Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV initial review

@BobT3218 The first thing that I suggest to inexperienced users is to make sure they utilize scene modes instead of shooting in full auto. It is a a no-brainer and drastically improves their results. The second thing I suggest is a good book on composition, say, by Art Wolfe.

"The comment that the settings sliders do not use conventional terminology would almost rule it out as an entry level camera and for me..."

People buying their first camera don't know all the established terms so the use of different terms wouldn't actually confuse them.

True but the point is, they would not learn and are less likely to develop. As a young person I had a camera that had only one exposure dial labelled EV. It took years to understand it and when I did I felt cheated at the lack of control.

It will be $600.00 in a few weeks with the 40-150mm R for another 99 bucks.

Where is the new RP for $750?

Canon RP is €1249 body only.
For that price you can buy this Olympus with the 2 zooms that will take you from 28 to 300mm and 1 or 2 f1.8 primes.

And a poor workman always blames their tools.

Most on the forum understand you don't need a sledge hammer to crack a nut, blaming your tools or choosing the wrong tool are user errors.

Never heard of any one congratulating a camera for a good photograph. Some cameras are just wasted on people, much like camera scorn is waisted on real photographers

@purist
Why are you shooting at ISO 3200?

Tedolph

DXOMark scored this camera? Where, where do you see that?

The sensor is not new thought XD

Its the old sensor from the Pen-F not the new one from the EM5 mk3

ennemkay: "dxomark gives scores it higher than many aps-c sensors" that states DXOMark scored it. I'm more than well aware of what DXOMark does, I've been reviewing cameras for over 15 years. My point, is that you stated DXOMark reviewed this particular camera, and they have not. And as has been stated, it uses the 1st gen 20mp sensor, not the newest one that out performs many APS-C sensors as you stated. Therefore, what you stated, is incorrect.

Perhaps if you had stated “in my opinion” to which we are all entitled, then fine. I might be wrong but have you actually used this camera? Your use of emotional language in overstatement without objectivity or balance seems unreasonable.

Not all of the exposures are to my personal taste but the general image quality is clearly excellent. Unless you are some kind of obsessive predjudiced fruitloop that is.

It's kind of obvious, but it may need further explanation as I can see. Fragments such as: "in these samples...", "it may be the lens fault..." All that should be self explanatory. If you need an easier explanation then another forum may be required.

It’s fragments such as horrendous image quality , and a statement as if a fact that there are cell phones with better image quality that I was referencing,

Nothing wrong with having such an opinion but you have said nothing to support your opinion, and rather than take responsibility for what you write, instead you try and make this about the reader who calls you out.

I see you are no more skilful at being condescending than you are at being objective and dispassionate in your analysis of photos.

And it weighs even less. At least if there going to use space age material, they get some benefit from it.

The M5.3 problem is/wasn´t the plastic body, it was the bad implementation of the tripod mount!!

MANY "plastic" cameras are out there, without any tripod mount problems!

And you do not know anything about how the E-M10.4 tripod mount is designed, do you?

(it may very well be exactly as fragile as the M5.3´s mount, but we still don´t know that)

The camera’s impact, perhaps with concrete, is what people are worried about.

I wouldn't call them shills, but it think that they don't know Olympus cameras as well as others.

Entry-level body should test with kit lens. If has money to buy pro lens, why not go to Fujiflm X-T3 (for who not wildlife shooting).

Unfortunately I get the impression from these shots that DPR handed over the camera to someone to play with over a weekend. This is not a planned shoot with intent, just some random picture taking to get it over with.

Bit of a disservice to those brilliant Polish guys at Bletchley Park.

@ It is just a tool: I notice you conveniently left out the first half of the name (the "OM-D" part).

I fully agree that their naming is just plain ludicrous. Does it mean that Donco should give up photography? Just admit that it may be a fine camera but has a FAIL for a name.

Your statement makes it seem as if nobody has ever mentioned this (hint: they have).

@YoureJustATool Thanks for the advice. I will take up gardening then. Do you recommend the Longley RCO R-211x Ct MarkVIII garden spade?

Let's give it a nickname. Oly 10 - 4

Olympus naming is not even in the same class as Panasonic. Even Bletchley Park would have trouble knowing which Panasonic camera does what and in which particular part of the world.

I've got two E-M1 mark i bodies -- both of which I purchased second hand from reputable dealers in England while traveling -- dirt cheap -- low shutter counts -- they're workhorses and produce great results. (I'm also still using my E-M10ii for its small size, light weight, and, again, great results. But I do have a preorder in for an E-M10iv.)

i just recently picked up an EM-1 mark 1, used, and really love it. The JPEGs often look so great straight out of the camera that I find myself making only small tweaks to the RAW files, if anything. And usually, not even that. It's also just a joy to work with.

Reading reviews on sites like this, it's easy to want to keep chasing something newer and shinier -- but there's something to be said for finding a tool you like and just using it for a while.

I'm starting to pack now for an extended trip to the UK and continental Europe (covid permitting). Planning to take an E-M1 mark i and expected-to-receive E-M10 mark iv bodies, and a slew of lenses. Olympus IBIS combined with small size and weight are an unbeatable combination for travel.

I travel with 12-40 F2.8, that's it. I suspect that 12-100 F4 might be even better.

The 14-150mm is smaller and lighter weight than the 12-100mm pro -- but delivers very good results for me, a hobbiest. I've got a 12-100mm pro but it does not get the use of the 14-150 because of its weight.

These claims about AF based on opinions from one review ? I sold my canon 7D mkii after buying the E-M1-X and 300mm pro. Why? Because I get more keepers .
I admit that to begin with that was not the case, I had to put some effort into understanding how to make the E-M1-X work optimally. It was worth the effort.
I would add that the Olympus CDAF is also much better than most reviews suggest. Try looking through the view finder while using your thumb to change the focus point on the touch screen, sharp focus every time!

That’s what is lovely about portrait photography , 4/3 is the better aspect ratio for portraits. Use the PL F1:2, or Olympus 45mm F1:2 and you would be very hard pressed to see the difference in a blind test.
Moreover the advantage of the extra DOF equivalent in M4/3 is better for avoiding a sharp eye and OOF noses or chins, and you still get a gorgeous feather bokeh fall off to go with it.
FF excels in some areas but let’s not fall into believing that because it’s FF it must be better.

Pana and olymp at F1.2 are way much more expensive than EF 85mm 1.8 USM. Not a fair comparison.

That is true, but at the same most of those who criticise M4/3 do so because of the sensor size when compared with FF. that is fundamentally an unfair comparison as the FF sensor is much more expensive?
Putting prices to one side the core of my argument is Panasonic and Olympus make some very exceptional glass. When it is paired with their cameras the imagery is hard to distinguish from FF in a blind test.

Perhaps if you use F1.2 glass on micro 4/3 which is way more expensive than glass you can use on FF to get same effect.

Well my canon 50mm F1:2 cost me £1500, and my Olympus 25mm F1:2 cost me £799. The former is nice but less sharp and heavier.
However all I’m saying is the output from both these systems is good but that FF advantage is in many circumstances impossible to see in a blind test.

LOL--dumping all our gear and buying another lot is the stuff the industry dreams of at night.

@Vit If you shoot Olympus JPEG + Raw and use Olympus Workspace to convert the raw files, your Raws will look exactly like those dandy Olympus JPEGS.

it would be great if you could provide some at full resolution.

Dexter75, please show us the photos.

From my experience with the iPhone 11, it’s shallow depth of field trick is just that, a trick. Looks great on the small screen but fails to match what can be done with a decent lens on any ILC/DSLR.

@MartinSho

The size of an image sensor is NOT everything.

Most cameras have sensors even smaller than 1/2.3-inch.

Yeah, I am talking about cameras on your modern smartphone.

If people can accept smartphone pictures, why do you think pictures taken by Micro Four Thirds cameras are not good enough?

Olympus is a viable company quite apart from its camera division.

This is a review of a specific camera available now and all these vague unsubstantiated dramatic statements based on puerile format rivalry without any real knowledge of the company or the subject matter are really such a total waste of everyone's time.

The pictures in the Gallery look fantastic, easily a match for my 'semi pro' dslr, although it would be useful to know what lens was used.

No, I am not a Trumpist, so I speak only for myself. But you’re right, I really cannot see why someone would still invest in M3/4.

"I really cannot see why someone would still invest in M3/4."
"Not to forget glass availability."
Your second statement is a confirmation of the first one ;-)
If you add Panasonic lenses and some third-party lenses to the already numerous Olympus ones, the choice is wide and enough for virtually all photo subjects, with many good, to excellent, lenses. The price to pay may be high, though, for some lenses, but they have the advantage to exist...
If fact, the number of available native lenses for the M4/3 system is higher than for the Canon EF-M system and the Sony APS-C system... Also, if you compare to the APS-C DSLR world (which offers some cheap entry-level cameras), it is also higher than the native Canon EF-S and Nikon DX offerings...

MartinSho

Because it's a good camera to use and can do the same as apsc.

Which camera brand or format do you consider a sound investment at the moment? I cannot think of one. Olympus is just the first to go in a crisis across the board in camera sales.

This is just a review on a reasonably affordable well specified camera and where investment criteria should come in is a mystery. Probably many people just buy this with the kit and and be content.

People will come in to these reviews and make it a format issue and this is always a bigger problem with m43 or any smaller sensor. The bridge camera reviews get a similar amount of format lecturing from the higher level of user base as seniority and authority does seem to hinge around sensor size.

Those liking m43 just have to work around that and focus on the posts relevant to the particular camera and dispense with the extraneous noise from people with no real interest in the type of equipment under discussion, apart from goading the user base which does gives pleasure to some unfortunately.

The V will be the one to wait for. Wait, there won't be a V, nevermind ...

@david Mantripp
Depends if you like the old and new menus. I prefer the old ones which have been kept in the mid range and higher kit. One of the good things with Olympus was the consistency of menus across the range, now gone, which stretched even down to the humble XZ-10 compact in the good old days.
@Gary Martin
JIP are still producing Vaio computers. You seem very sure that the E-M10 will be specifically discontinued and based on what information? How any one can know with such certainty at this stage is difficult to understand.

if you said so

Have to disagree big time. Big sensors don't make a good photographer. Seen some that are better with an RX100 and similar than full frame or medium format.

Also good glass on a m43 like Olympus take better pictures than any full frame with bad or average glass same for same conditions.

It's the glass that makes the difference and Olympus have plenty good glass. Size is another thing to carry around.

In general all cameras have become very expensive in the last 5 years. Way overpriced. Same goes for phones. Some have come close to double the price.

And lots of people just go out, enjoy using their micro four thirds gear and love the results. The potential benefits of using one of the larger formats are of very limited use most of the time but you still have to pay the costs.

Meanwhile, "pentaust", do you realise you have completely contradicted yourself?

"Full frame superior image quality is now the only thing to justify carrying a stand-alone camera system." This is a purely theoretical statement.
Try m43 yourself and you will certainly discover that no theory will stand up to the very excellent photography m43 provides.
PeterK [NL, EU]

The main issue is Olympus M43 good glass or "PRO" lens far more expensive than good Sigma FF lens.

The fact that you see such a big IQ difference between FF and MFT, but no difference at all between MFT and a smartphone tells more about you than about MFT.

Agree with Pentaust. The gigantic sensor and resolution of a FF camera like the D850 is the main reason for shooting with a camera like that. Or get APS-C, or just get a tiny 1"-type camera. M43 is dead, along with Oly.

M43 gives luxuriant headroom for most photographic applications. You armchair rookies should see what a real photographer can achieve with a four thirds sensor camera.

I disagree with your opinion. MFT is far superior then smartphones, you must be a very good observer. When was the last time you used a MFT camera?Smartphones and cameras will never replace each other. And the truth, not an opinion, is that in general MFT is far superior than smartphones, even without computational photography. It is very easily visible! You must learn how to use MFT cameras I think, especially how and which software you must use to do post processing on MFT raw files.
Soon you will buy FF cameras with lenses F8 to be able to carry them with you, so you are going to change to stay the same. While with MFT is the more balanced system with great sizes independently by the focal length.
Don’t get brainwashed by wrong, simplistic and superficial comments! Give to MFT a chance!

As a current m43 owner (and previous Nikon DX owner), there may be a day when the FF systems are more attractive to me than m43.

But right now, none of the existing FF mirrorless systems (or even APS-C) look better to me, for what I shoot, what I'm willing to pay, and what I'm willing to carry.

As a RAW and 4k video shooter, I'm more or less getting all I need from my m43 rig for my hobbyist level output needs.

YMMV.

And two of the Beatles are dead but people still keep buying their music.

Most important thing is price you have to pay for such tiny sensor in full frame sized bodies - sorry this will never work that way.

I wish they still had their data port below the hot shoe.. Back then, you could get a microphone adapter for that dataport, and other stuff too. Now I notice Sony are doing the same thing and putting a mic into that jack, just like Olympus did in 2010.

But look at the price. Corners have to be cut.

@Natalie007
+1 price is critical for beginner. Since beginner only need kit lens & some video shooting. X-T200 / X-T30 which seem like more suitable. Only issue of X-T30 is misplace Q button and missing X-T100's screen.

Who needs PDAF on a body that small? Oh yeah, all the pros who will use it with huge lenses to shoot sporting events, I stand corrected.

omg, there are so many fans of Olympus on here. How am I spreading mis-information when I quote facts? I've used contrast AF systems and they hunt, especially in low light. The larger sensor in the X-T30 gives better low light performance. The new Olympus is over priced. If all you shoot is landscapes, then maybe the camera is for you. But when virtually all other makes of cameras do have phase detect, you have to question why Olympus persists with contrast, when it could have used the phase detect from the EM5 for instance...

Contrast detect is terrible for video too, the hunting is even worse, and thats not a criticism of the camera, just a fact of how contrast detect works. Panasonic use it too, on their new S5 and although its a great camera, it has been heavily criticised for its poor autofocus.

IMO camera is a specific imaging gears which should handle as many environment restrictions as possible. It not smartphone which camera just a addition features.

So, PDAF is important to any camera.

George, I have been very careful with my facts, I also pointed out that the AF depends upon your requirements, yet you dismiss time time and time again, claiming you are not an Olympus Fan Boy.

Like I said, if the Contrast AF is ok for you, great, but the camera still lacks Phase detect AF and virtually all its competitors have this system. This puts the camera at a disadvantage in the situations I described earlier.

You can defend it all you want, but for the money, there are better systems out there.

I'd love to know how my comments are not representative of the camera, when all i've done is point out some facts. I've used the previous EM10 model, my dad has one. Its a nice camera, but lacking in features compared to its competitors.

Its fine if you disagree, but dont tell me i'm wrong, or try to cancel my opinion. You have valid points as do I , let those who read our points use them to decide for them selves whether they should get this camera and if it is the one for them.

20 years ago? I need it to be better than my camera from five years ago (GX8).

Marketing is all they have these days. The reality is that image quality is now so good across the board you can't even tell the difference unless you print something huge and stand right in front of it. The last 10 years have been marginal upgrades that capture fringe use cases.

We are at a point where an increase in image quality is actually among the least compelling benefit for most users.

Perhaps your need to protect vulnerable others is misplaced. Don’t worry Olympus buyers are all grown up enough to make sound decisions about what to spend their money on. Oh and we’re not gullible enough to buy into your ridiculous and negative propaganda.

You were gullible enough to believe Olympus marketing that their 300 f4 is a 600 f4, many of you still are, so yeah, Olympus is preying gullible people.

F4:0 is exactly that. If you think that is incorrect, please say why and enlighten us all with your wisdom. Im sure you won’t be able to.

Aw, you couldn't make this up. This is exactly what I meant. You guys believe Olympus marketing over common sense or even over what your two eyes can clearly see. This is why their scams deserve pushback.

I see you have not accepted my challenge to explain why people are wrong. Disparaging others and not backing your imagined facts is just trolling.

Don't feed the troll!

Well, if f4 is f4 then 300mm is 300mm. No way around that. You can just crop the tiny centre portion of your 300mm ff image and get the same result...

Joking aside, these concepts were explained here on dpr and many other websites countless times, yet the Olympus sect here clearly refuses to understand still. So my initial point stands.

Clearly the previous explanations flew strait over your head and you continue to labour under your misapprehensions.
Your point never stood, it never will.

Your "explanation" demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about what the these numbers (focal length, iso, aperture and circle of confusion) actually stand for physically in a lens and how they relate to sensor size. Now, this has been very clearly explained in articles on this very website, written by professionals, using elementary school logic and concepts, so I really don't see any reason to engage with an ostrich such as yourself.

Kristof, the next sentence I typed after 'f4 is f4' was the equivalent DoF, which doubles to f8 on M43. A lens designed for M43 is going to have a circle of confusion designed for M43 sensor size.

If you want smaller, lighter, good enough image quality and cheaper than go M43. If you want bigger, heavier, and sometimes better image quality for more money than go FF.

Seems pretty simple to me.

kristof93 Still thrashing about and out of your depth. We know your trolling, but we see your not much good at it either

I'm just disappointed FF doesn't make a high end 600 F8... I don't want to lug a toilet bowl lens, that's why I am not switching to the marketing gimmick of bigger sensors, they are not better for my uses as a hiker/birder, sideways at best but with IS in a lower league because physics.

There aren't any 600 f8 lenses, unfortunately, but with the new high res bodies you can just get 400 5.6 zoom and use it in apsc crop mode. Still cheaper, more flexible and better iq than the Olympus setup.

As for Mr Bolton and the other coolaid drinkers - you can talk about equivalent dof all day long but until you conveniently ignore equivalent iso it's all meaningless.

Indeed you can. Buy a super expensive high mp count ff camera and trow away every advantage that the sensor has and where you paid for. Makes real sense...

Yup, this is why I don't drink the FF hype. On this example of a lens that is intriguing at least, I'd lose a stop of light gathering over my F4 (and that's if you believe the FF is actually a whole 2 stops better, which is accurate in theory, but in practice it's a little less), plus I'd lose on stabilization (an advantage of the small sensor), not have weather sealing, I'm guessing no TC? Yeah, that comparison is meaningless for my usage. Plus, I doubt there is really a noticeable difference over my MkII which is excellent, so you can knock the price down a bit. Not enough people talk about that as a big problem with all brands, they are really getting far into diminishing returns territory, so who really wants to waste money the latest when it's not the greatest?

This is the last I'm beating this horse with a troll, but seriously. Synch IS gets me handheld tele video that is quite good, I'm still not aware of any other system that can do that trick on that same level for a comparable price. This is why I laugh at these comparisons, there simply isn't setup out there that does everything I have in my Oly system, with a 4-year-old body to boot. 1/10 a second handheld stills at F4 exposures, useable videos of bird behavior at night with just the headlights of my car and no setup time... Nope. I'm gonna enjoy my Oly gear until I have to finally move on, and by then who knows what manufacturers will even be offering in this shrinking market. It's certainly not the time to switch systems as a user unless your uses are clearly served now by a manufacturer at worthwhile price point.

Long threads like this make me chuckle. It's as if having more depth of field at the same, wide apertures on a very long lens isn't an advantage! Duh, it very much is.

I am amateur, for anyone who is considering to get significantly better IQ than smartphone, get full frame right away. Skip the smaller sensors. Multiframe post-processing in smartphone already gives same DR as top APS-C sensors - when most of your audience views photos on smartphone screen and you are not pro. Don't bother anymore with anything less then full frame. If you want to bring camera with you to an event, bring full frame for IQ advantage. If you have talent, you will make great photos with smartphone too. If you don't have talent, then you gain at least IQ advantage and more shallower depth of field if needed. Something like A7 mk1 with i.e. 50mm, Samyang 35mm AF etc. Or Canon 5D if you don't mind going bigger with mirror. So unless you know you will take your camera around a lot for some animal/birding where the zoom combo size makes sense I have to admit, get full frame. Btw. I too have 14-140mm II, but would bring rather my Sony A7mk1 with 50mm 1.4 FD most of the time.

OR, for the size to be a real advantage, Panasonic should have never abandon GM line. GM5 and GM1 are still gems of cameras because they are so small VS IQ they produce. You can get great results and low light performance if combined with faster lenses like 20mm 1.7, Olympus 45 1.8 and postrocessed with PRIME in DXO Photolab. These are the real gem combos GM1 or GM5 with small fast lenses. GM1 with 20mm and 45mm are great for Social event, small gig, concert etc - there they will give you significant IQ advantage over smartphone, being super small and stealthy at the same time. Anything bigger and you can bring your small full frame just as well.

There is only 50 grams between GX80/85 and A7 mk1 full frame body. A7 has much better viewfinder with interchangeable eye cups for better light isolation - and then the sensors. Stick Samyang 2.8 35mm AF on it and leave your GX80 or omd + 20mm 1.7 at home. https://camerasize.com/compact/#491.30,673.30,856.30,487.667,ha,t

Ooooh A7 1080p video from 2014.. also Sony colors and ergos and menus from 2014. And spendy glass that's heavier and slower than those tiny, tack sharp Olympus primes.

No, thank you.

You seem to be talking about using only one ILC system, so FF does make a lot of sense now, but for me (and some others) M4/3 works with FF, they both serve a different purpose.

Also a7 / a7 II low light performance is garbage and I don't know why, I've seen some comparisons to DSLRs of around the same age that seem much better.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M5%20Mark%20III,Sony%20ILCE-6000,Sony%20ILCE-7(APS-C)

Ooooh such better full frame dynamic range than Micro Four Loser.. or not.

Well it seemed fair to compare at APS-C crop since you were arguing how much better that Sony APS-C cameras are.

But yeah, click the A7 full frame button on the page, and witness that full quarter of a stop you gain in DR after ISO 400. Ooh, a quarter of a stop, in exchange for all the other disadvantages.

Still no, thank you.

And in the reasonable light under which that photo was taken, probably yes my M43 can do just fine unless you're printing that at 24x36.

So, Vit.. since we're comparing sensors of very different sizes attached to gear of quite different sizes.. let us see how that Sony fares compared to a camera with a real sensor.. the GFX 50S.. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M5%20Mark%20III,Sony%20ILCE-6000,Sony%20ILCE-7

I mean, if we're justifying how bad M43 is because it isn't as good as Sony full frame.. how about we talk about Sony's shortcomings compared to a similarly much bigger sensor? Hey, the first GFX sensor is of somewhat similar vintage to your world beating Sony, so it's fair, right?

@Vit Adamek
Please do not try to create such a universal proposal that will serve everyone in the world.
For your usage and for your case what you decided is ok! But it is not ok to propose every amateur to jump in old 35mm format camera because you think it is superior over everything else ....... This is just a joke.
Fore example M4/3 is good format for macro work, excellent for flash work, for video, even for cinema, for light traveling, hiking, sports, super slow motion, very good IBIS, you can adapt 35mm or APS-C lenses with active adapters and speed boosters, very high FPS RAW shooting (without AF) and many other stuff!
I do not own and use M4/3 though! But I am not saying it is useless and better go 35mm!!! No this is pointless and useless advise. And better have this format long lasting because it serve very good job for many use cases!
This advise is pretty much useless at same grade as if you need better video specs go for cinema camera?!?!?

Also not everyone has, or wants a good (expensive) smartphone. It's possible to buy a cheap phone and get a decent, used camera, for less than the price of a good phone.

M4/3 is a LOT cheaper than FF, and the IQ will still destroy anything but the most expensive phones. Also no phone has a 200-600mm equivalent lens, for around £350 used, and anything like that for FF is crazy expensive.

There is still a use for every format, even a 1" sensor camera obliterates the IQ of almost any phone.

Phone upgraders. Like the salesman said in the store today just before taking the nice lady's money for a little Lumix.. Yes, the iPhone is great. Til you zoom in or crop or print big.

This camera and kit lens is cheaper than an iPhone and takes much better photographs and video with even a basic kit zoom. People already have phones for calls, text, and the Socials.