Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III review

If someone can't take the m4/3 equipment and make the work published, acclaimed and prized, then they are in the wrong trade, in the wrong business.
If a hobbyist thinks the m4/3 equipment is insufficient for a successful hobby, then they are in the wrong hobby.

I'm in love with EM5ii even if I tried different sizes on micro 4/3. I still believe that EM5 series could be the best seller of Olympus. The Em5iii isn't at the same league of previus generation. EM1III is just DSLR style camera and could be targeting to pro photographer and not to hobiest as me. If you want to carry a camera all day in a city or to go for outdoors up to mountains or beaches, EM1iii is on the heavy side. Consider that I own GX9 and compare it with EM5ii find it less confortable. THat's why I'm here on this amazing micro 4/3 system and never go back to FF Nikon or Canon.

In the realm of useless conjecture I wonder where the brand's fortunes would lie if they applied their superb technological prowess into a "full frame" camera system very early on. They have been an innovative leader for years, but in a smaller format, with its inherent limitations and weaknesses.

I really wanted to stay with Olympus, having bought two Em5 II bodies, both new from a shop.

The black unit had shutter problems after a few clicks (it still worked but button didn't have a tactile feel anymore)

The silver unit had times that it just wouldn't focus, nothing happening when trying to focus until i detached and reattached lens (It happened with several lenses) and that problem didn't happen with the black unit.

So despite liking Olympus colors, ibis and form i had to return these due to reliability and decided to move to another brand.

Both had latest firmware

Yep, the only thing that I got out of all of this was the mention of:

"Olympus's forthcoming 150-400mm F4.5 with built-in 1.25x teleconverter has got you covered (at an F11 equiv. aperture, mind you)."

Which of course will complete my collection of lenses for my new Mark III.

Reading these comments, I realize that, for many DPR pros, this is strictly a spec sheet/value proposition. The charts, the graphs, the pixels per dollar prove that this camera is not much of a value. It gets worse--most of the really good Olympus and Pansonic lenses are not cheap.

Why buy a camera that scores 87% when you can get a camera that got a 93% for less money? if that is the way you determine "user experience" then there is no point in a high-end compact camera system. But some m43 users see this differently. They own full frame as well, and know when the difference a bigger camera provides will really be beneficial. Like carrying a heavy tripod. Always good to have, but not always worth the bother.

After having used almost everything except medium format, I cannot deny that Oly is unique and very high quality. Its Uniqueness for me is based on: Construction quality, haptics and materials used, ergonomics, IBIS, 12-40 and 12-45 IQ, colors. With Sony A7R3, I miss the size advantage of high quality normal zoom, and the ergo, and the IBIS, so I am thinking of starting using my Oly again. Oly has been proved to me that helps me more than any other system to keep the highest nr of photos per project/ "working" day in various shooting conditions and environments. Its super flexible to deal with such a wide array or different styles, and this seems to be top priority for me. Too bad Noise, bit depth and some badish lenses helped the system not to get enough traction in the market. I respect Oly as much as Leica. Just a personal opinion.

The thing is that these Olympus solutions are not at all price competitive when compared to the cheaper FF bodies and glass that is coming out these days.

Olympus E-M1 III + 12-100mm F4 - $1,400 + $1,300 = $2,700
Sony A7III + Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 = $1,700 + $700 = $2,400

And the FF combo is wider aperture with vastly better performance in low light, while having no size or weight penalty. For $500 more, you can shoot at 42MP with vastly more detail than the Olympus can output. The Olympus setup retains some advantages - weather sealing and stabilization - but it's clearly not a winner on value or IQ any more.

Olympus is trying to compete with 2014 Sony and Canon but are struggling against the 2020 competition.

I find Dan Bracaglia's comment uncalled for. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. 'the OM-D E-M1 III could be the last high-end Olympus camera we'll see for some time'. He could equally have said 'potentially the first of many new models from JIP'. His evidence is all I want to see... Or remove the statement which is insidious and implies do not buy this final model...

I spent four hours hiking and taking landscape photos in the rain with my original EM1 I and 12-100 yesterday, taking handheld shots at down to 1/2.5 s, felt silly afterwards for lugging around my moderately heavy tripod, unused. Unless I am deliberately planning for panos, I will not be repeating this mistake. I am sticking with Olympus/JIP for as long as I can. Ruggedness and lens quality are beyond others. Besides, they are easy to carry and I am not getting younger.

I also shoot Canon full frame (1DX, 5DIV, 7DII and an array of L lenses), Fuji (XP1 and XE2s) and Sigma (DP0) so can fairly compare.

Besides, “it’s the mood the photograph evokes that matters” (Rick Sammon). Olympus allows you to more easily get out there and get the images. The rest is done in the digital darkroom.

Aps-c is my absolute limit lens size wize, I have had 2 full frame cameras, but now I know that I will never feel comfortable carrying that much weight with me all day long. My most used cameras are the Nikon 1 system, Pana GX80 and the small GM1. A great image does not care about sensor size.
I just hope that the m43 system does not die out now that Panasonic has gone all out full frame and Olympus is crashing..

There is a mistake in the section "Compared to it peers", https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-iii-review/2

Fujifilm X-T4 is listed as having "Up to 6.5EV" of stabilization, while E-M1 is listed as "Up to 7.0EV (up to 7.5 with 'Sync IS' lenses)". The X-T4 can only deliver 6.5EV with a supported lens, otherwise it's only 5EV. Citing https://www.dpreview.com/news/4879009335/fujifilm-introduces-x-t4-with-in-body-image-stabilization-and-improved-battery-life, "The IBIS system on the X-T4 can reduce shake by up to six stops on eighteen of the company's lenses, and up to five stops on the rest."

Ok, here is my 2 cents:

Its time for Nikon, Sony and Canon to wake up and dump their full frame systems. They should rather to go m43 only. Olympus showed the right path.

Who wants large heavy lenses? Nobody wants that. Paparazzi all over the world don’t even bother selling their full frame cameras because they can’t get reasonable money for them anymore.

If the camera makers don’t follow this example no one will ever buy their camera business. Not even JIP

A fantastic camera and system!! I basically use it for all my commercial shooting.

And again, DPR's anti Micro Four Thirds bias is showing. Same camera in FF would be (and has been) rated at 90%.

Olympus cameras are great.Nice gallery.

"Olympus's forthcoming 150-400mm F4.5 with built-in 1.25x teleconverter has got you covered (at an F11 equiv. aperture, mind you)"

F4.5 is F4.5, not F11. If talking DoF, having more when using a long FL is a good thing. This added remark is misleading, and fuelling misconceptions.

It is a camera that offers unique features.
I'm happy for m43 users :)

The review and comments are very entertaining.
Olympus makes/made shooting pure joy. 👍🏼

Hand held HDR 4 second exposure? Impressive to say the least.

How do they say it the auto-tracking is poor? IF YOU READ THE MANUAL, if you track in low frame rate, it is dead on. It tells you this in the manual. I own this camera and low frame rate, it's dead on. Hight frame rate, then it's going to rely on shutter speed and your hit rate will go down. Remember, it tracks two different ways pending the frame rate.

When are the reviewers ever going to get this right?

after 4 years, the mark II still pricey as hell, unlike A6300 and A6500 which become pretty affordable now

man, that explain olympus fall!

The longer i lurk on DP review the more i think the lunatics are trying to take over ( full frame lot ) Olympus cameras are both beautiful and sensational. The result is a picture, and olympus gives fantastic pictures. Has everyone forgotten the days of ISO 100 or 400, has everybody forgotten manual focus.? . Take a look at all types of photos from before 1995. Look at Vivien Myers, look at Ansel Adams. Look at duffy's, look at Weeges. All fantastic. And going off all the loonies, all taken by crap cameras and lenses. Modern Olympus are incredible. Full stop. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

A few years ago I used Canon APS-C with lenses praised at that time. Then I tried an Olympus and it was better, with much less time used to get pictures with the colour and contrast I wanted. So I switched to Olympus not for camera or lens size but for the quality I expected without much postprocessing. Full frame, APS-C, M43, I don't care, this system did not dissapoint me. Woud I buy it again? Of course, no regrets.

Happy to say I've taken the plunge and gotten the E-M1 III. Totally love it, though I plan to keep my existing E-M1 (original) as a second/backup camera. Shame Olympus is selling up, because they make the very best cameras for general use.

So Olympus decided to sell off its camera division.
There was a time when manufacturers were talking amongst themselves that big sensors seemed too expensive, and why bother with large sensors when smaller ones were already as good as 35mm film? Like Kodak with their doomed APS film, they were deciding what was just "good enough" for consumers. It didn't work. Consumers kept finding uses for bigger and better sensors and left Olympus behind. They were like the little boy trying to keep the sea at bay with his finger in the dike.
I never had antagonism re Olympus or its reps, only those on forums who tried to tell us its lenses were equivalent to far bigger ones on other formats, when they weren't. Not any more than bridge cameras were equivalent to FF cameras.
I read a fairly useless interview with the guy from Olympus and he's still trying to kid backers he can sell small sensor cameras at an inflated price- Olympus haven't learned.

It all started 66 years ago with a range finder camera (full frame, film of course) then the Odyssey is on; Canon AE1, Contax RTS, Olympus OM-4, Nikon D70, Olympus E510; the original 3/4, Sony Nex5, Sony A7 and Sony A7III (full frame digital). Those were all my choice, based on personal understanding of camera lens evolution and technology advancements of the day.

Once upon a time, walking at a scenery spot with my mirror less camera and a 100-400mm lens, a group of young lady ask me to take a picture for them with a smart phone, afterward one of them said “ don’t you think this is too heavy for you to carry around”, I smile to her and said “I consider this is an exercise and pleasure to take pictures”.

So you like use smart phone, fine; like exercise with photo taken please is OK; and no complains from the Pro about weight and size of your tools, it is you job to enjoy the picture taken and income in your pocket. Your choice.

This Olympus em1 mark III and the Canon R5 are the best and most advanced stills cameras in the market by a large margin. And both are getting hate by popular medias. Hmmm there's a pattern.

The Olympus E-M1 Mark III is a fantastic camera, Olympus glass is superb (especiallly the 300 f4). Everybody is talking about the noise at higher ISOs, but you can easily use it up to ISO 6400. That said, it can keep up with APSC cameras, at least the ones using Bayer-pattern sensors. FUJI X-trans sensors may be better in that respect. All in all - regarding the superb image quality and all the built in functions - I can highly recommend the E-M1 Mark III.

the point of this article is to get more "clicks", the same thing talking heads do on the Tube. More clicks- more money...

I get the impression that even the reviewers aren't convinced it's worth it.

In my humble opinion MFT only made one huge mistake (why I and many with me didn't buy into the system.) and that is trying to sell a 100mm for the price of a 200. And so on. The equivalent doesn't matter. The amount and quality of the glass does. I am taking about a couple of years ago. But i truly believe that if they hadn't done that than Ff or any other system never had the time to catch up.

2015 called it wants its camera back lol

DPR continually criticise the Olympus for noise, but I just cannot see the difference between their favourite, the Fuji XT-4 even at 3,200 and barely any at 6,400 ISO. Totally rubbish and very biased. I use the Nikon D750 and the Olympus E-M10ii (for travel and fun) and the Oly is fine even at 1600 ISO. DPR need to stop the bias against MFT cameras because the majority of the older generation and women photographers love them for their size, low weight, excellent IQ and portability. Women photographers are simply put off by the ever bigger FF systems (just look at the sizes of the mirrorless lenses!!). They cannot lug them around for the whole day and no wonder stats show that there are very few women pro photographers, especially in the fields of sports and action photography. We need MFT system cameras to thrive to help them out. Over half of students in art school studying photography are women, but less than 10% in pro work as a profession! That is sad and plain discrimatory.

I give DPReview a Bronze award for giving this camera a Silver award. Its AF subject tracking is not nearly as poor as DPReview would have you believe. The camera is tremendous in every respect. DPReview claims to rate based upon performance in class. This is the finest performing camera in its class. Comparing to a Sony A6600 is a joke. So much for DPReivew objectivity.

I wonder if DPReview has ever tested a truly better stills-oriented MFT body. That big MX1 or whatever? G9? I mean the score is not so high for the flagship, especially if one takes into account DPR' s claim of not applicability of interformat scoring.

The advantage of M4/3 is portability, and to a lesser extent, total system cost (if you only wanted to buy into one system and budget was a great concern). The advantage of FF is superior image quality. Both systems have significant trade-offs. IMO, FF and M4/3 are a perfect complement for each other (more so than FF and APS-C). Those who pit the systems against each other are missing the bigger picture (no pun intended).

Regarding the E-M1 MKIII, I recently rented it along with the 12-100mm f4 lens. I was so pleased with its handling and (photography) feature set that I did not want to return it. The only fault I can place on Olympus is their total disregard for video specs and features. In a hybrid shooter's world, Olympus has (seemingly intentionally) missed the mark and it now appears that decision will be their downfall. It's too bad, because IMO, if the E-M1 MKIII had the video capabilities of the GH5 it would be Panasonic selling off their M4/3 camera division.

Been off DPR for a few months actually going places and taking photos, and was excited to check this review of a camera I will likely pick up at some point if I ever get tired of my almost 4-year old cruddy tiny sensor camera that still crushes birds (stills, video, and audio) and wildlife handheld on the fly like nothing I've ever owned, but I don't know why I just wasted 20 minutes of my life scrolling through some comments.

So many unimaginative people who can't fathom any uses or upsides to technology that is a little different, but also accomplishes about the same thing as what you can do with any top-end camera these days with a few slightly different trade offs. But what do I know, I'm just an Oly loyalist off to get on reviews for other brands and formats whose tradeoffs don't work as well for me so I can loudly state that I don't get it, and the price per pixel math is all wrong, or whatever else.

No one going to mention that its multi-point C-AF, single-point C-AF, and Face Detect are absolutely immense?

Only now are people starting to 'get' m43, after one of the two major brands has left the market. A gold mine for Panasonic.

it is a great camera if only priced sub 800USD

Weird, grudging conclusion missing the whole point of MFT. The whole point is that MFT cameras and lenses ARE SMALLER AND LIGHTER mostly than cameras with larger sensors. That is not an accidental by-product of the sensor size: it is the WHOLE RATIONALE of the sensor size. That's why I and many others got into MFT in the first place. Grrrr ....

The conclusion is verging on the comical. They've basically been panning the thing in the core aspects telling us it's based on a camera from 2016, is a low resolution camera with naff viewfinder now with feeble tracking autofocus, but then in a last gasp they try to tell us how it will be really great with a lens which doesn't even EXIST yet and suddenly it has become "excellent" and "cool"! Don't let the outdated naffness of the camera stop you- buy buy buy!
Did you remember DPReview was bought by Amazon?