Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III sample gallery

To those commenting on the image quality, there seem to be several factors at play here:

1. the JPEG engine. Open the RAW files and most of these are already much less washed out.

2. Looking at the RAW files, you may also see (e.g. via RawTherapee’s raw histogram) that many shots are quite underexposed (at least in ETTR terms), several of them by at least two stops. (For some shots, it’s visible already in the JPEG, but maybe that’s an artistic choice.)

3. (Probably a more minor issue) some of the shots use quite small apertures (e.g. f/9 for image 18/150, presumably for depth of field?), apertures at which the lens used stops being at its best, if only because of diffraction: https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html
https://dofsimulator.net/en/?x=EF8C1iwDAAAAJ1Nxk8fzkMSQoTg

Please bear that in mind when assessing the quality, before blaming it all on Micro Four Thirds and sensor design.

Oct 18, 2019*permalink

At least one exception to 2 and 3 seems to be image 39. The JPEG is still over-denoised and over-sharpened (I don’t know anything that works better to give a photo the dreaded “smartphone look” and remove any trace of “3D pop” a photo might once have had), but it’s taken at f/5 and the highlights are almost within one stop of clipping, so the RAW file looks fine. Still, those shots were taken in very harsh light, which doesn’t help either.

Oct 18, 2019*permalink

forpetessake

So, are you saying the DPR failed to advertise the camera properly?
I think for the intended user base of these cameras, the OOC jpegs in full Auto better be excellent or no sale.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Target audience and out-of-the-box results are indeed something to keep in mind as well, but I saw quite a few comments that generalized those results to the very idea of M43, as if a M43-based system could never produce good quality.

A few examples:

photomedium: “These images represent the typical inferior output from m43 where nothing looks as it should. Are you telling us we should spend close to $2k for this? Only value I see in m43 is for video.”

stevo23: “They are lackluster from an image quality standpoint, but then this seems to be my feeling with all M43 results.”

Michiel953: “Good shots by a good photographer. The limitations of the sensor format are obvious though.”

SGal23: “Unfortunately 4/3 dead if consider image quaity..”

That was a point that I felt like addressing.

Oct 18, 2019*permalink

c_at_light

@forpetessake Well, this is not an entry level camera, and I thought that the experienced reader here at dpreview would see that these JPGs are not optimized, not by raw processing and not by setting the camera engine up properly.
Inexperienced users should just use the i-enhance picture style, which gives surprisingly good results but is rarely touched by photographers. @spider-mario: Thanks for bringing this up.

Oct 19, 2019permalink

Sigma82

@spider-mario, don't waste your time. 90% of the people commenting never owned a m43 camera, just like to trash the system without having any real experience with it. But they read a lot of forums

Oct 22, 2019permalink

avicenanw

Excellent Out-of-camera JPEGs.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

rogerstpierre

Not particularly impressed by what I see I must admit. OK but not impressive by any stretch of imagination. Hard to say, maybe the "photographer(s)" were too busy being entertained (it would seem) by Olympus USA to focus on the photographic opportunities offered upon them. It's one of the most beautiful site in the world, and that's the best they could come up with? Looks like a swan trip to me, where do I sign up?

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Fotoni

For its price, technical quality of these photos is quite low. Nothing is really sharp, detailed and colors look faded. More like phone camera look than a natural high quality look. It is ridiculous how muddy these are even in daylight!

Oct 18, 2019permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

What are you talking about?
Muddy photos?

Oct 18, 2019permalink

HowaboutRAW

Fotoni:

Have you checked the lens/es used? There's a consistency to the ones that have lower IQ in this sample set.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

For what it’s worth, there seems to be actual mud in the scenes being photographed. That could be a partial explanation.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Morpho Hunter

Great photos - but why are the skin details smeared and plasticky, and the majority of the pics slightly soft? Presumably this must due to using the default ooc jpeg settings?? I have never experienced this with my OMD EM5 mk ii and 12-100mm combo.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Eddy Teddy

I've had a lot of M43 gear, and still have my Pana GM5. But OMG... ...these jpegs are terrible - noisy, mushy - look at those portraits, in daylight and low iso. Something must be wrong?

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Miron09

one must not forget to switch off the noise filter, then everything looks fine

Oct 20, 2019permalink

GlobalGuyUSA

The photograph -- of the elderly photographer with a big heavy camera around his neck -- using an iPad to take a picture...... is hilarious.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Perhaps, he simply wanted to share an image already PPed for him by Apple with a couple of clicks on a huge touchscreen to his family and friends. Which is how 99.9% of images are used these days and why camera sales are in trouble.

Oct 18, 2019*permalink

GlobalGuyUSA

Exactly my point -- its sorta like they were showing how Camera Manufacturers are failing to integrate Cellphone & even Tablet features, which otherwise would have kept them relevant.

My feeling is that if GEN Z (not gen x or boomers) pick up a camera and it feels clunky and counter-intuitive and limited -- then the Camera Manufacturers have FAILED. A camera used to feel AWESOME when a Gen X or Boomer picked it up. It was an AMAZING extension of self and capability.

Now it feels like the dumbest piece of kit a kid has in their house next to the toaster. And even some toasters are smarter these days!

Oct 19, 2019permalink

rgs_45

Wonderful gallery. But why are all the photos taken with the 12-100/4.0 PRO and the 40-150/2.0 PRO and none with the supposedly bundled lens?

I'm glad I have both of those lenses and I can see the actual capability of the EM5-iii with those lenses if I ever decide to upgrade to it.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Dave Oddie

Really nice gallery. I viewed the whole lot which is not something I do very often on DPReview galleries.

Doesn't really matter what they were shot with, very nice photos.

As to the camera and the price, if people want a small light system I never really understand the expectation such camera can be produced at vastly cheaper cost to aps-c or FF cameras. The body, mount, controls i.e. the physical aspects of cameras are similar across all three formats so production costs will be similar.

Presumably people buy these cameras for their compactness and if you want a small DSLR like camera then you pay your money and teaks your choice.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

forpetessake

Pictures look soft, low contrast, noise in the shadows.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Cmon

the RAWs, JPEGs…or just the gallery?

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Stoneh Ray

Oh dear what are you doing Olympus? Great camera but what ridiculous price. I've read it's £1499 in uk. This will not help Olympus current situation and sales.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Miron09

yup digital rot helps. EM1 one costs 300-400 USD now

Oct 20, 2019permalink

deep7

I know from experience how good Olympus lenses can be but that 40-150/2.8 is amazing! Great gallery, thanks.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

I presume Mr Fro hasn't been invited to the hands-on experience organised by Olympus?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

He got Frone out. ;-)

Oct 18, 2019permalink

martindpr

I loved the photos from Utah. Wonderful landscape. Never opened those full res, no need, pics are good whichever the size.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

jackspra

Always like shots from the Olympus cameras.Colors and look are real nice.Real deal price.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Olympus, like Canon and Pentax, makes cameras for photographers rather than for the Philistines whose ambitions stop at one-upmanship.
Consequently, this camera will be hated by reviewers across the internet but they'll have to invent reasons to hate its gorgeous colors, exquisite rendering, and not-outrageous price.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

martindpr

I think the menus were a bit quirky. Ended up selling the M5II. I prefer Fuji and Leica. Fuji Xpro2 and Leica M's. Never liked Canon except for the 5D original. Sold it too... Never had Pentax. This has good colors, enjoyed the photos though not something I'd buy. Damn why don't they make simple menus??

Oct 17, 2019permalink

That is an excellent question because all you really need need are four buttons: Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, picture style, and a rocker to adjust them. But we want all these other features like time lapse, and off-camera flash control so we have only ourselves to blame I guess

Oct 18, 2019permalink

zxaar

"Olympus, like Canon and Pentax, makes cameras for photographers rather than for the Philistines whose ambitions stop at one-upmanship."

You seem to be right because if someone does not like the same things we like we can always label them anything we wish. After all we don't have to back up our opinions by any facts or such things no.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

Exactly right! From Alpa to Zenit, your photographic destiny is so closely aligned to the brand you use you might even say cameras brand us rather than the other way around.
Unless, of course, you have the metal- and woodworking skills to build your own view camera and if you do, you are twice the photographer I'll ever be.

Oct 19, 2019permalink

Simon97

Nice series of images. I know they tend to stick with default settings, but I'd turn noise reduction down a couple clicks and add a click or two of sharpness.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

MarcoSartoriPhoto

I always turn NR off, along with the Warm Colors setting.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

4sofnature

Beautiful gallery. But is it really worth getting over EM1ii, which costs the same but has better ergonomics and specs.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

yes

Oct 17, 2019permalink

4sofnature

I'm afraid that EM5iii and G95 will sink together cuz no one will buy them over their older flagships which are EM1ii and G9.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

I prefer to have the better ergonomics of the E-M1 II & its more capable buffer & all else that makes it a Pro model etc., but for someone that wants the best IQ out of (Olympus) M4/3's & AF in a small body because they are going to use small or shorter focal length lenses predominantly, then I can see the worth, but the release price is always high to start with, with cries from the crowd, every time. The price will come down & at times will have bonuses or cash backs to help too.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

3pgrey

Photo 11 is solid gold

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Guess what. If you want to know where the best photos are, look for older women taking photos with their iPads. They are much better at seeing potential photos than 99.9 percent of this site's visitors and editors—especially people whose only talent is making snarky comments.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

kreislauf

wait what who? older women?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

DjangoChained

Lmao. Beside that photo, absolutely amazing gallery.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

SandySandy

It's probably better than your companion too.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been to a business that had great landscape photos on the wall and when I ask who shot them the answer is always “my grandmother“ or “Marge over in accounting.”

Oct 18, 2019permalink

3pgrey

@mrbrightside
I just like that she's got a camera hanging around her neck, rejected for a tablet

Oct 18, 2019permalink

FrancoPhoto

LOOOL I went to check photo 11 and I laughed hard. Thanks for that mate.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

jschoonj

This camer is the OOC JPEG king.
Canon and Fuji move over.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

DoglandNC

Terrific gallery especially the Moab images.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Fox328

I have to say this is a terrific location to build up a beautiful gallery if the camera is in the right hands. And here it definitely is. I love this gallery and the quality of the pictures. I don't know what some people are complaining about but i like the colours, the sharpness (look at the portraits), the DOF and the dynamic range (considering the pictures are taken in harsh light). I might even consider buying the camera. My compliments.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Good job by the photographer. Very nice gallery. As for the camera itself, are these final firmware jpegs? I've shot in these conditions with an old D600 in raw and I have to say I think the IQ was better. For sure the D600 is bigger and heavier but it's also older and you hope technology has caught up. IQ is subjective of course and I hope raws PPed in DXO will be much improved.

Oct 17, 2019*permalink

They are lackluster from an image quality standpoint, but then this seems to be my feeling with all M43 results.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

I looked at the gallery again. The colors are beautiful and 20mp is more than enough for the output medium. The large DOF is very useful and preferable for these great scenery type shots. What's killing the IQ is the dynamic range. That can be fixed to some limit in raw. Then again FF mirrorless cameras are now almost as light and small, and APSC can be just as light, small and cheaper with better IQ. Having said that, I'm actually a potential buyer of this camera because it looks really good, the gip will be better than the mark 1 EM-5 I used to own and I like the brand.

Oct 17, 2019*permalink

cameron2

"They are lackluster from an image quality standpoint, but then this seems to be my feeling with all M43 results."

It might just be you.

I'm always curious what people's responses would be if they didn't know what brand and/or what sensor was being used.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

@cameron2 - very well could be "just me". But I do recall the website "guess the format" years ago that had a number of differing sized jpegs from various formats and it would let you pick which format you thought a given image was and then tell you if you got it right. I almost never voted M43 images as 24Mp or 36Mp full frame. I either guessed them right or guessed that they were compact sensors (like 1/2.3). But with the 36Mp, I nearly always got them right. APSC 24Mp and FF 24Mp were nearly indistinguishable for me. But M43 - typically very thought were M43 or even smaller. Wish that site were still up.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

George1958

It’s to be expected that folk will enter in negative comparisons between FF and M4/3 despite their being an obvious flaw in comparing very different things.
The sensor size argument that bigger is best is only an aesthetic rather than a truth. If FF was the standard, which it is not, why would professionals use 1inch, m4/3, APS-C etc?

I walked around a local photography exhibition where all the exhibits where shot in film, the limited DR, Noise/grain etc were very marked in the images, but the images were very striking, and it was the subject, the composition and the mood that make the images stand out. Gear heads never want to talk about that because there are no specs to hide behind.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

@George -sensor size doesn't matter? Sure, tell yourself that all day long.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

onlyfreeman

They should do that "guess the format" test again, but I suspect it's quite difficult to design it.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

@onlyfreeman - you can find references to it in many forums and even the original link. But alas, it leads nowhere these days.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

jackspra

@stevo23. For example 3. 21. 24 are lackluster?They look real nice to me.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

jadmaister2

yup. And to add that, 'these days', I can't help but think that at least some of this negativity is from people with an agenda?I guess DPR isn't totally immune to fake reviews.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

FrancoPhoto

Great gallery! And I have no problem with the quality of the images, especially considering the harsh light under which most of them were taken.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

bluzcity

Good eye Dan!

Oct 17, 2019permalink

muljao

Nice photos. I'm not sure I'd let a photo gallery decide whether I bought a camera or not though. I don't think image quality within certain expectations for a format are ever going to be bad. I mean image quality is as good as can be expected from most new cameras

Oct 17, 2019permalink

bcvthul

The pictures don't impress me...Maybe the camera has a 'bad' RAW-to-jpeg converter.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

PistonPhotoUK

Thats a pretty personal taste topic. Edit to taste and all that. What aspects don't impress?

Personally, I feel the photos have plenty of room for post development, but others' mileage may vary.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

bcvthul

Most pictures are, for me, not crisp and clear. It seems that there is a vague grey mist hanging over the photos.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

M43Hero

I noticed that too, it's probably from all the dust in the air.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

cesaregal

What about shutter sound?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Michiel953

Didn't you hear it? Just listen to the image gallery.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

The shutter is well dampened; it can be heard in Robin Wong's overview of the camera.
https://youtu.be/UedJfu25lgM?t=334

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Michiel953

Good shots by a good photographer. The limitations of the sensor format are obvious though.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

sunjester

Why are all the shots with pro lenses? Shouldn't some of them be with the lens the camera is sold with?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Because it is an interchangeable lens camera?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

sunjester

@Photodog2 then why no shots with the kit lens? Every other recent sample gallery for a new camera has shots with the kit lens.

Oct 17, 2019*permalink

Video-vs-photo

Maybe because this is OM-D E-M5 Mark III? I mean not the very basic camera. f2.8 is not fastest lens for this mount anyway but this is PRO lens. There is option to get it with M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm f/4-5.6 II Lens. Of course will be good to get it tested with wide range of lenses.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Because this is about the camera that is being released, not a new lens, so why use less than a Pro lens for knockers to have more to complain about in IQ.

Oct 18, 2019permalink

If you stopped wasting all your money betting on losing horses and buying rounds for your worthless friends at the bar, you could afford better lenses.

Oct 21, 2019permalink

bluevellet

Not a bad gallery.

Olympus finally sends the press to a sunny location. :)

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Definitely THE BEST GALLERY here in a long-long time.
Bravo Dan for these great shots.
Bravo to the Olympus' PR-team that selected this amazing location.

Oct 17, 2019*permalink

Wanderer23

Very nice gallery!

Oct 17, 2019permalink

montxsuz

Okay, I think I will upgrade from the Mark II. Lightweight travel body grabs me. But why pair the 14-150mm lens with it? Surely the 12-100mm is a better bet giving dual stabilisation? THough the Panny 50-200mm is also rather attractive.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Because the 14-150 is a weather sealed all round travel lens, an ideal pairing lens. The 12-200 could be another option for a traveller that is more interested in more reach in a single lens. The 12-100 f4.0 Pro lens would be nice, but bigger & heavier & that only comes in a Pro kit (with a Pro body).

Oct 18, 2019*permalink

montxsuz

I will agree with you about the 14-150 weight. Good point. Sadly it does not have stabilisation, but not many Olympus lenses do. 12-100mm is about the only one. And Panasonic lens stabalisation is not compatible with Olympus dual. I had hoped that they would announce some new choices as per their road map. But none so far. I would like to travel with confidence without a tripod. Having said that, there is only 106g difference between the 12-100 and 12-200.

Oct 19, 2019permalink

I dislike the colors and especially the lack of contrast. But those are easily fixable with RAW.

What doesn't seem to be fixable is the mush. Is it just me or does none of these pictures look at least decently detailed? This looks more like a Canon 1 inch gallery than the recently released Nikon Z50 gallery.

All three of those cameras have "just" 20MP, but somehow even here the Olympus doesn't hold up. What is the problem? Lenses, slight AF misses, AA filter, base ISO noise?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

It's the dust.
Desert's dust eats details.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

@wwwuser

But even the images not in the desert lack detail

Oct 17, 2019permalink

photofan1986

Well, even my RX100III does render fine detail much better... (And I AM a micro 43 user).

Oct 17, 2019permalink

SGal23

lack of details, looks like iso 200 eats it already. Colors are dull. Hardly it makes sense particular for the suggested price.
Unfortunately 4/3 dead if consider image quaity..

Oct 17, 2019*permalink

Parshua

Olympus has VERY aggressive noise reduction in JPEG. The first thing to do should be to put the noise filter to off. The colors are dull because Olympus always under exposes by almost a full stop. Put the exposure shift to +4/6 and that problem will be solved as well. If contrast is not to your liking, you can tweak the tone curve in the camera to make it to your liking.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Parsua - you are right.
Yes, it is probably noise reduction.
Here's from the press release: "Olympus says that the ISO performance has been improved by 2 stops, and ISO 6400 is as good as ISO 1600 on the E-M5 II, according to Olympus.".
This explains the eerie jumble and lack of texture even on ISO 200 in the published samples from the desert.

Still had to tweak the noise reduction a bit, and then put samples at ISO 100 000, putting the arrows: "And this is John."

Oct 17, 2019permalink

@wwwuser
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=oly_em5ii&attr13_1=olympus_em1x&attr13_2=oly_em5ii&attr13_3=olympus_em1ii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.3387320684868116&y=0.23517844853013467

Well the RAW doesn't give those two stops. Not even one ... So if they really just want to crank the NR that would be a terrible idea.

But I am not even talking about high ISO. The ISO 200 looks mushy

Oct 17, 2019permalink

It seems NR works, and works too aggressively even in ISO 200

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Edgar_in_Indy

"What doesn't seem to be fixable is the mush."

Huh? Mush is the *first* thing shooting in RAW will fix.

Mush is generally introduced by noise reduction in the JPEG engine. I've found that regardless of what format I'm using, even all the way down to a camera phone, the RAW image files get rid of the mush found in the OOC JPEGs.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

@Edgar_in_Indy

Than why are other recent galleries mush free?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Edgar_in_Indy

It's a new camera, presumably using a different JPEG engine. I am rarely satisfied with OOC JPEG's, and often due to lack of detail.

All I'm saying is I've never seen a camera that put out mushy RAW images. I'm not sure why the latest EM5 should be a sudden departure from that.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Don’t those other recent galleries use other JPEG engines?

Oct 17, 2019permalink

fPrime

@Panther fan - Agree with the flatness and mush you point out. IMHO Olympus is using a very heavy-handed JPEG engine to fix the problems caused by stuffing 20MP into a tiny Micro Four Thirds sensor.

My guess is that strong NR is needed even at base ISO, that the low DR of the sensor requires underexposure to protect highlights, and that the over-engineered lenses are killing off some of the microcontrast.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

Emilio TTL

Most of these issues are well corrected with the appropiate settings. Getting good JPEGs from an Olympus camera does take some tweaking.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

@fPrime: the DR is not that low, it’s in fact very respectable for the size of the sensor: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

Now, the camera might have a tendency to underexpose despite that dynamic range, I don’t know. I shoot RAW and manual and the quality seems completely fine to me. So do the lenses.

Oct 17, 2019*permalink

Darn, this gallery is super-high quality. Excellent work, and many results are breathtaking. You persuaded me to get at least two new EM5Mk3.

Oct 17, 2019permalink

SGal23

nice joke for the super quality!! i dont have anything about photog's work just for image quality... sorry ((

Oct 17, 2019*permalink