Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III review

Many of the innovations stem from he smaller sensor. Faster-readout speeds, more forgiving depth of field, easier to stabilize, smaller primes. Those things wouldn't translate well into Full Frame.

Some features are not necessarily sensor size-dependent and could be adapted to FF. And they have if you see what Panasonic is doing with L mount.

But in the end, Olympus would have the same problems: dependence on other companies for parts (like sensors) and lack of deep pockets to sustain a foothold in a very niche yet very competitive FF market.

One of the best features of M4/3 is "less size and weight." Without a smaller sensor, you lose that feature. You end up with a Panasonic S1. Full frame gives you better image quality for sure, but you also get larger and heavier bodies and lenses.

The problem is NOT the sensor or its size. in fact it is a good one and I very much like the lenses and their size.

In my book the dealbreakers are the old low res, low contrast viewfinder and the complicated menu system.

With E-M1 III you can do 10 second exposures, and some of them will be good. About 4 second exposures are consistently good (at 12mm).

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/fuji-xt4-vs-omd-em1-iii-ibis/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64396081

I didn't take it that way.
I felt the comment acknowledges the uncertainty.

@brentschumer... Risk!? In these unusual times with the drop in camera sales as a whole ALL vendors run serious risks. A new appropriation by JIP should mean an immediate focus on product, sales and profits.. I don't see their position or potential any different from other vendors.

All vendors have some level of risk, but some vendors are far more risky than others. Picking a company that has not been commercially viable and will be in an uncertain configuration after acquisition is a LOT riskier than a profitable firm.

JIP is focused on return on investment, which may involve ceasing new product development and selling off inventory at fire sale prices. Or it could mean developing only for one segment of photography, like the PEN lineup and small lenses. We don't know yet. If you buy an EM1 III you should be comfortable with the idea of it as the last Olympus camera in this segment.

Olympus paid JIP to take a loss making division off their hands. Some details have emerged about how JIP operates and how it is sometimes used to get around Japanese employment laws.

It is quite correct and honest, that the reviewer warns a protentional buyer of this camera, that nobody knows what the future holds for this brand.

Aren't those lenses optically stabilized? Also, for some reason XT-4 stabilization was reported to be not as good as for E-M1 II even, and I can't find any blogs/reviews documenting exposures of up to four seconds (on normal lenses) like we see with E-M1 III.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-t4/fuji-x-t4A.HTM
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64396081

Fuji IBIS looks good on paper only. However, it is better than Sony’s if those are your choices. Olympus wins hands down in any real world comparison. There are some recent comparisons on YouTube.

@draleks The 200mm and 80mm macro are optically stabilized but the majority of the 6.5EV listed lenses have no optical stabilization.

Remembered this comparison:

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/fuji-xt4-vs-omd-em1-iii-ibis/

Looks like there is as much three stops of difference between xt-4 and Em1-iii

Who pis-sed on your Wheaties?

@Franz: You seem a bit out of touch. "Nobody" wants m43 systems. What people out there buy most (check Amazon stats) are DSLR kits from Canon below even 380 USD!

Such dirtcheap sets already deliver what most people want, the majority use their phone camera that continue to get better all the time with intelligent SW processing like HDR etc.

I have a new cheapo phone, the Nokia 7.2 and even that has 12 MPX downsized from 48 and a super wide secondary camera as well a DNG raw files.

Where the camera manufacturers terribly lack is the SW side.

---
A DynamicRangeOptimiziation is far away from an intelligent HDR in most phones. Using HDR in my Sonys is only possibly when I shoot JPG only.
Even with Single-Shot, a camera should be able in 2020 to automatically adjust for blue skies and not drowned shadows. But they don't. Phones use HDR images with e-shutter and intelligent context specific processing. This is lacking entirely from todays cameras except for the recent AI usage for AF tracking and face/eye detection.
Instead, the silos in which the camera developers are separated from their colleagues in phone R&D, restrict themselves to faster AF, more pixels, more sensor, more hardware improvements. This leads to more expensive cameras, reducing the buyers spectrum further.

Olympus made the mistake of going in the same direction with this and other expensive, large and heavy cameras unwarranted by the hardware they contain.

....
Instead they should have kept their size advantage and added intelligent software processing. But Olympus is not even able to finally get rid of their overblown smearing JPG noise reduction processing in OOC JPG that for a decade has allowed me to identify Oly pictures almost instantly.

I am myself in HW development in a large company and I experience the same silos. HW has its milestones and completes them only to find out that the SW is not yet fully ready. It can also be that HW focussed companies don't pay as much as Apple, Google etc to SW engineers.

There are still too many manufacturers and I claim that within 3 years at least one other player will fold up.

@Franz Who told you that "JIP has paid an incredible amount of money" for Olympus' imaging division? AFAIK no figures have been officially released but based on JIP's history it's more likely that Olympus is paying JIP to take the division off their hands.

""Nobody" wants m43 systems. What people out there buy most (check Amazon stats) are DSLR kits from Canon below even 380 USD!"

^ First factual unbiased comment ever on DPR

I mean, the same camera with a much larger sensor would be far more versatile. So that makes sense.

*far less versatile schurely?

Of course because of the bigger sensor a similar FF camera deserves the higher score. If f the price and size/weight are about the same the bigger sensor is objectively better as it has a bigger, more versatile shooting envelope. M4/3s only real advantage now that FF has small and light options for bodies and lenses up to short telephoto is that you can have slow longer telephotos that are smaller and lighter than FF. But that's only since due to long standing market perception a FF 300mm-500mm f/11 lens would get blasted by reviewers and wouldn't sell even though it would be smaller and lighter compared to faster options. Canon is releasing some f/11 RF teles and took heat for it. The high end pro/enthusiast market doesn't really care about size/weight as much as it does performance. This is why Olympus trying to push into that market with small sensors and slow lenses compared to FF at similar to FF prices didn't fair very well despite the size advantage some lenses had.

@Josh152

f11 FF is still f11 so very poor light gathering to achieve that DOF.

f5.6 M43 might be approx f11 in DOF terms, but the light gathering is still f5.6. Hence, advantage of higher shutter speed with advantageous and more forgiving f11 dof when shooting long telephoto.

Also, I think when I last checked, these FF f11 lenses weren't that competitive either size or quality.

Canon RF 600 STM F11 min focus 4.5m size, 93x270mm
Olympus 300F4 IS (equiv 600mm aov/f8dof) min focus 1.4m, size 93x227mm

The Olympus is much higher quality, better light gathering, has inbuilt IS for dual IS with body and is approx 4.5cm shorter in physical length. It's only a little heavier than the RF. I know which I prefer. YMMV

ChromeDome: You can't use equivalence for focal length and depth of field without understanding that your ISO will be four times higher on M43. I shoot crop and there is no free lunch; equivalence applies to ISO, too. So that 300mm F4 will end up cranking up ISO like a...600mm F8. The F5.6 you mention would use ISO like a F11 FF.

Also, that 300mm F4 Olympus is really soft: https://youtu.be/5Tf9NYyDMtM?t=456

There is no free lunch, except when reading marketing materials.

@brentschumer that 300mm f4 is one of the least soft lenses on the market. Lack of due diligence.

Shutter shock perhaps - botched testing. The guy's opinion is not echoed by any of the established lens reviewers, owners from the forums, or sample images here - he is rather alone. 'Tack sharp across the frame' - Imaging Resource. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/300mm-f4.0-is-pro-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/

@BrentSchumer @josh152,

Let me get this straight, you both contend that a 300mm F4 at shutter of 1/400s and iso100 on FF would require iso800 on m43 to achieve same exposure?

You actually really think that?

I suspect I've had some "free lunches" in my time, lol.

Same goes for 300mm F4 Olympus. Widely regarded as one of the sharpest M43 lenses out there. Of course it's useless because it's not a FF. (correct?)

If it was and you wanted to get the same fov and DOF on FF that you get on M43, then you would need a 600mm @F8. Oh heck now the Iso needs raising, because you still need that 1/400s (maybe more because of the inherently weaker IS on FF systems)

Nope. Think I'll keep my Free Lunch, ta.

Your math is off and interpretation is wrong.

It's crop factor squared, so 2x2 = 4. And It's more that your ISO100 would look like ISO400 FF as far as noise, your ISO1000 looks like ISO4000 on FF, etc.

Here's an article to explain (with charts!): https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso#iso-and-equivalence

I've not used the 150-400mm with a teleconverter on, to know about the specifics of that comparison.

The Canon F11 lenses are pretty peculiar (given they're fixed aperture lenses). But the only comment being discussed is a the broad specs being compared on a like-for-like basis, not is lens X better than lens Y.

I don't see that the incessant cross referencing , abeit equivalence or not to FF is of any interest if you shoot M4/3. Why would you care?A lens made for M4/3 is what it is.
I have the 300mm Pro F4:0, I don't use it and think , hmm less light, DoF effect. I remain within the terms of reference of the equipment I use and guess what, it work, it delivers. Surely the end result is why we buy the equipment. All this highly sublimated pecker comparison is ego driven nonsense.

"Not just in terms of depth-of-field, but in terms of light-per-whole-image", that is very true and I agree with George1958, but if you are going to keep making this statement, perhaps should be more specific: "similar in noise and DoF to an aperture of F11 using 4x the ISO (ISO1600 becomes ISO6400) on FF for a given speed". When it comes to Super-tele shooting, speed and DoF can make or break the shot, and the M43 I think as a clear advantage over FF in this one area, lets admit it, not to forget that the lens is 1/2 the size.

"M43 I think as a clear advantage over FF in this one area, lets admit it,"
it still looks too difficult to swallow for some folks

If we say a 300mm F5.6 on mFT is equivalent to a 600mm F11 on FF then the implication that you'd need a higher ISO to get a correctly exposed JPEG at the same shutter speed is already there, because one of the lenses is F11.

Since the images in those two scenarios would be made from the same amount of light, I'm not seeing the 'speed and DoF' difference you're suggesting.

But yes, the mFT camera + lens would be a lot smaller. That's a real benefit in a lot of situations.

Equivalence doesn't pick winners, it just sets out what's comparable. And if the hypothetical 300mm F5.6 does what you need, then carrying around a (possibly more expensive and certainly larger) FF camera + 600mm lens, that you'll stop down to F11, is likely to offer no benefit.

But it would be misleading to say that a 150-400mm lens is equivalent to 300-800mm on FF without also acknowledging the full picture, which is how people mistakenly double-count the size benefit and a fictitious speed/DoF benefit.

As I say, it's pretty standard to quote equivalent focal lengths, even amongst people who only use systems smaller or larger than FF (the reference point being 35mm film, rather than digital, for a lot of people). Quoting just equivalent focal lengths, rather than equiv focal lengths and apertures is only giving part of the picture (which leads to double-counting errors).

But if you don't think in 35mm terms, then you can simply ignore both.

Guys DPReview is not asking M43 owners to obsess over equivalence while shooting as part of choosing exposure. They're just trying to provide a numerical reference between products as reviewers.

How would you like it if say the Oly 150mm-400mm lens was reviewed poorly for "only reaching 400mm compared to 600mm and 800mm options on full frame systems"? You'd feel slighted, because useful equivalence information was omitted and the lens wasn't properly represented.

DPReview reviews are intended to allow readers to compare different products for their needs. Equivalence and its impact on depth of field, effective focal length, and ISO noise are important considerations when choosing a system. Someone shooting indoor sports is going to want excellent high-ISO performance, just like how a lightweight wildlife shooter wants to maximize reach via crop factor.

Wouldn't you rather people bought into M43 with full information instead of dumping a mispurchase while bad-mouthing the mount?

"Guys DPReview is not asking M43 owners to obsess over equivalence while shooting as part of choosing exposure. They're just trying to provide a numerical reference between products as reviewers."

I see more than once people here get confused - not enlightened! - because of this overemphasis of the equivalence by DPR. In my eyes, they have their own agenda and not unbiased.

I use FF and MFT systems and a 1-inch hybrid in my household.

People are only confused due to insecure buyers who want to cherry pick one side of crop factor (focal length) without the other (depth of field and ISO). They rant and rave and try and cover up physics and math with feelings.

If DPReview ignored crop factor entirely it would become VERY confusing to buyers. For example my RX100VI is 9mm-72mm, but photos look nothing like APSC or FF 9-72mm.

@Montana Jim I think you're mixing up tracking and C-AF. The C-AF accuracy of the camera is quite good in general, but the tracking mode is quite poor relative to the competition.

That mkii can completely replace a Nikon D5 (did for me) in all but low-light fast-action sports. And you're complaining about the price?! Pah.

Current prices at B&H:

Oly EM1 MkII - $1399 (USD)
Sony A6500 - Discontinued
Sony A6600 - $1198
Sony A6300 - Not found

The Oly EM1 MkII was available at retail for $899, a 3 day sale at the Olympus website.

Right now an Em1.2 is about $650

I've got my E-M1 Mark II last month for €1300 with a 45mm f1.2 great deal.

@threw the lens X-Trans sensors have far less color noise at high ISOs due to their special pattern of RGB subpixels.

The Oly 300mm F4 is far softer than the Sony 200-600mm or Nikon 200-500mm on APSC:

https://youtu.be/5Tf9NYyDMtM?t=518

It's not a good "value lens" or "pro prime" lens.

That Northrup test result is plain weird. Looks like his Oly 300F4 pics are out of focus. Bad copy? Badly calibrated AF? Don't know, but it disagrees with plenty of other tests.

As someone said about him '... he occasionally gets these outlier type results from a test and instead of asking "What did I do wrong?" he seems to think to himself "I'm right and everyone else is wrong."'

@ Landscapephoto99: And that makes it even *more* curious that they would choose to include the outdated sensor...

Almost all camera sensors on the market are developed and manufactured by Sony. Olympus and Panasonic have to work with the sensors currently offered by Sony.

Yet the Sony A6000 APSC sensor is from 2014 and has been Re used in subsequent iterations of the A60000 series, canon is not shy about reusing sensors either , lets not overlook that there are other system processors that are updated that impact on performance in all cases. Olympus seems to be more heavily criticised By some for doing the same and unfairly so

Tribalism. Sony and Canon have a much bigger market share therefore more loyalists in dpreview defending their favorite brand.

The truth is that the camera industry reached its peak and all the manufacturers are pretty much offering the same products with the same features.

Olympus decided along with Panasonic to develop a M4/3 format. It was not a decision on what could be afforded. You forget there are clear advantages for M4/3 of which some remain.
Talks about larger sensors and demand are not relevant . Sony and canon use older sensors in current products, is that because they can’t afford a better one, or because they know better about the value of the whole camera and are not scrabbling for an angle to criticise ?

There is no reason to invest god knows how many dollars into the development of a new sensor because the current sensor is good enough. (Relative to its size)

I partially agree with you Entoman, and those principles apply across the industry. The complaint that Olympus is using a 4 year old sensor seem to feel unwarranted given Sony is using a 6 year old APSC sensor ?
Frankly and from what I have seen there does not appear to be a problem using older sensors, IQ is pretty good across the board., The rest of the tech has been updated on all cases and I am sure at some cost for the improvements made.

A little better sensor compared to the old one is not a system seller, but special lenses can make someone go MFT. This is the reason why Olympus spent most of their resources expanding the "Pro" line.

In my opinion lens quality and editing software skills play a much bigger role in IQ than the size of the sensor. In any case, what truly matters is the skill of the photographer and this can't be bought.

LevAizik - Yes, within limits I'd agree with you. The skill of the photographer is obviously the major factor.

But no amount of skill will allow a photographer to get the same image quality out of a 1" sensor that could be obtained from a GFX100, unless it's only printed to the size of a postage stamp. An exaggeration, but no doubt you get my point.

And of course, what one person regards as acceptable or good quality, might be regarded by another photographer as mediocre and inadequate.

It's a matter of striking the right balance that works for the individual. Unfortunately some dpr commentators are blinded by "brand loyalty" or "format loyalty" and are unable to accept or even comprehend the fact that all cameras are a compromise, and none of them is perfect for every situation.

I agree. Excellent comment.

@Garyster The Olympus sensor is no more outdated than the Sony or Fuji APSC, which have introduced the same sensor in the past few models and no one minds, but they have a loyal base of fans. IQ has plateaued and other things matter more at this point.

So, it's a camera for women then. Somebody call Olympus and tell the marketing department to target women for their product.

Noise to some people is the difference between this pixel . and this pixel .
One is noticeable different, you just really really have to look to see it.
And what you think you see on the screen at 400% is not what you see on the print.
If you are happy with "noise" on the images in your camera, then why do you give one rats ahhh about getting something completely different, requiring different lenses, and different mindsets and usability changes, just to pick up what is an improvement that you can't really see until you zoom in at 200% on iso 3200 images or some such?

@CaNikonianite

it's a system for anyone who values compactness. I usually travel with friends, I stay behind to spend some time on taking a photo, and then I sprint to catch up with them. The size of the µ4/3 lenses allows me to carry a diverse kit and still run with it. If photography is a big part of your travel, but not the purpose of it, this system is a wonderful choice. If you are a backpacker this system is a wonderful choice.

There is no lack of professional women photographers. They do very well for themselves in wedding, portrait and fashion work for instance. They are however, less likely to found on forums arguing about the technical details of equipment they don't even own...

@muljao : I do not consider these in the same class. I do understand classifying them by price, so your point is valid in that respect. I hope your day is a good one.

Jim

Day going ok thank you. Same back to you 👍

Utube talking heads brainwashed a lot of people. Oly is an amazing cameras and the glass is second to none...

Well said!

At times, FF is necessary and M4/3 won't cut it. At other times, M4/3 is necessary and FF won't cut it.

I agree 100%. I ended up with a G9 because of its greater video abilities, one of the reasons I was upgrading, instead of an EM1.2.

Olympus simply misses the boat on video, and completely missed the boat AND the tide (to follow the simile) by staying that miserable course with the EM1x, a body [size] BEGGING for absolute top-dog video specs.

But no.

And the rest is history.

And that will be the case with me too, dinoSnake.

I was a hardcore Olympus (M/43) user, for a few years, after having sold off my Canon FF/APS-C gear. I never regretted the decision to go with Olympus, until video became a more important feature to me. Recently, I sold of all my camera gear to get a fresh start, and have now bought into the Panasonic FF system. I will buy back into M4/3, as well, but I will definitely be doing so with Panny instead of Olympus, due to Oly's unwillingness to take video seriously.

Plus, I've come to really enjoy Panny's color science. Having compatible color profiles between my FF / M4/3 systems will be a huge plus, especially for video, where compiling footage together from both systems will make that compatibility more crucial.

And if only everything else was sold at half the manufacturers recommended price.