C sensor. (...)

What about low ISO noise?... I think Canon's APS-C sensor beats the Oly.

Look at how insanely noisy the Canon m50 and M6 are in tests. Looks a lot noisier than Oly. Canon intentionally limits the performance of it's APS-C mirrorless line.

I checked them in dpreview's studio scene. As for low ISO, they look about the same. For high ISO, they also look the same to me, maybe a very-very tiny edge to the OM-D, however the Canon has more resolution, and also seems a bit sharper.

 

[Zoonami]

I figured out how to check my manufacture date. November 2017. Black model.

Ibis seems extremely good. Pulling off sharp 1 sec indoor lowlight shots.

 

[Corkcampbell]

[No message]

 

[Michael Meissner]

Well, seems like again people are ignoring the actual performance over some settings gripes that 95% of users aren't going to use.

Well sadly for the 95% I am in the 5% that would see my usual methods of use hopelessly crippled if I had the E-M10 Mk3, so it is not for me.

Same here. For me, the straw that broke the camel's back was the omission of a wired shutter release. The lack of a release meant I could not take fireworks pictures with the E-m10 mark III camera as I'm used to (i.e. sitting on a chair watching the fireworks, and using the shutter release in my hand to start/stop the picture without having to stand and hover over the camera). Yes, I know about the wifi phone app, and I use that in other cases. But in the case of fireworks, it is next to useless because the phone screen can ruin your night vision, and it doesn't scale to multiple cameras.

It is similar to the Panasonic side. I have a G85 and one of the major uses is shooting video. I originally thought that the G9 would be the perfect upgrade, and it looks like it in many cases, but the G9 does not allow you to record 30 minutes or more of video. So far this year, I have had 3 cases (with 1 coming up) where I needed to do a continuous recording of a live event that went over 30 minutes. So for me, no sale, because it doesn't match the way I use the camera, and it is not an upgrade no matter what new features are offered.

 

[Zoonami]

 

[Michael Meissner]

There actually are measurable sensor improvements for resolution:

RESOLUTION

• 16 Megapixel sensor which is fully used at the lowest ISO of 200 (100 percent of the theoretical maximum; 1725 line pairs per picture height).

• Better than the OM-D E-M10 Mark II, which captured 1623 line pairs per picture height at ISO 200, 94 percent of the theoretical maximum.

Sure if you are shooting test charts. Frankly once sensors got past 8MP, I haven't needed any more resolution. I print very few prints these days at 8x10" (mostly calendars) and the majority of the pictures are web oriented.

• At ISO 400, the Mark III uses 95 percentof the theoretical maximum (1649 line pairs per picture height), at ISO 3200, 91 percent (1568 line pairs per picture height), and at ISO 6400, 85 percent (1476 line pairs per picture height).

Sure I could use a little improvement at ISO 6400, but I suspect it is a fractional stop worth of improvement. I suspect the Pen-F with the 20MP sensor probably does better ISO 6400 than the E-m10 mark III with its 16MP sensor.

continued...

From IMAGING RESOURCE, we can also see that the e-m10 iii, is one hell of a fast camera, in comparison to it's predecessor and even the e-m5 ii. If you look at the performance sections of each camera, you see that the mk iii is faster than the mk ii, and is pretty much right with the e-m5 ii as far as af, but where it really pulls away from both is shot to shot performance. .24 sec single shot for the mk iii, vs .46 for the mk ii, and .73 for the e-m5 ii.

Generally I don't need fast fps when shooting. In fact, I generally turn down the fps (generally to 3fps) in each of the cameras I shoot because otherwise when I'm in sequential mode, it captures more pictures which must be deleted in post. Sure there are a very few times when I set it to high speed sequential mode to capture just the right image, but generally I don't take those types of shots.

But if you need high fps, go for it.

I suspect however, the issue would be yes you have high fps, but the focusing is still contrast based focusing, and the high fps would only be in SAF, where you focus on the first frame.

Burst performance the mk iii also vastly more capable than both other olympus bodies as there is no buffer limit for jpegs. So you get unlimited 8.6fps on the mk iii until your run out of card space. Raw performance at 6fps is also about twice as fast as either other camera.

Fine if you need it, I generally don't.

ALSO from IMAGING RESOURCE, if you look at the IQ section and the ISO testing contained within, and you can also look at ISO testing comparisons from Trusted Reviews, the mk iii has excellent noise performance. It is easily beating the mk ii, and even beating Canon's APS-C sensors. Canon's M50 high ISO performance is atrocious at Trusted Reviews, and the M6's is as well at Imaging Resource. The e-m10 is nearly keeping up with Fuji's APS-C sensor.

Lastly, THE IBIS. Robin Wong and others online have said the IBIS system in the mk iii is noticeably better than in the mk2, capable of multiple second handheld long exposures, and not so much with the mk2.

At this point, the IBIS is fast enough for me. I generally don't take shots less than 1/30, since I primarily shoot people, and people move. Where I find IBIS useful is with telephoto lenses where instead of needing a 1/400 shutter speed, I can shoot at 1/30 or 1/60. So yes IBIS helps with hand shake, but it does nothing for subject movement. Again, there are probably people that need this, but I don't. The current gear is fast enough for me.

Overall, I'd say this is the most advanced 16mp mft camera body on the market when it comes to pure performance as far as IQ, iso performance, af, how fast it is shot to shot single, and burst performance. And also you get uncropped extremely well stabilized 4k video which is basically unheard of in the entire market.

I haven't gone on the 4K bandwagon because for ME, the problem is when I'm shooting 6-8 hours of video a day, the storage requirements for 4K become too high. If I was doing editing and such, sure I could see the use of 4K. But for me, the main usage is recording an event and putting it up on youtube. There the majority of people probably view it over limited bandwidth and with smaller screens, so they don't need 4K.

Again for ME, the E-m10 mark III is not an improvement in things I need. Sure if you need the features that is fine for you. For me, it is not an improvement that I would spend $600 on.

 

[Okapi001]

But in the case of fireworks, it is next to useless because the phone screen can ruin your night vision,

LOL, why on Earth do you need night vision for fireworks?

 

[Michael Meissner]

But in the case of fireworks, it is next to useless because the phone screen can ruin your night vision,

LOL, why on Earth do you need night vision for fireworks?

Because I like to enjoy fireworks with my eyes rather than through a viewfinder. Having to look down from the fireworks to see the phone spoils the mood.

As I need both distance and near glasses, I tend to have one pair of glasses for distance, and the other for computer/reading, and it can be annoying to switch glasses and switch viewing angles to be able to view the phone. In the past, trifocals did not work too well for me, but recently I've been using trifocals for my sunglasses. Next year, I may get a pair of trifocals for general use (like watching TV and doing phone stuff), but I don't have trifocals yet.

With a shutter release cable, I can just start/stop the camera without having to look at the phone or the rear display. But also, I do try to watch the surrounding area to make sure people won't be running into the tripod (and that does need night vision).

Yeah, it is a rather specialized usage, but I do take these types of shots.

 

[Masefield]

I'm afraid that I'm one of the posters who's dismissed the Oly EM10-III as inferior to the EM10-II unless you need 4K video.

But I am enjoying reading your posts defending your chosen camera, Zoonami! It's nice to see someone stand up for the EM10-III for a change!

I am always open to revising my opinion...and you ARE making me reconsider my position...but overall, I still think the strong edge goes to the EM10-II (price, options, customization ability, etc) unless 4K video is needed.

About image quality: on the mirrorlesscomparison website AND on Dpreviews comparison scene, I just can't see any real visible difference between the EM10-II and EM10-III at high ISO...regardless of what any data readout claims.

Dpreview:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...48&x=0.7152121078500299&y=-0.6519773372933885

Mirrorlesscomparison:

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/olympus-vs-olympus/omd-em10-ii-vs-em10-iii/

(And as an aside, to my eye, the Canon M50 looks pretty much the same as the above Oly's for high ISO - except for it being higher res - which is a poor result for Canon. It should be slightly better with its slightly bigger sensor, and it isn't. But neither is it visibly lagging behind the Oly's for IQ.)

So it seems IQ differences are hard to actually see in real world comparisons between the EM10-II and EM10-III...so that leaves auto focus speed and shooting speed for fast action shooting.

The thing is, I never recommend any of the Olympus EM10 or EM5 series for action shooting. I see them more as perfect little travel and street and general purpose cameras. Ideal for a beginner or an enthusiast to grow into photography with. But not the choice for someone who wants to specialize in action or sports photography.

Instead, I recommend DSLR or for Micro 43, the Olympus EM1 series or maybe Panasonic. Presumably, Panasonic's DFD technology (even in the cheaper GX85/80) trumps the Olympus EM10-III for AF-C tracking?

But I duly note that the EM10-III is better than the older EM10-II for action shooting.

And Robin Wong is a fantastic photographer who gets excellent results from ANY kit he uses. But after testing both, he still prefers, and he actually chose the older, fuller featured EM10-II over the newer EM10-III.

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

 

[Zoonami]

I'm afraid that I'm one of the posters who's dismissed the Oly EM10-III as inferior to the EM10-II unless you need 4K video.

But I am enjoying reading your posts defending your chosen camera, Zoonami! It's nice to see someone stand up for the EM10-III for a change!

I am always open to revising my opinion...and you ARE making me re-evaluate my position...but overall, I still think the strong edge goes to the EM10-II (price, options, customization ability, etc) unless 4K video is needed.

About image quality: on the mirrorlesscomparison website AND on Dpreviews comparison scene, I just can't see any real visible difference between the EM10-II and EM10-III at high ISO...regardless of what any data readout claims.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...48&x=0.7152121078500299&y=-0.6519773372933885

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/olympus-vs-olympus/omd-em10-ii-vs-em10-iii/

(And as an aside, to my eye, the Canon M50 looks pretty much the same as the above Oly's for high ISO - except for it being higher res - which is a poor result for Canon. It should be slightly better with its slightly bigger sensor, and it isn't. But neither is it lagging behind the Oly's for IQ.)

So it seems IQ differences are hard to actually see in real world comparisons between the EM10-II and EM10-III...so that leaves auto focus speed and shooting speed for fast action shooting.

The thing is, I never recommend any of the Olympus EM10 or EM5 series for action shooting. I see them more as perfect little travel and street and general purpose cameras. Ideal for a beginner to grow into photography with. But not the choice for someone who wants to specialize in action or sports photography.

Instead, I recommend DSLR or for Micro 43, the Olympus EM1 series or maybe Panasonic. Presumably, Panasonic's DFD technology (even in the cheaper GX85/80) trumps the Olympus EM10-III for AF-C tracking?

And Robin Wong is a fantastic photographer who gets excellent results from ANY kit he uses. But he still prefers the older, fuller featured EM10-II over the newer EM10-III.

 

[Masefield]

Although we have disagreed with our choice of cameras, Zoonami (I chose the EM10-II*, you chose the EM10-III)...I think you have raised excellent points and made a very good contribution to the forum with this thread.

I don't think the image quality "improvements" (high ISO, etc) of the EM10-III over the EM10-II are actually noticable to the human eye (see the links in my previous post for proof)...but it seems that the shot to shot times are noticable.

So I have learned something here, and I will remember to recommend the EM10-III over the EM10-II when shot to shot speed is an issue, for any kind of action photography!

It would be very interesting to see how the speedy EM10-III would fare, head to head against the Panasonic GX85/80 (with its DFD tech) for capturing action.

* mind you, my choice was made much easier beause I got an irresistible bargain, paying just £235 for a brand new EM10-II after Olympus cashback.

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

 

[enossified]

I don't really feel the e-m10 iii is missing anything vs a gx85 or even gx9 (outside of the 20mp sensor) as far as menu options. They did also bring back the RC flash.

RC flash...are you talking about mkIII or the Pannys? Removal of RC was the killer for me.

 

[Masefield]

I don't really feel the e-m10 iii is missing anything vs a gx85 or even gx9 (outside of the 20mp sensor) as far as menu options. They did also bring back the RC flash.

RC flash...are you talking about mkIII or the Pannys? Removal of RC was the killer for me.

It seems that Olympus themselves came to realize that removing RC flash was a mistake.

They restored it to the EM10-III via a firmware update.

--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon

 

[Stemu]

"Imaging resource and trusted reviews the Canon iso performance is awful."

=> I checked the ISO 800 images in Imaging resource and they look very similar in my view. M50 has more pixels and thus more resolution.