I always have a backup battery, and the olympus charger is tiny. I have never wished that I could plug my E-M5 (or any of my Nikon bodies) to charge. In fact i broke the LCD on my P&S camera because it got knocked off the table while it was plugged in. I always throw a fresh battery into the camera while the empty battery is on the charger.

wow, some friends you have mr 1%. Don't think I've ever seen a 4K TV! My 1080p plasma is 7 years old, and I don't plan to replace for another 7..

If you are one of the ones that really do need 4k, a microphone jack is something that you would ignore because you would be using an external recorder with XLR inputs.

It really isn't metal on the Mark III - it's the first E-M10 variant or indeed OM-D model of any type to have plastic covers. They are really good plastic covers though - the finish is excellent (the silver one looks convincingly like metal) and the feel is far superior to that which you usually get with plastic covers and arguably feels more solid than the anodized aluminium alloy covers of the E-M10 Mark II, which have a slightly "tinny" resonance. The brushed effect inserts on top are separate now and ARE metal (they were in one piece with the rest of the (metal) top plate on the Mark II. I am 100% sure of this - I have both models and am strongly myopic, so I can see the fine plastic moulding lines on the E-M10 Mark III's covers. For the rest of the top of the camera, pop up the flash of this and the Mark II, and the earlier model's separate metal cover is easy to discern, as is its absence on the Mark III.

No, really it isn’t. Sorry to disagree so flatly - I’m not basing this on what DPR said. Visually, it’s incredibly convincing unless you can focus your eyes close enough to see the moulding lines (finer than a human hair and absent on all other OM-D models). More reliably still, due to having an annoyingly cold house, a back-of-the-finger test is great for picking up the temperature differential on an unwarmed camera body between metallic parts and polycarbonate parts (the latter feeling noticeably less cold). It’s why the brushed metal “islands” (colder!) on the camera top are separate from the rest of the top cover, since those are metal or metal plated whilst the rest is beautifully painted polycarbonate (whereas it’s a single metal top cover part on the Mk II). Remember, it’s only the Mk III that I am saying has the polycarbonate covers. The same change applies to the Pen E-PL9 also.

What $400 even comes close to the specs of the E-M10 III.

Thom, I know it is subjective but I 100% disagree with you. I moved on to a Fuji XT10 with has the same 16 mp count albeit crop sensor and image quality is night and day, no comparison. Trust me I was in love with Olympus and wasn't sure about moving to Fuji and figured Fuji was overhyped. I do miss certain things about Olympus, but the image quality of Fuji, and the optical quality of the lenses are superior. You could show me charts and graphs all day long that say the differences are negotiable but the proof is in the output. That doesn't mean I don't respect Olympus, I would buy the Pen F in a heartbeat just for fun, but the m43rds sensors just don't seem to render things as attractively, not sure why.

"not sure why"

if one has a sensitive eye and take nature/landscape pics like me
APS-C A6500 or even old NEX-5N just capture more color tone (like more different shade of green)
a full frame sensor in A7R II would capture even more color tone

hard to believe those that always claim MFT equal full frame
simply not true. not even equal APS-C
one can like MFT for 5 axis IS, lens selection or whatever. but saying IQ equal to large format sensor at same ISO is just wrong

It is very easy to find out how identical (not equal) the IQ is.

1) Set a tripod on the scene with Arca Swiss head
2) Take three format bodies and mount Arca Swiss plate on all of them
3) Take a single prime lens that can be mounted on all bodies (ie. Canon to m4/3 and E mounts)
4) Measure the exposure with a Light Meter and average it to scene dynamic range
5) Take a single photo with all three cameras while focusing to exactly same point in the scene.
6) Import images and post process them as good as you can each individually.
7) Make a identical print subject sizes from all three formats, ie 30x20, 20x15 and 15x10.
8) Place the prints on the wall and stand at the same distance from them and observe them.

How much difference you will see in the details on area that is covered by every print?

The same can be done actually in "equivalence" manner (I have).
1) Use focal length that gives same framing
2) Do the prints for same size

At least up to 25-30" there is no IQ difference.

People always try to claim that all sensors are the same and it's a complete load of BS. Nikon often produces better image quality from the same Sony sensors used in Sony cameras. Color, tones, pixel level detail, differ quite a bit between bodies. Each manufacturer has a signature look and that is why people sometimes gravitate towards them. Canon typically does fantastic with skin tones for example, regardless of whether you shoot raw or not, and people constantly complain on Nikon/Sony forums about how hard it is to match them. There is much more going on than raw sensor data.

Agree with Tommy. You guys are experiencing what's called the placebo effect.

If sensor size would not matter, an iPhone would take the same pictures. But it does not. So what is your explication for that to try to contradict physics, hundred years of experience and commun knowledge and simple understanding?

Of course there is a difference. The question is, is the difference noticeable in the end for the majority of enthusiast/pro uses. If you set up the test mentioned above, I'd bet 999 out of 1000 wouldn't be able to consistently choose which image was taken with the FF and which taken with 4/3. Obviously if making huge prints, more MP required

Just get a fast lens. I use mostly primes, f1.2, f1.4, f1.7 and have no problem getting shallow depth of field.

The problem is not only 16 Mp, but also the small sensor if you need to increase the ISO setting. When using mature exposure, even much smaller sensors deliver very well. When working with low light, things are quite different.

Magnar, you do a lot of night photography, so I have an honest question for you. Which sensor would suit you better, a full-frame 16mp, or a M43 20mp?

The quote I used doesn't say that the sensor is old or dated, but that the resolution is. That's my point really.

@ quietrich: I would take the full frame sensor any day, no matter 12 Mp, 24 Mp (which I use), 50 Mp ... for low light photography/clean shadow/high ISO performance, what matters is the total light-gathering area of the sensor, not the pixel density. When pictures are scaled to the same size, noise level will be very much the same, no sensor Mp.

When I was going for a mirrorless system, I looked verry careful at 4/3, pas-c and FF. I wanted a lightweight and compact system, but also a capable system, so I ended up with a FF body and some pretty small lenses. ;-)

There is a difference with video though, for the 12 Mp vs higher Mp modern Sony sensors, but this doesn't seem to come into play for still photographers, at least not at lower ISO settings than about 50 000 or so.

Then I can argue that FF is too big :)
That's a choice. Do you want the cleanest pictures at ISO6400 and above? Then go to FF. Do you just want to take good pictures with a light package? Go to m4/3.
Choices, choices...
Plus, 20MP sensor will not suddenly make your picture better. I have the EM1 II and I don't see huge difference compared to EM5 II. The main difference starts after ISO3200 but then if you need the ultimate high-ISO machine, you need to get a FF camera.

Hi Magnar. Are you talking about 4/3 or m4/3? 4/3 lenses and bodies tend to be bigger and heavier than m4/3.
Again it is a choice. You'll get better image quality with D810 and a 600mm lens but EM1 II and 300mm f4 is quite a bit smaller and lighter. Another good option is Nikon D500 and 300mm f4 VR and 1.4x teleconverter.
Choice :)

@quietrich...

Always remember this is a gear site, where "more is always better."

At 16MP the four thirds sensor has the same pixel size as a full frame sensor with 64MP . And some folks think that pixels that are too small aren't a good thing, as evidenced by the 12MP Sony A7S and 16MP Nikon Df.

@ ozturert: I don't see a large difference between 4/3 and micro 4/3 lens size, but if compactness is the goal, sure smaller is better. ;-)

Some friends of me, professional/full time nature photographers, tried the new Olympus system with the 300 mm f:4, but decided to stay with their FF cameras due to image quality and noise level at higher ISO setting.

That said, another professional here use Olympus 4/3 a lot, especially for drone work, and he really like the system. He comes from Nikon.

@ Marty4650: Ideally, sensor area and pixel pitch should be measured against the intended use.

@ Jefftan: With today's sensors, comparing sensors with the same light-gathering area (FF vs FF, aps-c vs aps-c, 4/3 vs 4/3, etc.), the noise level will be about the same when pictures are scaled to the same size, no matter pixel size/pixel pitch. A full frame 12 Mp and 36 Mp will show about the same level with noise for, say, a 110 cc/44 inch wide print.

Earlier, when micro lenses was not as effecient as on today's sensors, larger pixels had an adventage noisewise.

for low light photos; get brighter lenses ... you dont need to crank up isos

Thanks....for amatuers like me that want a light wt package having the e first curtain is an advantage of mft over some of the small mid tier APS-C

All Sony and Canon APC-S camera's have EFC only Fuji doesn't (but they have an electronic shutter) and if you're talking DSLR's then Nikon doesn't have it but everyone else does.

I suspect this is because mirror vibration is the overwhelming source of vibration when not in mirror lock up. On a mirrorless the camera has to first close the shutter as well before the exposure starts if there is no EFC which a DSLR doesn't have to to do as the shutter is already closed. In live view mode this isn't the case but thats why efc kicks in by default. But if you're talking mirrorless both Canon and Sony had it years before Oly so its not exactly an Oly selling point.

Well, price difference is not small. Menus is a personal choice, EVF's are not different and Fuji's primes are not stabilized. For instance I need to preserve at least 1/200s to use 90mm f2.0 and you need good light for that, otherwise you need to increase ISO. With EM10 III and 75mm f1.8, you can go as low as 1/10-1/20 and suddenly "big" sensor loses its advantages.
I think it is a personal choice, rather than technical.

Melchiorum:

But the Fuji XT-20 has an X-trans filter array, that can be a pain.

The EM10 III is not a poorly built body. I don't know from where this disparagement of Olympus comes.

Australian prices for body only E-M10 mark III is $989 & X-T20 $1129
A beginner is going to a buy a kit though.
OLYMPUS OM-D E-M10 MARK III SINGLE LENS KIT WITH 14-42MM EZ LENS $1199
FUJIFILM X-T20 SINGLE LENS KIT WITH XF18-55MM LENS $1,629.00

A bit of a difference!

Just so people know, I own and shoot Olympus, Fuji and Nikon cameras, so I am not bashing Olympus. I love Olympus. I even got a E-M1 II and it's one of the best cameras I've ever owned. I don't own M10 MK III, but I do own the MK II and most of the features of the 3rd revision stay the same. And having shot these cameras extensively, I can say the following:

1. X-T20 completely outclasses the E-M10. And even the E-M5. It's not "preferential" or "subjective",it's just better all around camera with the only exception being the stabilization that Fuji lacks.

2. X-trans hasn't been a problem in years. And especially not for beginners. If anything, it is an advantage. I don't really understand why do people still bring up X-trans as being problematic.

3. A difference of 200 euros for the Fuji kit is more than worth it. Sure, if it's a deal breaker, then E-M10 III is a great choice. It's just that X-T20 is much better choice for what it costs.

I only see personal opinions, not facts. The X-T20 is a fine camera and so is the E-M10 mark III each with pro's and con's. The last one substantiation cheaper. And the waxy skin effect is still a problem with X-trans.

Melchiorum, of course it is subjective. If it wasn't, everyone would buy XT20 and EM10II would not sell at all.
Liking XTrans is also preferential. I really don't like it because of eating low level details. And yes I have tried 3 different commercial packages with similar results. If I have to deviate from my usual workflow for the sake of XTrans, then you lose me. Plus, I don't like the Fuji's colour signature. Even those hugely promoted "film modes" do not attract me. But then that's just me and it's a subjective opinion.

Melchiorum:

"I don't own M10 MK III, but I do own the MK II and most of the features of the 3rd revision stay the same."

The EM10 III in fact has the processor from the EM1 II, so that's a significant difference, even if the sensor remains the same.

"X-trans hasn't been a problem in years. And especially not for beginners."

Assuming beginners only ever shoot jpeg, you have a point. However it makes learning to use raw a bit harder for the reasons explained below.

"X-trans hasn't been a problem in years."

Well, "problem", no. But one does have to know what one is doing and be willing to try different raw extraction software depending on what one is trying to get out of the raw data.

For me the main problem is that there's no was of setting exposure compensation in manual mode + auto-ISO. That renders the mode pretty much useless in most of the situations where I'd want to use it.

Some other systems (e.g. Fuji) also allow separate control over minimum shutter speed, which can be useful in some circumstances. Most m4/3 cameras are really backward and primitive in comparison when it comes to auto-ISO handling.

You can still change WB or whatever else you change through the SCP. Also, if you shot RAW the WB doesn't matter at all. The beauty of the em1 is how customisable it is.

What still amazes me is that while on digital cameras ISO doesn't change the exposure, people still expect to get Exposure Compensation to operate the non-Exposure value.

Same thing as wanting a Full-Manual mode to be a Semi-Manual.

@Tommi K1
Nitpicking about terminology doesn't change the fact that this can be a really useful feature in a lot of different circumstances.

It's something that's available on most other current cameras, so its omission is a disadvantage for most of the m4/3 line-up (other than a few high-end models).

It's (always has been) a nice entrance to the M4/3 system. As a bonus you get 4K video in a 650 dollar body. If it's not for you then you are free to walk on.

I think the Panasonic GX85/GX80/GX7-II is a better entrance to M4/3 and cheaper.

"It needs better integration with mobile OS to make it a true stepping stone from a smartphone" what? the wifi capabilities of olympus are 2nd to none. OI share and the standalone http server are the easiest way to share, on pretty much any device. OI share has extensive viewfinder feature.

Why bother considering Olympus full frame when there are already well established other brands of full frame cameras? Some people's slavish loyalty to certain brands of silicon wafer housings baffle me.

"Some people's slavish loyalty to certain sizes of silicon wafer baffle me."

What's up with the FF then?

No resolution benefits for most users
No noise benefits for most users
No color rendition benefits for most users
No DOF benefits for most users

Yet, some people has that loyalty to larger silicon wafer purely because the larger size and then claims things for it because of a pixel peeping and other theoretical advancements that most users can't see in real world photography!

How many is shooting way past ISO 12 800?
How many is doing prints over 30" wide that requires single frame?
How many is shooting all the time subject only partially in focus?

How many FF user knows that they could pick with 100% certainty among 25-30" prints in blind test using ISO 200-6400 range when there are against each other competitors like A7rII, E-M1, A6500, D800, D7200, 5D Mk3 and 80D.

Who cares about these ratings???

I think it looks great.

Looks fantastic. Love the old school style. It's generally regarded as looking great.

I beg to differ. The looks of this camera is a selling point for me, actually.

In agree - it looks fantastic like all recent Old bodies (except maybe the E-M1s

At damian5000:

The way I (and probably many other) choose exposure indoors I choose the max aperture of the lens and the minimum shutter speed to get a decent keeper rate on people (1/50 to 1/100), and then have the ISO automatically adjust to what is needed. So if exposure compensation doesn't apply to auto ISO I am at the mercy of what the camera deems the correct exposure.

For some reason my mind was stuck on video. Regardless, just up the ISO if needing it brighter. Same result as exposure comp.

@damian5000
Having to manually micromanage ISO is much slower than having the camera automatically do it for you. In changeable lighting conditions, or when settings need to be repeatedly adjusted (e.g. because of changing depth of field requirements), the lack of auto-ISO wastes a lot of time and can mean missed shots.

Auto-ISO can even adjust itself while tracking a bird/aircraft as it moves across a sky with uneven brightness - it just isn't possible to repeatedly push buttons and spin dials to manually adjust ISO in the same situation.

Personally I'll never buy another camera with the primitive auto-ISO that both Olympus and Panasonic keep implementing.

The majority of people likely won't miss it. I certainly wouldn't. Auto ISO I'm assuming works fine in Av with exposure comp? That's good enough assuming we can select between Fast/Slow. Perhaps that's not an option. Not sure.

The majority of people use their phone's camera and don't miss lots of other features, it doesn't mean that it isn't a serious omission for a significant number of people.

The problem with auto-ISO in aperture priority is that the camera has to decide how to balance those settings. Personally I like to have full creative control over my camera, especially in tricky shooting conditions.

In manual + auto-ISO I can see that there's a still subject in one shot, and a moving one in another, and simply adjust my shutter speed to get the results I want. In aperture priority I don't have that control and end up with a higher ISO than I needed for the stationary subject, and a blurred shot of the moving subject.

For me that just isn't good enough, not after using cameras with far more sophisticated auto-ISO.

I figured it would be a given, but I suppose not. I meant the majority of people who would be considering a beginner/mid-level mirrorless.

If you're really shooting in such tricky situations, right you probably need something a bit higher up there.

Do other $600 mirrorless carry this implementation you require?

It's truly frustrating. Considering the PEN-F and E-M1 II now have the ability to adjust exposure compensation with Auto ISO in M, I'd have thought it was now table stakes for functionality, given that Olympus now has the control logic. But the fact that they are holding something very basic like this hostage in order to get people to upgrade feels extremely cynical to me.

I hope that Panasonic isn't the same with their next camera. It took them a long time to add Auto ISO in M in the first place, and now the GH5 is their very first camera to include Exposure Compensation with that functionality. Here's hoping the GX9 and/or G95 aren't intentionally crippled.

I don't understand why the micro four thirds camera makers are resisting adopting phase detection autofocus. Even the cheapest m43 cameras compete with the likes of Fuji X-E series, Sony a5100/a6000 and the upcoming Canon M100 which ALL have PDAF. Yet Panasonic has NO camera with PDAF, and only the Olympus 2000 dollars flagship camera has it.

For what it's worth, at least Panasonic has put huge amounts of R&D into building a sophisticated "phase-like" algorithm for their CDAF. For stills, it works better than low-end PDAF implementations, so you can't really blame them. And they seem to steadfastly argue from the technical point of view that there are video IQ reasons for doing it this way.

I think that most people would accept the trade-off in image quality to get more reliable video AF transitions, but at least they're trying to produce credible alternatives that work with their technical constraints. Olympus isn't throwing their lower-end buyers any sort of bone.

I think the point we all miss here is that 16MP is really enough for almost everything. Only cameras' strongest points are that they are a good size, handle nicely and look great.

"Company think customers are idiot and will buy the same camera (sensor 5 years old) over and over again"

You are the idiot if you think that camera manufacturers think that everyone is jumping on the gun at the moment when the new model is released, and that every new version is upgraded to.

No, they know very well their customer bases and how there are new customers, as well older customers that are updating couple generation models to new ones.

Like E-M10 Mk3 is designed to be model for those who are buying first ILC and who are wanted to upgrade from PEN line to OM-D line and then some who are coming from Mk1 version or even some from Mk2 version.

People like you don't get that the existing gear doesn't get obsolete and terrible at the moment when a new model is released.
Even today E-M10 Mk1 is allowing to capture great image quality with great features and usability.

There is reason why "Mark" means "update" instead "Upgrade" or "New model".

The current state of MFT seem to be only for those already trapped by owning expensive lens
hard to imagine anyone with no MFT lens would not choose 24MP APS-C and get 5 years old 16MP MFT camera

"Hard to understand why" is a point of view you hold, it would be better if you said "I find it hard" and owned your problem.
Most posts are supportive in pointing out there is little difference in IQ between formats I, wonder why you have a blind spot about M4/3 and bang on about sensors and make negative comparisons. Do you even do photography ?

Funny - I personally feel the Pen-F is the best looking camera I've ever owned - and I really like the articulated screen. It allows me to have the screen hidden most of the time (I never use it for taking pictures) which protects it and avoids distraction. It's handling is also superb.