Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV initial review

@ George1958
don't bother answering to anything purist writes. He's a troll, look at his recent activity. He trolls everything that isn't Fuji...

Purist, I dont think it is better I had xt30 and sold it with all my other X system for full frame. Small m43 makes sense due to size, apsc cameras are generally same size as ff so why bother?

Oly had build quality issues. The dials were skipping values or failing. My friends EM-10 developed the issue with light use only.

ibis, size, weight (esp for telephoto), lens selection,

And with a 14-42 lens it's $799, which isn't a discounted price. That Fuji doesn't look so attractive now considering it's an old camera. What was the launch price of that Fuji? More than $799, I bet.

Found it!

That Fuji x-e3 with 18-55 lens was £899 when it was released in September 2017, which equates to £952 now. The EM10.4 with 14-42 lens is £799.99 from Olympus itself. It may cost less from Amazon or elsewhere. Ergo, it's cheaper.

It sank in... Now what?

Whens the last time Fuji updated that camera?

Why would it need updates when it works fine :)

Enjoy your RP, man! I wish I went RP instead of em5.3...

Alex you still can, Olympus gear is popular on eBay and gets good money. The RP was a bit of a first budget attempt at ff mirrorless though, Nikon Z5 looks better when the price drops a bit

@ALEX_RAW - Olympus EM5.3 and Canon RP are completely different products. Olympus EM5.3 is basically Olympus EM1.2 in a more compact body with a few improvements. Canon RP is a barebone FF camera.

At least the sensor and AF are better, compared to the older models.
If your question is why Olympus does not make Canon or Sony cameras, then the answer is: because Canon and Sony make them.

@George1958 your in denial it's time to move on :)

The thing is, I don’t know, and other than those who are involved, no one knows. If Olympus had announced that they were closing down their camera devision, much like Samsung, then there would be less to speculate on. However they have not done that.
I have FF gear too. It’s good but I am selling it because it does not substantially add value to my photography in 99% of shooting situations. I have long got passed viewing format as something that actually matters. If it did then surely you would have more success with FF. I still get small commissions for events, the odd wedding and some portraits. It’s small change but it’s all done on m4/3.

AMFotografie101:

I see your defense of your Canon RP obscures the single point I made, the one about the inability to slightly tweak exposures after capture. It's not simply at ISOs that the RP lacks DR.

Now, you are absolutely correct, that the Canon RP is a better higher ISO body, assuming you don't need to adjust an exposure after capture, than any current 2020 Olympus.

But no one is purchasing any m4/3 camera for high ISO work. Nor is anyone interested shooting higher ISOs picking a Canon RP or Canon 6DII, or frankly the Canon 5DIV, albeit that's a bit better than the RP and 6DII.

Yes, well aware it’s possible to get greater resolution, and I can see the fascination for some. However I go by the maxim that what you can’t see ( the details that you claim the human eye cannot resolve) does not matter.
I will never be shooting billboards, no one has ever asked me for prints bigger than A3, and for that matter most are happy with web images.
So I could buy an MF camera , but seriously with equivalent lenses (if available ) it would be Very expensive, less portable and give me no more added value.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some amazing cameras out there , like fast cars they can only be driven at the legal maximum without penalty, over specification is no real advantage to end users but it does drive sales.

Perhaps, if people had steady hands and a clear understanding of how long your shutter speeds can be on cloudy day, nights or indoors. As long as the focus is accurate, not everybody is in as hurry to get it. It wasn't that long ago that cameras did not have selectable focus points or the ability to track moving objects. A beginner might even benefit from learning how to focus on a subject.

Forest dream

But it does have IBIS, so it's silly to say "if it didn't". If it didn't have lots of features, another camera would be better. But it does have those features, so it's a good buy for a beginner.

Contrast focus will eventually focus, but with the slow kit lens indoors, IBIS is needed/useful. I haven't had issues with focusing with my Panny GF7 (but I know what I'm doing - who knows how a beginner would do).

@AbrasiveReducer
It seems like you haven’t helped a beginner in a long while. While true that not everybody is in a hurry, most users do want the fast autofocus. Parents can’t expect their children to hold a pose for CDAF to lock on. And beginners couldn’t care less about the history of cameras; they want something that’s responsive now, and CDAF cameras don’t exactly deliver.

It’s not to say CDAF cameras are bad. The Panasonic GX85 is a very interesting camera to look at with its low two-lens kit price, and IBIS. When compared to the Canon M50 or the Sony A6100, the autofocus speed and accuracy becomes immediately apparent, and people spend the extra dollar to get that speed. Hell, those two cameras focus faster than my S1R indoors (which should be the best CDAF on the market). I have to setup a video light to help it get focus for portraits.

I didn’t think about this until now, look at the shutter speed during Auto mode. It generally avoids speeds where IBIS is most useful...

@forest dream
now the gx85 would be the right choice, but when the prices will be comparable then it will just be a matter of taste

Hard to flip up with EVF in the way I think is why. GF series can flip up due to no EVF.

None of the above.
It's meant for people who are going out and actually intending to take photographs.

I own the MK II and there are more controls than you may think...
All the buttons and dials are customizable and the menu is deep, very deep for an entry-level camera...

People still comparing phones to cameras? During the height of entry-level DSLR and compact camera sales in the early 2010s, many non-photographers bought them for family snapshots and travel photos then dumped them when phones became good enough. That was years ago. Now, I don't know anyone, photographer and non-photographer who decides spending their $1,000 between buying a phone or a camera. Two distinctly different products like deciding to buy a house or a car.

Yes, we all take snapshots with our phones, but you need a proper camera to to take photographs.

Richard, it is definitely an argument. I had it just last week with a colleague showing off his new iPhone with all the lenses. There was no dissuading him from his belief that there was no quality difference; and even when demonstrated it finally came down to putting his phone in his pocket as key. I have kids in their 30’s and 40’s who have no desires for ILC regardless of compactness. We must travel in very different circles if what I see as the key factor both in professional circles and family you see as a nonissue.

@hikerdoc

I'm just pointing out that Olympus saying "hey, you might want a small ILC" is entirely reasonable and valid. It has nothing to do with people who only use their smartphone to take photos. People who *do* buy ILC choose smaller over larger for all kinds of reasons. The problem is while Olympus cameras were always small, there are now tons of cameras that are *almost* as small and pack larger sensors and better performance. Olympus has a problem, but it's not smartphones, it's APSC and FF mirrorless becoming so much more compact than before.

I too would recommend the M50 over this camera. However, the EF-M lens system is pretty tiny. That being said though, most people just use the kit lens and nothing else.

The Olympus is a nicer camera than the ones you list , the ibis means you get shots that would otherwise require a tripod , higher iso and wide apertures. Contrast AF in real world use, at least the Olympus implementation is both fast and accurate. I can say that having used it for the past 10 years. There is not a world of difference between apsc and m4/3 either and what there is is imperceptible for web and copy printing in general
It seems like once again some see m4/3 and offer opinions as if they are truths about products they don’t understand and have no intention of buying. Ps and while you are on, why not list the weaknesses of the alternatives you suggest?

EF-M is not tiny, EF-M is dead. Every dollar you spend on EF-M mount is throwing money down the drain because the second you will want to upgrade to a more capable camera you find that there aren't any in the EF-M line and the only path is to sell everything and move to another platform.

At least if you go with Fujifilm or Olympus you have a place to grow.

Indeed, there are Pentax, Nikon, Canon systems and there is Olympus. Try it.

Smartphones are for taking snapshots; a camera is for taking photographs.

No, it's actually probably good. We are going back to a time when photographers carried cameras, not the G.P.

Yeah, that's the part he covered with "used to innovate".

That's quite the definition of "Innovative"...

Yes, so much misinformation about Olympus on this thread , and people working harder to create misinformation than to check the facts.

@melgross
You have not presented any evidence what you said was true about Vaio, nor have you presented any counter evidence to what I presented. From what I found, things happened the exact OPPOSITE of what you claimed. Sony originally had Vaio made by a third party in China. After JIP took over they did things in-house in their Japan factory.

As for their products being junk, their SX14 model gets 85% by notebookcheck, which is a very good rating. They don't make the absolute best, but it's hardly junk.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Vaio-SX14-i5-8265U-FHD-Laptop-Review.418199.0.html

They certainly had much worse laptops (like this one rated 73%) when Sony was running the ship.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Sony-Vaio-Fit-SV-F14A1M2E-S-Notebook.101972.0.html

Again if you have evidence otherwise, please post it. Or if not I and others can only assume I have the correct account and your's was misinformation.

The comment about JIP and the cash they hold, JIP are not necessarily buying the imaging division but managing the process of forming a new company that will continue the business of the imaging division.

Also, who said Sony has stopped developing new 4/3 sensors? From what I have seen they have several sensors that have not been used in consumer cameras yet and at 24MP and above.

If you own Olympus and want to sell, feel free, if you want to support the company and buy more new gear, feel free. I’m not selling my kit yet, it works, it produces the quality required, it’s not likely to stop working anytime soon.

CDAF is best for accuracy, PDAF is best for speed. If I can only have one, I pick CDAF any day.

I will take a hybrid any day over a CDAF, especially a CDAF from Oly. At least the Panasonic's DFD CDAF is pretty decent.

Huge difference in accuracy between PDAF of DSLRs and on-sensor PDAF of MILCs... On MILCs, on-sensor PDAF combines both speed and accuracy and can be used in conjunction with CDAF.
However, I own the E-M10 MK II and the AF is good for 100% of my usages : no sports, no BIF, just "normal people"... ;-)

If there were no 4/3 you would be wondering if there was room for APSC, then FF, then MF.........
People buying this camera also may own smart phones , ask yourself why would they buy an Olympus camera if they owned say an iPhone 11? I own both and through direct experience the Olympus is hands down a better photographic tool.
Your enthusiasm to bash Olympus is hardly a balanced strength and weakness approach or routed in facts

"If there were no 4/3 you would be wondering if there was room for APSC, then FF, then MF........."
This sentence makes no sense, so I won't comment.

Enthusiasm to bash Olympus??? Athough I'm a Nikon user, I've always loved Olympus, for its originality, image quality (unique wonderful jpegs) , and quality of their lenses.
I'm NOT bashing Olympus. On the contrary, I wish they could stay in the market forever.
I might be wrong, and I hope so, but I think that people who are not satisfied with their phones would like to own a camera with MUCH better results. Sorry, but the sample images I've seen are not convincing. It's a pity, but that's the way I see these images.

A lot of people hate FAS screens with a passion (forum polls have things split evenly) and a tilt-down retains the functionality of a tilt screen while allowing for some selfie usage. Given the center EVF a tilt up screen would have been tougher to add.

Most of selfie user hate flip down screen because can't attach any selfie stick/action camera monopod.

Nobody handle camera for selfie since the lens not enough ultra wide.

@Ruff Ruffman - so does every body at that price point. The Canon EOS-M50 is superior in every regard to this new Oly, and the M50 is 2.5 years old and the kit costs $200 less. The A6000 Sony is SIX YEARS OLD and is superior in every way compared to this camera.

I'm in the middle of trying to sell 4 Olympus Pro lenses and 2 bodies - I am quite familiar with their kit. They *deserve* to go out of business.

@jw48165 wow, they have superior IBIS? Interesting. They offer live composite? Interesting.

@Alphoid
Yeah, if you actually compare the features, the entry cameras in MFT aren't bad with many having two control knobs, IBIS, 4K video, full touch support on the screens. Panasonic's GX series and G series are good ones too (older models being entry).

E-M10MkI I bought 6 yrs ago was $700, please explain why with inflation it should be any less today?

roger
It’s not the intrinsic value of the camera, it’s what the camera does for you and the value it represents. In what ways is this camera so much better and, more importantly, more useful than a good smartphone that it should command such a price? Who is going to buy it and why? What trick does it perform that makes you want to spend another $800 over the cost of your phone to have this extra camera with a very basic kit lens?
This is the camera you end up leaving at home because your phone is good enough and less hassle. Please don’t say 4K video because only 1% of potential users care.
This is more of the same from Olympus, the very path that’s leading them to dissolution.

@Old I'll take the device I most enjoy using, and which most feels like an extension of my body. That's not about megapixels or whatnot. That's about the viewfinder, positioning of the knobs, where buttons are, and what they do.

The major upside of my cell phone isn't another thing to carry, but less time at my computer. Photos just show in Google Photos, can be shared easily, etc. The upside of the big camera are knobs and buttons.

I'll shoot with the lenses which take photos which look nice. Olympus lenses render photos well, generally. I'd never use the OM-D with a kit lens. It pairs well with, for example, an Olympus 45mm f/1.8 or similar.

It's the difference between someone who buys a car based on specs (0-60 speed and whatnot) and someone that buys a car which feels good and has a seat which is comfortable.

@JakeJY I don't compare features. That's just not how I buy cameras or lenses. 12MP era is when features got to be enough to not limit me anymore.

@old Cameras I'll tell you what even my 18 year old Olympus Camedia E10 does that my modern, midrange Samsung phone doesn't: take good pictures. Even in marginally decent light, that old E10 just OWNS the Samsung for all but snapshots at widest focal length. Now, just take both out in the rain and try to use a wet phone screen versus the tank-like weather sealed buttons and dials on the weather sealed E10, or on any modern Olympus weather sealed camera.

Any modern day M43 can take so much better pictures that the difference is immediately noticeable even downsized for a text message pic. There's just no contest. In good light and matching its wide focal length, we could maybe discuss the merits of a $1200 iPhone.. til you go inside, or at night, or pixel peep or print A3.

My phone is useful. But I <3 my cameras.

Oh, and BONUS: all modern cameras import images into phones for sharing on the Socials and etc.

Now, the ease and seamlessness with which this happens varies greatly among camera manufacturers who, as a whole, really really need to get their schtick together in this area.. but the fact remains that real camera pics can be quite easily shared as can phone pics. And a thousand dollar new phone is a brick in three years-assuming it doesn't get broken first. A thousand dollar camera from ten years ago is still very useful. A thousand dollar lens from thirty years ago is still very useful even adapted to modern cameras.

Think about that, iPhone guys.

$700 is not really an entry-level...

@ Quiverbow. An user buying this camera will go with the specs. Olympus is not the only camera maker in this segment. I see a lot of people asking about camera's in Media Markt (= a type of Best Buy but in Europe). The first thing they will ask is what is the difference between CDAF and PDAF. Answer will be from the sales person, PDAF is faster. They we will buy the PDAF in Fuji, Nikon or Sony. Results are know, JIP we have a call from Olympus.

I don’t shoot sports so slow focusing is fine for me and many others. Been on here since the site opened....

Yeah, you might argue about that, but in order to ask money, there needs to be something in return, right? To me, what Olympus is releasing now, looks like a blatant loyal customer rip-off. If demand falls, rising prices will only result in fewer units shipped.

The z50 is way more expensive and an orphan so far. Big risk buying it. The g100 is very specialized. Olympus makes superb gear and there’s a huge range of exceptional lenses for m43. Olympus cameras don’t focus slowly, quite the opposite. They aren’t the best for fast moving objects, but hey, spring 5k on a pro sports camera if you must. I have an em5ii which still amazes me with its image quality. And I can carry it around...

pierrox
Z50 is $900 right now with a kit lens, just $100 more for a lot more camera in every respect. Name one thing the Olympus does better, you can’t.
No wonder Olympus has gone belly up.

PDAF anytime over IBIS, never missed IBIS on EOS R, what's the point of IBIS, if focusing system struggles with about anything you throw it at?

Those whom this is aimed at won't know what PDAF or CDAF is. All they'll want to know is if it's easy to hold and use, looks like an actual camera, takes nice photos without any camera shake and has a decent selection of lenses for later on when they're more confident.

@kappa80s
+1 IMO Autofocus always should be most important since miss focus photo is useless. For example worst autofocus camera: Fujiflm XF10 (APS-C), although lightweight, cheaper, larger sensor than E-M10.

what's good from your autofocus if it shakes so much that you get a motion blur?

Some of these comments make E-M10 mk IV sound like a car with no engine. This is equal to saying cameras without good stabilization are useless because you need to push ISO to 400 or even higher, and the images are useless because of noise and low dynamic range.

If you go to a street and give people two cameras, one with PDAF and one with CDAF, 95%+ won't be able to tell the difference (except they may notice CDAF is a tad faster, but this depends on the cameras).

If you need continuous auto focus, then get a camera with PDAF, or even better, one that has both (mirrorless camera with on-sensor PDAF).

Good image stabilization gives you easily two stops advantage over normal one. This means you can shoot ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200. It means that in certain situations better image stabilization can negate the difference between 4/3 sensor and full frame sensor size.

But again, if you shoot sports, PDAF is invaluable.

I don’t really see IBIS to be that important for a small sensor camera like many people claim here, it almost seems that for some very loyal Olympus supporters, that’s the only thing to hold on and so everyone’s doing so.

How is the IBIS beneficial for a family shots, or pets? It’s the shutter speed that freezes action and no the IBIS, and decent AF is far more important than the IBIS in these conditions. No need for a sports or wildlife, running kid will outrun the slow AF like nothing.

I see that as a major disadvantage, especially if competition offer is similarly priced and offers faster AF as well as better IQ.

For a given price, Olympus is shooting in their foot and probably been doing this for a long time since they didn’t survive the competition.

Yes, IBIS will not help you with moving targets. The thing is: some of us like to photograph static objects.

Then you are stuck with a Sony toy camera.

Perhaps...but you also get the Sony A6000 form factor and handling which may not appeal to everyone...Everyone should hold a camera in their hands (if possible) before buying and not just buy a camera based on spec sheets alone...

Well - the 'sony toy camera' has very advanced AF system and pretty good lens support. Ergos - maybe not for everyone. But - it is fairly compact (as aps-c type bodies go).

BTW - this camera does not look world better than the A6100. Yes - I know the EM5 and the 1 have good ergos. But - this one looks like a pretty shallow handgrip - not super different than the A6100

Right, tlbc! I'm going to miss the compactness for a sensor only twice as large as G7Xs and Canon color science that pops in lieu of "vibrant" to "pleasant" JPEG

m4/3 is not quite a full stop better than 1" sensors for noise and DOF control. Given that the lens on the G7X is f1.8-2.8, you'd need to be using lens faster than f2.4-3.8 just to match it. If you are planning on just using the kit lens, Olympus will be worse, except for pixel peeping detail at base ISO in good light.

I've owned a G7X II and RX100 M3 as well as multiple m4/3 bodies and lenses. In the standard zoom range, I'd take the G7X II over m4/3 unless you are using f1.8 primes or f2.8 zoom on the m4/3.

Go and get the Nikon z50, basically the same price but has PDAF and is generally a way better camera.

But the Z50 has a pathetic selection of for-asp-c lenses. This very complete lens system is appealing even to me as a Nikon F and Z shooter.

But no, Nikon won't make a 16, 23, 35, and 56 mm f2 family for the delightful little Z50, because... well, I don't know. They never have and they won't now.

Heck, just work with Sigma to bring their f/1.4 trio to the Z-mount and suddenly I may have yet another Nikon camera in my bag.

@fft2000. Or an EM5-III: better built and great lenses available.

@NicoPPC EM5 III better built? With the tripod mount that breaks out the base plate that breaks so easily?

The EM5III is $1000 body only so significantly more money than this little companion.

Many of us can do a post-mortem on the decline of Olympus, but I point strongly to the head-scratcher that is the EM1X which inevitably delayed the EM5III, killed the PEN-F II, and delayed this.

The Z50 is more expensive once you start buying Nikon's full frame lenses.

Olympus needed a true pro level camera, which the X-M1X most definitely is. And it is selling like they thought it would, so it is a safe assumption that they planned costs and ROI accordingly. Remember also that a big part of Oly's losses on paper was moving their factory. That costs money. They had almost gotten back when the Covid hit-and that's nobody's fault not even the smart phone.

You mean it's not aimed at DPR "professionals"? Other than the price which, knowing Olympus won't come down much, this seems like a great camera for someone who wants to travel light with interchangeable lenses. The 20mp sensor is as good as it gets in m43 and that's quite good.

I use a bunch of vintage lenses on the EM10-II and they handle perfectly well. I regularly use 75mm and 135mm lenses with it. But my favourite is probably the Minolta 250mm mirror lens. On MFT, it has a FoV of 500mm equivalent. And mirror lenses are notoriously sensitive to shake. It works just fine, even with shutter speeds around 1/100. They resolve quite well, thank you very much.

adapting old lenses? yeah... better get an FF camera then...

Cool, where do I get an FF mirror lens with a 35mm-equivalent field of view of 500mm that fits into my jeans pocket?

We are still around. We live in the ocean and are hard to find.

It's also not a review :)

While it might not be the last, your analogy is weird since neither Nikon nor Canon are selling their camera division.