Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III review

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

@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 👍

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.

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

Lightweight motorcycle make sense to me, but not include Harley-Davidson. I more prefer affordable car than Harley-Davidson.

"Somehow E-M1 series never made sense to me. They could have simply dumped all that technology and an APSC sensor in EM-5."

I was just the opposite, I always wondered why they bothered with the EM-5 series, seemed like it should have never existed, it being to close to the camera series above and below it. Seemed if you were going to upgrade to the EM-5 it made better sense to upgrade a little more and get the top level Em-1 series.

Micro Four Thirds was all about size. I have EM-5 but if asked about EM-1, I will rather go for DSLR. I wish they put in class leading auto foucs in EM-5 from the word go. Rather than cramming the top panel with buttons like HDR and what not. I know it is like eating their own words, they should have put in an APSC sensor in there. I for one never upgraded from EM-5 mark 1. Sorry but that;s the way it is. I am speaking only for myself. I know people have different thoughts about this.

Somehow, some people just have their own set mind on matters. You don't get it do you? Bigger sensor BIGGER LENS.

I use primes. Maybe I am in a minority. But anyways. Olympus is out of the business. It is what it is.

Here in Germany the price for the OM-D E-M1X dropped by 1000€ to just below the 2000€ threshold. This is still a bit more than 2000$ but its a lot of camera for the money. I am just not sure if this is a good sign or a bad sign ...

What I see is pure jealousy of ff spec geeks.
But I feel the pain. When they want a body with these specs they need to pay way more than €1800. +the costs of ff quality glass to make the bigger sensor of use.

And don't forget the small-sensor groups that are constantly giving reasons why FF sensors are not necessary - haha. I shoot both and know the limitations of smaller sensors, so I can see both sides. One member even said that FF sensor bodies are for people with too much money that don't know how to shoot otherwise - that was a hoot. Anyway, shoot with what works for you and what your budget allows. Regards!

I don't see that to often in FF related articles. Most I see is the FF evangelizing zealots roaming around in MFT related articles.

Yeah, I see both quite a bit. The FF users poo-poo'ing the benefits of smaller sensors and then the small-sensor users saying that the FF users are elitists and are wasting money on inferior (?) sensors. It goes both ways, for sure!

Putting the "equivalency" thing aside for a moment:
Which 14-24ish FF wide angle pro zoom is available for 1200USD?
Build quality and also glass quality of Olympus PRO lenses are top notch.

Of course one can debate if Nikons Z lenses are better value for money, but Canon clearly shows what they think: Every L-grade lens i their RF lineup is 2-3kUSD.
That makes ~1k Olympus PRO lenses a bargain in comparison, of course with a smaller shooting envelope.

The Sigma 14-24 2.8 is $1400, about the same as the Olympus 7-14 2.8 regular retail price. Although it is bigger and heavier.

Well - since we are talking FF - we could go with an f/4 lens and have about an equivalent setup. In that case - there are lots of good options.

AND - as pointed out above - there are some good 3rd party f/2.8 lenses that sell in the range of this Olympus lens.

A high quality, good glass, sharp from corner to corner and wide open, weather sealed f4 zoom lens. With a range from about 24-80. That would do.

Than a good 135/150mm prime
And a weather sealed macro of around 120mm
And a plastic fantastic €100 zoom with fast focusing and a range of at least 300mm.

Thanks in advance.

Wich system en what lenses?

If the Sigma 14-24 is ruggedized like the Olympus Pro Lens, or considered "pro" - then you have a point!
How about OEM lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony?

Well, there are also 3rd party choises for m43, e.g. Tamron and Sigma.
I thought it is about 1st party lenses, only.
Anyway, 3rd party support for classic DSLR mounts and E-mount is certainly better than for m43, that's true.

Brownie, how can a €1000 70-200 reach to 300mm?
And you are clueless if you thing such a zoom can replace a 135/150mm prime.
So please once again. Make me a list of replacements for about the same price as you claimed in your first post.

Replacement for:
12-40 f2.8 €750
40-150 plastic fantastic €100
17mm f1.8 (must be compact) €440
60mm f2.8 macro €440
75mm f1.8 €720

Thanks in advance.

Brownie are you trolling or seriously unknown in photography/lenses? Either way, you are making a fool of yourself here.

@It is just a tool - In all fairness - you can always construct a list of lenses that isn't available 1:1 in other systems. You can come close though.

Samyang offers tiny primes from 18mm to 75mm in E-mount.
The Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 is pretty small as is the Zeiss 16-35mm f/4.
As far as long tele lenses go - there's the Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 OSS. Yes, it's bigger than the Oly 300mm f/4 (600mm f/8) but it is also "faster" and yet more affordable in comparison.
Conversely, you also have numerous lenses that are just no available in MFT mount - and they can be cheaper too. e.g. Sony 35mm & 85mm f/1.8 are "faster" than an Oly 17mm / 45mm f/1.2 yet MUCH more affordable.

I'm so fortunate that I use a couple of systems. At least for me, MFT has still its place. e.g. the Oly 12-100mm f/4 PRO is a killer when it comes to traveling/hiking. The Leica 8-18mm, 12-60mm and 50-200mm are also a cool gang.

You must be fooling yourself if you think a ff 85mm is a replacement for a MFT 75mm. Seriously, go and educate yourself.

The same thing goes for the ff 60mm VS MFT 60mm macro.

Your lack knowledge, so I will stop spilling time with you.

No - and if reach is what you want - why not go for a 1" sensor? Or even smaller - get a Nikon P1000 - you can get truly amazing tele images. See - I can get a sensor really really small and make a 75mm lens a 750mm lens. It is like magic right? Oh wait - you mean there are compromises to be had? You don't get something for nothing? Dang - what a cruel world.

So you're just a troll. Otherwise you would know that there is no 1" or smaller replacement for my kit.
You're type is the reason DPR is falling to new lows. Just trolling around and bashing systems you don't know anything about. You must be really proud of your destructive work against the photographic community.

I do. Where can I buy them new at this moment.
Your cherry picking your answers and don't give a compete picture of the needed replacement.
You had 4 or 5 times the opportunity to do so and prove your statement. You failed all the 4 or 5 times.

Done.

right - and you are not telling me where I can get the mft equivalent of FF f/1.8 lenses. Or where I can get a mft equivalent of a FF 11-24/4 lens. Or the mft equivalent of a FF 24-75/2.8 lens. Where are they - at any price?

Well, despite the snarky behavior, brownie clearly dispelled it’s just a tool’s argument and then flipped the same question on him which then couldn’t be answered. The argument here is done.

Yes, gameshoes, another FF evangelizing zealot is what we need in a MFT related article.
A shame that you also didn't answer my question. As a MFT user in a MFT related article i'm asking a polite a replacement kit. 4 or 5 times the answer is not even the beginning of a full replacement. Apparently that's to hard.
Why do I have to figure out a MFT replacement for a FF kit? I don't use FF nor do I evangelize MFT in FF related articles. The return question of Brownie without answering the first question properly is a well known fallacy technique.
And yes, I'm done with all this FF evangelizing zealots.

@It is just a tool
MFT 12-40F2.8 equivalent to FF 24-80F5.6 can be replaced by a FF kit lens. Adding "Pro" to the name of the lens doesn't make it a pro lens.
MFT 17F1.8 equivalent to FF 35F3.6
MFT 75F1.8 equivalent to FF 150F3.6
Both and everything in between can be replaced by FF Tamron 35-150F2.8-4. That and the FF Tamron 17-35F2.8-4 replaces most of your lenses.
"40-150 plastic fantastic €100" - Which is F4-5.6 lens and equivalent to FF 80-300F8-11? You just put a 2x TC on that Tamron 35-150 ...

"60mm f2.8 macro €440" - equivalent to FF 120F5.6 Macro. No such lens, sorry. But let me remind you something. In macro photography there are things like the working distance and magnification. The working distance of a 60mm 1:1 Macro lens on both MFT and FF is similar. But, technically, the magnification would be different. Although it depends on the sensor resolution too. And an equivalent 120mm 1:1 Macro lens on FF wouldn't make a fair comparison at all. So, the $350 EF-S 60F2.8 USM or a $100 FF 50F1.8 with some extension tubes could get us the same results on FF.

@it is just a tool
Stop embarrassing yourself. If you have seen any of my other comments, I praised Olympus. I just don’t lie to myself though.

@ecka84 -

1. The Sony lens has a variable aperture so it is already on a lower level of quality compared both to the Nikon and the Olympus.

2. The Olympus 12-40 F2.8 has a constant aperture of F2.8 so it has an advantage over the Nikon and Sony in terms of exposure. In addition, the Olympus lens is made of metal with weather sealing. The Nikon is made of plastic with questionable weather sealing and it is a constant F4.0.

3. The correct equivalent in terms of exposure to the Olympus 12-40 2.8F in Nikon's portfolio is the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 which is priced at $2,300 on Amazon.

4. The random comparison that you did between lense is irrelevant because size and weight is only part of the equation. What is the optical performance of the lenses? Do they offer the same edge to edge sharpness in all focal lengths? Do they come with the same quality construction and weather sealing? Do they control optical distortions, chromatic aberrations, flares and sharpness across the aperture range?

@ecka84 -

The f-stop number of a lens is completely independent of the size of the sensor of the camera.

I amended the digital camera size comparison to show the size and weight comparison correctly when using the same maximum F-stop with the equivalent focal length. Please note that we are talking only about EXPOSURE and equivalent FOCAL LENGTH and not about the level of optics, build quality, and DOF.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.393,795.784,840.852,ha,t

By the way, when you go MFT you can use a much smaller and lighter camera body without sacrificing any significant features. The overall size, weight, and price of the system is significantly less compared to full-frame body with the same features and equivalent lens.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.852,777.393,795.784,835.852,ha,t

@LevAizik
1. The Zuiko lens is an MFT lens, so it is already on a lower level of quality compared to FF, regardless if you call it "Pro" or not.

2. Learn equivalence man. The F-number itself is meaningless. To reproduce any image taken with 12-40F2.8 on MFT, I would need a 24-80F5.6 on FF. But even then FF gives me a wider range of equivalent ISOs, lower and cleaner ISOs. Nikon's F4 beats your micro-F2.8 by a full stop. It gathers twice as much light. And don't tell me that your Oly gear is indestructible. Every time you switch a lens, the weather sealing goes out the window.

3. "correct equivalent in terms of exposure" - No such thing. Stop making stuff up. Learn equivalence. DoF has nothing to do with it, it's just a side effect.

4. Nobody cares about your paper specs. I look at the pictures and FF is very much superior to MFT toys, even without any pixel-peeping. Even at the same gear size. Even cheaper.
The end.

@ecka84

1. The optical performance of a lens does not derives from the size of the sensor it is attached to.

2. In order to reproduce any image taken with 12-40 F2.8 on MFT in terms of EXPOSURE and focal length, you will need 24-80 F2.8 on full-frame (You will have less DOF with FF there is no way around it without losing exposure.)

3. Nikon's F4 gathers less light compared to Olympus F2.8. The correct comparison is Olympus F4.0 12-45 Pro.

4. Image quality is subjective, but exposure and focal length are math. If you want to do a comparison do it properly without spreading misinformation.

1. I don't care about the optical performance of a lens if it can't produce high quality, high resolution images on a noisy small MFT chip.

2. There are no "terms of EXPOSURE". That's just some sort of a snobbery fetish. You just want to use some specific number settings on your camera. Makes no difference to me. MFT 25F2.8 ISO200 1/500 = FF 50F5.6 ISO800 1/500, same EXPOSURE, same image, same everything, including DoF and noise. Get over it.

3. You have no idea what the AMOUNT OF LIGHT is. It's not the F-number. Sensor size plays a major role in it. The F-stop only tells you something about light intensity, but less than a T-stop though.

4. Image quality is not subjective. You are the one spreading misinformation here. If any camera is overkill for your snapshots, it doesn't mean that all cameras are equal.

You need to forget all the nonsense and start learning technical aspects of photography.

1. Image quality is always subjective.

2. How can exposure be the "same" if you used a higher ISO value on a FF camera to achieve the same level of exposure? Don't you see the fault in your logic? You can claim that a full-frame camera handles higher ISO values better than MFT and thus allows you to compensate for the loss of light by increasing the ISO value without significant deterioration in image quality. This is indeed a valid point.

My point is that in order to achieve the same exposure using the same shutter speed and aperture you will have to use the Nikon F2.8 which is 3 times more expansive, 2 times the weight, and 2.5 times the size.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.412,795.901,ha,t

LevAizik

Why are you bothering arguing with him? As this is a forum for an Olympus camera, his postings are pointless, as anyone buying this camera isn't concerned with anything full frame. If they were, they would buy a camera for that.

Everyone who buys this camera or any other Olympus one does so for their own reasons. "My full frame camera and lenses are better than yours." Then go and use it and stop trying to goad people who aren't bothered what equipment you have. Your camera and lens can be the best around, but as we're Olympus users, we don't care because we don't have that set up.

Don't you see the mindless number fetishism in your personal "EXPOSURE" theory? Same ISO numbers on MFT and FF are not equal. You have to use equivalent values for comparison. Equivalence is about reproducing the same images on different format cameras by utilizing the SAME amount of light. Not the same F-stops. Not the same ISO. And there's no DoF in the equation at all.

"full-frame camera handles higher ISO values better than MFT"
- BS! FF handles all ISOs better. Base ISO on MFT is two stops behind the FF. You can't beat physics with wishful thinking.

"you will have to use the Nikon F2.8 which is 3 times more expansive, 2 times the weight, and 2.5 times the size"
- Nonsense! You only need F5.6 on FF to match F2.8 on MFT, period.
FF 24-70F2.8 = MFT 12-35F1.4

@ecka84 - I know that I am wasting my time but I will try to explain to the best of my ability for the last time:

F-number always tells you the intensity of the light on each square mm of the sensor. This doesn't change with sensor size. Olympus 2.8F = Nikon 2.8F. This is a physical and mathematical fact. No point arguing.

The "cleaner image" that you see on images taken with a full-frame camera derives for the way how digital sensors work. A bigger sensor can produce a "cleaner" image because each pixel is bigger and thus digital noise is less visible. (Noise to signal ratio) The effect is intensified when gain (=ISO) is increased. Thy is why ISO 3200 is the upper limit for MFT camera while a full-frame camera can handle ISO 12800. When working with ISO 1600 and below the differences are completely negligible and hardly visible to a naked eye. (And not visible at all on a small screen)

To me, this camera can take over the role of a Nikon D5 or similar fast sports and wildlife camera. Sure you're limited more by the ISO, but it costs so much less, has a load of modern features and makes carrying a full kit bag less of a chore. It is a bargain!

@ecka84 - When doing a correct comparison (unlike what you did) 2.8F MFT lens will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper compared to an equivalent 2.8F full-frame lens.

The downside is that in low light conditions with increased ISO MFT will produce a noisier image. The only way around this is by using even faster lenses or longer exposure, but by doing so you increase the size, weight, and price of the lens.

Ultimately each system is a mixed bag of compromises. There's no universally ideal 'sweet-spot' to that trade-off. You need to know what you shoot and which system will serve you best.

Personally speaking, when I am going hiking/abroad I take my MFT camera all the time. You just can't get a 200 - 600MM equivalent lens on full-frame for $500 and 600 grams. My 12-100 Pro is AMAZING you can't find anything like this on full-frame.

When I want to shoot ultra-wide or portraits in low light my Sony A7 is amazing. You can't beat it for the price.

"F-number always tells you the intensity of the light on each square mm of the sensor" - Which doesn't make all cameras equal. FF has more of those square mm's and therefore it gathers more light.

"bigger sensor can produce a "cleaner" image because each pixel is bigger"
- No. FF produces cleaner images because it gathers more light with its larger pixels, or more of them, or both (more and larger pixels). 42mp FF produces higher quality images than 12mp FF.

You just don't know what the image quality is. It's not the pixel size, it's not the SNR, it's not light intensity per square mm. It's the data. More data = higher image quality.

Why 80mp FF and 20mp MFT won't have identical image quality, despite having the same light intensity per square mm and the same pixel size/density?
You can stay delusional with your "MFT F2.8 = F2.8 FF" mantra all you want. Doesn't make it true. Images speak for themselves. But preaching it publicly and brainwashing people is wicked.

@ecka84

"You just don't know what the image quality is."

You also don't have any idea what image quality is because image quality is subjective.

"Any imaginary MFT reach advantages can be debunked by cropping a high-res FF image. I'd rather have a 300F4 on FF, than a lousy 200-600eqv. on MFT. You can't win this."

You can get whatever you want it is your wallet and your back, but I bet you wouldn't notice a difference in a blind test even if your life was depending on it

I watched your flicker profile. Everything you photograph could be easily reproduced with MFT without any visible image degradation. Even more so, you will probably be better with MFT because it has more DOF it will benefit your macro photography.

"You can stay delusional with your "MFT F2.8 = F2.8 FF" mantra all you want. Doesn't make it true."

You just don't have any idea how cameras work. You are arguing about mathematical and physics facts which you clearly have no understanding of.

@ecka84
You are confusing the "image quality" with a "quality image".

"Quality" is subjective by nature no matter how you spin it around.

"I watched your flicker profile" - Did you like it? :)

Some photos are nice, but most of them a completely generic. Again, this is my subjective opinion.

No, it doesn't. More DoF only comes with less light. And less light means worse image quality, no matter what camera you use.

Yes, but it also means that you see more of the subject that you are photographing which is point of photography in the first place.

If your aspiration in photography is only to achieve maximum image "quality" so my friend you are stuck in a situation the forces you to spend a lot of money on high-end gear that produces "quality" images that most people will never appreciate because most on the content nowadays consumed on 3 to 6-inch smartphones.

@ecka84

Some of those pictures are for "trolling".

Yeah, yeah. whatever. Well, at least you are a self-confessed troll. Self-awareness is a progress from a psychological point of view.

They probably don’t have a sufficient lens portfolio to make such a sensor of additional value to consumers - and certainly won’t be investing in those products now.

“Given more pixels in the same area will increase the image noise,”

On a fixed spatial scale, not that much. The extent to which this is the case is often blown out of proportion.

They didn't say that it changes the len's aperture or focal length. Equivalent focal length and aperture are simply used to relate how the image formed by one format with a given lens with compare to the image formed by another format.

You want a certain field-of-view and depth-of-field - this is what you actually OBSERVE. And what this means in terms of focal length and aperture depends on the specific system.

Besides these, there's also the S/N ratio, resolution and DR - and the sheer availability & pricing of "stuff".

And depending on your overall requirements, a system can or cannot achieve this. This can mean that MFT can do it and FF can't or vice versa.

These system wars are becoming sillier by the day really.

My precious 75mm F1.8 is pritty compact for a reach of 150mm.

I can think of a few things, such as Live ND, amazing IBIS (especially useful with Live ND), or the usable silent shutter (mine is in silent mode pretty much all the time).

But... I'd lose my seldomly used function lever in the process. :)

I just turn mine on at the start of a session and then rely on quick sleep.

The problem of having the power switch around the shutter button is that then, you can’t have a dial there. And as far as I’m concerned, I know which one I use more often.

I find it more the opposite The FF crowd often invades m4/3rd space to boost their dominance if equivalence is brought up....The bully wants to make sure who is the biggest and the bestest on the street...

"Seems mFT users know there are differences from FF and can’t accept it."

But we do accept it, as we bought into the system for our own reason. That the Full Frame fans continually post on anything related to Olympus with the usual "Full Frame is mush better and you don't know what you're doing" nonsense, must mean they cannot accept it.

After all, how many MFT users populate the Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. threads? Why not? Because we don't care what other system anyone else has, only our own.

Genuine interest mixed with random trolling.

M43 hate is endemic to DPR comments. M43 lost the marketing war, because the notion that you sacrifice some top-end image quality for convenience is not an appealing message to people who believe they are the next Eggleston or Kertész. Despite the fact that most folks very much aren't testing the limits of their equipment, the mere notion that there might be some loss of dynamic range or bokeh is enough to have made people utterly disdainful, and very much willing to make that point all the time. Gotta justify the FF camera somehow...

1400+ comments on a brand which is declared "dead" by many. I always wonder why some people need to bash a brand just to reassure themselves that they have made the right choice (the right choice being : not Olympus).
I see the same thing on a forum dedicated to cars : each time a subject speaks of a Fiat or Alfa Romeo, you see a herd of trolls coming just to bash those brands and polluting the comments.
It just shows how many (really many) people are insecure and need to destroy the reputation of any brand which could "threaten" the brand(s) they cherish.
It's also very significant IMHO that the brands they attack are often the ones who are genuinely "different".
Makes me think of Peter Gabriel's song "Not one of us".

It's pretty ridiculous. Over in the forum, the members with most posts are from amateur photographers who neither own or appreciate the current m43 cameras. They are:
A: Unable to offer advice about using these cameras and
B: Too often commenting to reinforce the disadvantages of using a 43 sensor camera in contrast to their favoured camera.
It's like having a horde of Mongol barbarians crash a dinner party.

@Michiel953:
Haha, you did give me a smile and a laugh there ;-)

Yea I think Iphones are more compatible to the FF Stuff....

hi, i'm not referring to this single model. flagships are definitely not meant be be cheap.
what i'm saying is that the lack of improvements over it's predecessors that people are bashing it for reflects how m43 as a system has suffered from current market trends. (poor profit that lead to a lack of RD resources)

GX9 or the upcoming E-M10 IV

well if u insist on those new 20mp sensors, there's gx9 and a bunch of used gx8, penF
for heavy users the em1 mk2 is currently something like 7000-ish USD here in Taiwan's used market . G9 is also relatively cheap.

as I mentioned, m43 is suffering from a shrinking sale that limits it's improvements recently
but, I don't think people can't enjoy photography with rather dated sensors or camera body. isn't it? For lots of youngsters with a really tight budget I would still recommend m43 as a great system with lots of cheap and lightweight glass to choose from. they can enjoy photography without breaking the bank or having to limit the budget on traveling (which is ironic lol). That's really my point.

Got a good offer to sell the whole Oly system at once and got tempted. Then decided I cannot live without a camera and followed the trend - both a Sony full frame ;)

I'd agree with that, threshold..

I replaced my D4 with an E-M1X and it's remarkable. Quality of life when on set or on location, is greatly enhanced, and I'm getting better photos as a result. My clients even noticed a bump in deliverable IQ.

As far as losing DOF control and its low light performance compared to full frame, the small bright fast lenses like the 12mm f/1.4, 25mm f/1.2 Pro, 45mm f/1.2, and 75mm f/1.8 close that gap easy.

I'm really bummed Olympus is in the position they're in, they make a fantastic product for a super busy professional like myself. I have one of the fastest cameras in the world when I need the speed, and a Multishot/Hi-Res mode that works with strobes when I need resolution and color clarity. It's honestly a true jack of all trades that gets me everywhere I need to be.

I just wish the EVF's were OLED.......

Platinumkid: I can see how switching to Sony from Olympus can make for a disappointing experience... LoL!

Michiel953, joke aside, you are at least half right. Having owned both, the M1 is better sorted out camera than 7R III. Things like the absolute IQ or tracking are worse, but the work with the camera in general is more pleasing. BTW, a weird experience I had - The Oly has insane electronic shutter. It goes to 1/32 000 of a second. So I was shooting my f/1.8 lenses wide open in blazing sun, in the middle of the day, just for fun. Today I went out with the Sony, 2 o'clock, 35 degrees C, I opened the lens to 2.8 and... realized the electronic shutter goes to 1/8000 just like the normal. Huh? i don't know why, but the Oly was giving me 4 times (!) faster SS. I know it's an obscure feature with limited usefulness, but there you go. I shot at 5.6 :)

IBIS is usually the first thing that hits me about the limitations of full frame.

"blurry shot? At 1/100? But I'm just at 70mm"

The thinner depth of field can also be a limitation but you adapt by stopping down. A lot.

Ab Latchin: you should compare the 40-150 F2.8 to 70-300mm lenses on FF, like the Sony FE 70-300mm. Its magnification is 0.31x and if you take the higher pixel count of FF sensors into account, there is no real advantage for M43 here. The ability to take TCs is nice though.

Hey Kolyy, I appreciate you pointing this out, but 0.31 isn't 0.42x, and it is more useful than 0.13x of their 70-200... but you lose all the noise advantage using an F5.6 lens vs an f2.8 lens on m43rds, also adding the TC isn't just nice, it conveniently makes the lens a 110 to 420 at f4 with close focusing etc.

This is the main issue, while there is a Sony FF lens that is close, the 12-40 has superb close focusing, the 12-100 is a gem for video work and general photo work and manages a whopping 0.6x at 24mm and 0.42 at 200 and is sharp to boot. The Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 is another sleeper, even the 7-14 (14 -28) gets to 0.22x which is incredible at such wide focal lengths. Even the pedestrian 9-18 zoom manages a 0.2x... Anyways I can drone on. But the point is that when I am out shooting on a farm, being able to catch details at wide focal lengths, get reach etc. and do it all inside one lens I am more prepared for more opportunities than a slight noise advantage.

I am not arguing there is any noise advantage at F5.6 on FF, just that the 70-300mm is the correct lens to compare with the 40-150 F2.8 and its competing pretty well, in my opinion. As for equivalent magnification, you have to take the pixel density into account. So if you say that a real 0.21x magnification on a 20Mpx M43 sensor is equivalent to 0.42x, then a 0.31x on a 24Mpx FF sensor is equivalent to 0.34x. Not such a big difference I think. And if you take a 40Mpx+ FF sensor then the equivalent magnification is even larger than 0.42x.

That said, I agree that on average one gets larger equivalent magnification with M43 lenses (on 20Mpx), when compared to FF lenses on 24Mpx FF sensors.

Paul, I think you need to consider point in context. Which mirrorless mount has Raw bodies like the BMPCC4K with active AF mounts, has leading run and gun hybrid bodies like the GH5 and GH5s, high end still bodies with excellent (not class leading but not far off) still bodies like the EM1.3/2/x, small bodies like the EM10 series etc.

We have lenses from multiple manufacturers from the unique VL f0.95 lenses, through the entire Olympus line-up with their ethos, the panasonic line-up... so we have OIS, IBIS and hybrid etc. I mean the options are limitless. The only drawback is the aperture sizes due to crop leaves a noise and base ISO DR advantage to larger sensors... only if they can use the larger aperture.

This is probably the most flexible system on the market, and while there are a few missing pieces (very high res single shot and extreme wide apertures) we swap that out with flexible lenses and a multitude of bodies.

A ff camera with these specs is way more than €1800. Some high quality lenses for ff are also way more expensive.

A camera (system) is so much more than only a sensor. Such a shame a lot of people can't look beyond the size of the sensor. It's also becoming more and more ridiculous. Like a car that's only judged by it's HP number and nothing else matters.

An American bought London Bridge and placed it in the middle of nowhere in Arizona. And people did use it.

So beyond size what do you see as inferior about a M4/3 sensor and why? The myth about the sensor size has largely and widely been debunked. There are plenty of articles and examples on the internet that demonstrate this. However it does feel like some continue to uncritically buy into the myth that M4/3 is inferior.

@Quibverbow - In fact, a guy drove his pickup truck into the wall and seriously damaged the London Bridge there in Lake Havasu, Arizona a few weeks ago.

sensor format is about comfort. Try taking concert pictures with a compact camera that has a 1/2.3" sensor with no DR and lots of noise. This makes this 4/3 sensor look very nice...

Foskito The Canon R6 with 50mm f1.2 lens can be unmatched by anything. We're Olympus owners, so I doubt we really care what any other brand is capable of. Myself, and probably 99% of other posters here, are only interested in the gear we own.

Sensor size is more a marketing plug than a real world concern. The bigger is best is a cash cow for manufacturers and sadly ends up with ridiculous negative comparisons with some folk disparaging gear they have never used and know nothing about beyond the size of the sensor.
No one would disagree that all things being equal between formats you can get more light in the FF and there is a capacity to out perform smaller sensors.
At the same time the shooting situations (other than specific bespoke situations) mean that this is a small issue, if it is an issue at all for most users. I have FF, APSC and M4/3 and premium glass for each system. No one has ever made a comment about differences in output between these. If you can't see it, it doesn't matter.
For example I do have a 5D IV and the 50mm F1:2, and the Oly 25mm 1:2. I get more keepers from the Olympus system. I think this is down to DoF being a little easier and of course an IBIS that is not present in the Canon.

HellasPeris you could look at the Olympus 12-45mm f4 as an alternative, it is lighter and smaller but you will lose a stop of light. You could also look at the 12-35mm f2.8 from Panasonic but not sure how it compares for weight and size with the 12-40 - I suspect it is lighter. Failing that you are probably looking at kit zooms and then you are sacrificing some image quality

My 12-45mm is almost permanently on my camera body, it’s very versatile and the slower aperture has not been an issue. Great lens in my view.

HellasPeris, Jonathan is spot on. the Olympus 12-45mm f4 is an alternative that's certainly smaller than the 12-40mm. You can use a superb website for size comparisons: https://camerasize.com/

As good as the larger OMDS and the pro lenses are, it's always nice to return to the mini m43 cameras and pancakes primes. It's amazing this is the same system.

HellasPeris, yep, as you the f numbers go down, the price and size goes up. You just need to decide what is your ultimate priority.

You can still buy this camera. DP Review should review every camera except maybe those fake chinese cameras on ebay.

Just looked over at rumours depicting the yet to be released Olympus OM-D E-M10 MkIV … after 3 years of wait it is déjà vu all over again … the only noticeable difference being redesigned front grip and swapping of tired 16Mpix sensor for a 20Mpix one … frankly all this could be easily done already years back … the pace of progression being so slow now at Olympus that this bode really ill for any progressive change of brand ownership … all this seems to implicate that from business perspective this whole deal is mainly devised to unload all unsold inventory of remaining cameras from Olympus warehouses. It really gives you the GAME OVER feeling ... SADLY!

We complain when M43 is 16 megapixels, but we're suddenly okay when a full frame camera has only 20... here's a reflection on that for those who enjoy humour:
https://breakfastographer.wordpress.com/2020/07/26/were-so-reasonable-i-dont-recognise-us/

These cameras are a big investment for most people. When a business is sold there is always uncertainty about the future support of their products. The new company has zero obligation to do anything for the products.

Who has a professional camera with only 1 or to consumer lenses? People in the market for these kind of cameras have a bunch of (expensive) lenses.

Olympus Imaging will just continue under another owner. At least that what's the press releases from Olympus and JIP stated.

That Olympus is heading out of the market is at this moment techgeek internet doom talk. Maybe it will be in some years maybe not. Nobody knows. That's the same with any other company in this market under pressure.

@Don1000 - I don't understand the thinking that a new company would have "zero obligation to do anything for the product"! Unless the new company does not want to make some kinds of profits for what they bought. I don't believe the new company bought Olympus image division for free!

It all depends on the sales agreement. Sometimes the selling company keeps its old obligations, sometimes the buying company takes them on. But you can bet THAT detail WILL be discussed and be in the sales agreement.

@Dons1000:
Regarding consumer support in the future after the deal is made, are you sure it would be legally OK for the company/companies, to NOT honor warranty periods for example???

Plus they would lose all their remaining customers. i'm sure that's their plan.

@scrup: perhaps it would be funny to have a DPR review of cheap fake Chinese cameras (video preferred).

When the JIP news hit I looked into other systems to replace my MFT system.
Non can offer what I have for the same or even twice the price I paid for my equipment. I also asked a few FF evangelists to make me a replacement kit. Non accepted the chalange and left quietly.

That is true for cameras, but not for lenses.

Lets compare an E-M1 with a 12-40 to a Z/R/A and 24-70 shall we? F'ing folgers cans on tiny FF bodies.

No because those cameras are bigger. You buy this camera if you need the smaller size...My Porsche use a lot of fuel but it has other qualities...

My way is not computational. I just look at what should be closer to me than the "focus", what should be further away and what should be way far away. Using these 4 planes, I soften (usually just reduce the micro-contrast) separately for the 4 distances. It is easy and it usually does not need to be too precise to look real. I usually just use a soft brush. Usually, it is quite quick. I do not use it too often, as the type of images I create call for it relatively infrequently. It is certainly not something that would play a major role in my choice of a camera.

"Purist", with all due respect. Did you ever see a 50 mp image created by EM-1 Mk3? When I display on the screen a hugely magnified image, it has all the detail you could want.

I exhibited a lot in the juried international exhibitions and I am represented by a gallery in Manhattan. I do care about image quality. It was never an issue for me. You can see my work here: https://www.flickr.com/people/pavel_photophile2008/. I would love to see yours, "purist". In fact, what really matters are the hands that hold the camera and not so much the camera itself. If you go to Flickr (say) and you look at the photos, you can readily see the difference between photographers but not between cameras.

There are advantages to a bigger sensor and there are disadvantages, primarily the weight of a clutch of lenses. Mark3 offers a sweet spot where you get most of the benefits of a larger sensor camera in a small package. And that makes a real-world difference when it comes to images you capture.

In the end of the day camera like Fuji X-T2 will come always on top in low light scenarios with equally good photographers, you can sweet talk all u want about hands holding cameras. All i can see on your linked flickr is mostly photoshop at work not real world images i dont support photography made purely in photoshop its not even photography at that point. I perfectly know what these cameras are capable of and not. There is no point limiting your works to justify "hands" mft is huge bottleneck if ur talented photographer its not my opinion its hard core fact. Download some gfx 50r images and see what details are. I didn't even start talking about DOF problems on mft yet. Or how bad "wide angle" glass flare against direct light. Photographing architecture stair etc art made already by someone else is not my thing and i don't see how its skillful :) cause its not ur art its literally photographing someone else's art. em1mk3 weights same as x-t3 not much benefit in weight there or size.

@Pavel Muller
1) Higher-resolution always there.
Answ: It is a tric and only usefull in some situations.
2) Higher dynamic range.
Answ: Nikon Z6 is the same price €1700 with higher ISO and dynamic range.
3) Greater light sensitivity.
Answ: Nikon Z6 is the same price €1700 with IBIS and higher sensitivity.
4) Shallow DOF.
Answ: Nikon Z5/ Z6 both have IBIS, higher ISO-sensitivity, better dynamic range and about the same size.
5)On the plus side, you have a relatively light system where you need not carry tripod or ND filters.
Answ: Canon RP, Nikon Z5/ Z6, Fujifilm XT-3, XT4 (IBIS) are also small and the same or lower priced.

Olympus has 3% market share. From 100 buyers, 97 have the above answers and 3 doesn't. Not enough to stay in business. MFT small cameras are only profitable with a FF or Medium frame format from the same company, susbsidzing MFT-format. That is why Fuji has 2 systems and Panasonic has also went to FF.

Number 4) you got me there?? have you not used the 1.2 and .095 M4/3rd lenses....?? There is nothing fake about them...

angelo7859, this will be bought by those who have already invested in Olympus. We aren't going to ditch it just to go and buy a Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc. You can take a photo of a boat with an Olympus just as you can with any other brand, and if you show that photo to anyone other than a photographer, they will neither know nor care what camera you used. All they will be interested in is whether they like the picture.

Unless you're an artist, do you care what paint brushes an artist uses or what sort of paint? No. You either like the painting or you don't. Same with photos. You won't like it any more or any less depending on what equipment was used.

@Quiverbow, excellent answer - exactly what I think (and often say). ;-)

Purist, concerning the 50MP hires mode, with a bit of tech background and research you will see why the Olympus 50MP output is likely to hold more detail than a 50MP Bayer sensor (the Olympus is a 20MP Bayer sensor).

As it shifts the sensor a single pixel at a time it captures the full colour information for each pixel site, on the tripod mode it takes 8 photographs to capture a total of 160MP, which it then processes into 80MP. For the handheld, it takes fewer shots (4 if memory serves) and then processes it down to 50 MP.

A single 50 MP shot only holds 1/4 of red, 1/4 of blue and 1/2 of green resolution. The high res modes on Olympus improve on all these points and provide a much better image for the same MP count.

From my experience, the images from my High Res shots on older Olympus cameras easily beat out those of the 45MP D850 (albeit at the cost of being tied to a tripod).

I saw a video on YouTube where they compared a night time landscape shot at F8 ISO 800 with MF, FF, APS and MFT. They laughed at the noisy MFT result but I laughed at them because they didn't realize they could have shot the MFT at F2.8 ISO 100 with live composite and gotten better results than their $10k MF rig, which reflects more on their lack of ability than on the camera.

It sounds like you guys have extensive experience with 4/3rds.

When I first tried m43 a number of years ago, it wasn’t because I wanted a different camera to replace my Canon DSLR kit, but wanted something small for a “throw it in the car” camera that got better images than my Canon SX bridge camera. So, I didn’t buy a top of the line m43, but a simple Panasonic GX7 and some kit lenses. To my surprise I really liked seeing how much image quality I could wring out of that puny sensor... and soon that little lightweight was going with me everywhere and the Canon DSLR and L lenses began to look like trading stock.

My point is that it isn’t necessary to break the piggy bank to see if a smaller sensor based kit might fit into your plans. I have a lot of Olympus bodies, but my el’cheapo E-M10 III refurb cost me $374 with a dandy 14-42 pancake lens and goes along most days. Fun little camera, that takes nice pics, too.

Kappa - M43 is not actually a niche product. Over the years, I tried such mainstream cameras as Nikon full frame (for years). I find Olympus EM-1 Mk3 incredibly versatile and a big step from Mark1 which I used extensively (thousands of images) since late 2013 or early 2014. The sense of Mk3 being a niche camera comes from lack of understanding of the camera. This site and the reviews here focus overly on hardware specs and not enough on the quality of the image and versatility of the camera when you actually use it and know what you are doing. The camera is very versatile and most seeming deficiencies have a good workaround. Full frames with a clutch of lenses are just too heavy to lug all day long and the extra benefit is much too small. I have been participating in many international exhibitions around the world and am represented by a gallery in Manhattan. Image quality was not seen as a limitation. https://www.flickr.com/people/pavel_photophile2008/

Exactly. m43 is the sweet spot. It has almost the same IQ as FF, 0-2 stop difference, but because it is smaller IBIS and hand held high resolution are possible which allows even better IQ in some circumstances. And that is before consideration that a bag of m43 lenses is small compared to the equivalent for FF lenses.