The Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV is a compact, stylish and low-priced Micro Four Thirds camera with a 20MP sensor and in-body stabilization. Chris and Jordan put it through its paces in the latest episode of DPReview TV.
wasnt this review first rating 78% (no award)? Seems like theres just as much arguing going on behind the scenes of DPR as in the comment section. 81% and silver award seems pretty generous IMO.
Olympus has always made. . . controversial cameras. But I like them. I've never thought my E-M10s (both mk 1 & 2) felt cheap and "plasticy". I suspect, I would feel the same way with V4. Neither does my E-M5 III, BTW.
Small and light is where it is at! for me, at least. OMDS, if you keep making them, I'll keep buying them
"The Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV is... stylish" Camera style is a misguided specification, especially when photographing people. Concentrate & focus on the impact the images will make on the viewer. Forget about the sight of the camera itself, except for making it relatively unimportant.
Does anyone use cameras to make pictures any more or do they just fondle them while fretting about what they're made of, how many hyphens are in the name and the share price of the brand?
You mean you don't evaluate art based on the build quality of the tools used to create it, or the the financial health of the company that made those tools? What a weirdo...
Next thing you know you'll be talking about "subject," "composition," and "lighting." Get out of here with your witchcraft.
I have the EM10 Mark III and it's been a lovely camera to advance my photography on (previously used a Pana LX7) but it does feel plasticity and toy-like. I have the black and silver and I've never liked the look or feel of it.
I have an E-M10 Mark II. It's kinda pathetic that my 5 years old camera has faster mechanical shutter burst rate (8.5 fps), more customizability options (you can basically assign anything to any button), and also better build quality (the whole top plate is metal). Don't get me wrong, this Mark IV is still a good camera, but I don't get why they downgrade in some things. I hope OMDS will step up the game.
Yes, the MKII was a far more capable camera, but Olympus repositioned the model for the MKIII and onwards. Probably, as Rob says, this was to make for clearer delineation between the other models in their portfolio. I have a MKII, which I purchased as carry around when my 'main' cameras were more bulky Nikon DSLRs. Having now moved to Nikon mirrorless and with two Z50s included in the line up, I could trade in the Olympus, but I like it so much that I can't bring myself to do so, even though I don't now use it very often. I wish I was less sentimental :-(
@lilBuddha it's just human nature. People see a video and they worry that that looks like all they're getting. They prefer the written word, and are worried that video reviews are taking precedence, so they respond in the way you took issue with. Maybe dp review should say - 'whilst we prepare our written review, here's the video'.
Good attractive camera, I'm just sorry for the plasticky feeling. I think micro 4/3 has a lot to give especially with sensor technology reducing the gap between sensor sizes more and more.
Sadly, sensor technology has passed MFT by. Full-frame sensors have made great strides, MFT sensor tech is old. No way is MFT ‘reducing the gap’ between sensor sizes. Sorry.
With an 'old technology' this camera produces great results that are comparable to almost any other system. Imagine if Olympus and Panasonic will continue developing it as they did so far.
Welsh - that’s not the point. We already have a situation where IQ is essentially the same across sensors in good light Almost regardless of sensor size or pixels.
And there is a new 33mp 43 sensor from Sony out there apparently that is likely to appear in new Panasonic and presumably OMDS cams.
Add in the fact that the latest AI de noise software also produces remarkable improvements, it seems that small sensors still have a place.
I have Sony A7R3 and Panasonic S1R and Nikon D810 by the way. I don’t want to carry any of them when hiking.
I agree wholeheartedly. Each sensor size and system should have its application and a place in the market. Full frame lenses are still large and heavy in geneal and they are much more expensive. Yes. Sony and Canon and Tamron have made small and light full frame lenses but they aren’t cheap to begin with for wildlife photography, m43 still has a clear advantage. I hope they further exploit this differentiation.
It's the lenses, especially the small, fast primes. The m4/3 system with a small fast f/1.7 prime is pretty much unbeatable. Small enough to take anywhere, fast enough for available light work and stabilized with any lens you put on it. As for sports, I don't buy everybody's complaints. Sports Illustrated got plenty of great shots with Nikon F2's and manual focus. It just isn't that hard.
Sports and Nikon F2's -that was then, this is now. Tech moves on. I can take a posts shot with a Pentax Q, but you look for tools that are a better match if they exist around. And they do.
Apparently the point is being missed. Let's not confuse things - you are bringing another argument and has nothing to do with the point of discussion.
You are correct that most people can't duplicate those shots with any camera. But that doesn't change the argument that there's a plurality of options that bring different canvases of light and convenience.
Some of those very same proficient photographers from back then are using more modern capable tools. Why? Because they are more modern capable tools. That doesn't mean the tools will take the shot for you- they don't. They just bring a certain performance for reliability and options with them that the same people that could take that shot, can have an easier time or wider range of operation to take them.
So basically I find the argument you propose disingenuous. If m43rds tomorrow came out with AF as good as the best Sony A1, better dynamic range you wouldn't oppose that at all and just keep using an Olympus EM1MKI. Of course, only then the advance of technology is acknowledged, and the previous complaints understood -the few legitimate ones of course :-)
Your argument doesn’t have anything to do with the fact there’s more capable tools in the convenience and canvas of light department. You wouldn’t be saying the same if a new m43 camera came along with better capabilities.
All tools here have trade offs. Whether people are capable to take good pictures with any of those tools is a different - and I acknowledge valid- point. But it’s not mutually exclusive.
I don't understand your writing and I read it twice, e.g. what is "canvas of light department". M 4/3 have lots of cameras that have better AF than the OM10's for some time. Lots of people don't buy them because they don't need it. I started with the E-pl1, and after a firmware update was more than satisfied with the AF and second generation lenses. However, I also learned photography in the manual focus era and have no problem using old MF legacy lenses to, yes, even shoot sports. I, and many others like me have no need for the hybrid af systems available on other m4/3 cameras.
What I mean is that all the different sensor size formats have a different range of operating domain with light. Thats one. The other that tech has marched forward and using an example of camera of the past doesn't quite cut it when someone is buying something now, today. It has better support for some of the things they are trying to do - like yes Sports.
And professionals buy accordingly because my argument is that you don't need the latent to take good photographs - but that there are better tools now than back then to operate in certain photographic domains.
So you say you started with the EPL1. IN my book that camera has a way behind the times AF. That doesn't mean you can't use it, but someone buying something *today* sure can consider other advancements. Sounds like you bought something after your E-PL1, why did you then? If you were satisfied with it?
Learning MF in the film photography era can be a great skill to learn, but doesn't change the fact we have newer technology now that does make some aspects more convenient. You can play this game forward or back. You can go back all the way to making your own custom plates to take a photo or film cameras with no metering, etc.
So my point is, there are other tools that do better than m43rds for sports right now in the market. It's up to each photographer to decide on the tradeoffs of such conveniences.
DPR TV - FYI there are a couple of caption errors in this video...
At 0:32 they are talking about best cameras under $1,000 but the caption says "Best camera kit under $10,000".
At 6:58 they are talking about IBIS and show two images, one is blurry and the caption says "IS on" and the other is sharp and says "IS off", so clearly the wrong way around.
I guess dealing with errors is way more cumbersome to fix with video reviews than written ones. Hi DPR, do you expect us to be unable to digest written reviews any time soon?
I think the old EM-10II still is the best camera in this serie, as it has more customization options, but it was perhaps too complicated for ordinary people.
I would prefer the M43 body with the newer 20mp sensor over the one with the older sensor any time. The sensor is just better in every way not just in the mp numbers. I shoot the old school way so I don't customize controls.
I think they made a huge mistake by giving it a plastic body. All the other OM-Ds are made of metal, it just doesn't feel good and you have to pay the same price, what was more than irritating. This thing could have been the perfect last body with the Olympus badge on it, but who wants a plastic OM-D!?
So I didn't bought one and I don't think that a lot of OM-D users want plastic bodies for this kind of camera. There is absolutly no problem with plastic Pen bodies, but for an OM-D it's not the best.
The EM5 mk3 (weather-sealed) also has a plastic body. It makes a big difference, feel-wise. The latest EM1 model is the only one to retain the metal body.
I had an E-M5 II for years and since when I switched to the finally mark III I am still disgusted by the lower quality body. I already lost one piece from the new body and it has barely 2k shots. I should have left the system and just keep the E-M5 II with a pair of primes as backup pleasure camera… The weight difference is insignificant…
Disappointed with the plastic too. I occasionally give Olympus a sideways glance as they’re good looking cameras with some interesting features, but the plastic bodies on the latest EM5 and EM10 are a real turn-off. I guess OLY needed to cut costs and increase the margin on these models, but I hope OM Digital will refocus on the higher end and bring the quality materials back.
""Particle glassfiber plastic" is the body, the frame is magnesium." That isn't right. The top and the back are made of magnesium. I know that it is more and more common, but like you said, it feels different. The E-M10 IV just doesn't feel good :/ .
The E-M5 II was about £ 1K and with an high quality body, also a pleasure to shot with. Even Fujifilm in the X-T30 at least managed to add some metal. So I would not use the price as an excuse. You can be MFT and expensive, but at least don’t make a body entirely by cheap materials. Not talking about the E-M10, even if still too expensive for the specs if you pay full price, but about the E-M5 III…damn me that I bought it (going back I would have bought an old Pen-F, cause I love those small lenses, or I’d have kept the E-M5 II cause Olympus ended there).
The E-M5 III is a nice camera. I've almost bought it a couple of times as I wanted the E-M5 but with phase detect autofocus. It was also released well before the OM deal was finalized, so it's still all Olympus.
The OM deal didn't happen when you knew about it. The E-M5 III has been already built with a lower budget. Yes, I confirm it's a nice camera. But ecstatically not rewarding like the previous model.
@Mr Bolton, pretty sure the top of the E-M10 IV is plastic like the bulk of the camera. The dials themselves are metal (some of them) but the top plate and most of the rest of the body itself is purest plastic.
@Mr Bolton I’m going to need something to back that up because what I see, at around the 2.10 mark, is Jordan criticising the “plasticky build” and specifically giving the top plate a derisory flick of the fingers to demonstrate that. If they say it’s actually metal somewhere, please tell me where.
Threaded: Here, let me quote DPR's Olympus E-M10 IV review: "Throw on the 14-42mm kit lens and the E-M10 IV is lightweight and almost pocketable. While the front and top plate (and the dials) are metal, there's a fair amount of plastic on this camera, which is to be expected given its price. It still feels well-built, but be aware there are no claims of weather-sealing on this camera (also expected given its price)."
There you go. The proof you need, the top plate and dials are metal.
@Mr Bolton ok, but I find it a little odd that literally every other review, including DPR’s own video review right here, states that the whole camera is plastic and omits to mention any metal on the top plate. I’d honestly like to believe that it’s metal but that’s not what anyone else seems to be saying. Do you have one in hand yourself? Can you or anyone else confirm first hand?
Many don't get how disarming is the feel when someone has a small camera that does not look like a 'proper camera' but a toy; barely noticeable, and yet does all the work where discretion and care is required: meetings, laboratories, cockpits, moving vehicles, crowded shows, portraiture, etc. My E-P5, which is a grandpa compared to this modern entry level camera, still works full time earning money professionally, in purposes that any larger camera with lens would be an eye-magnet and a detriment. It paid itself out a hundred times already. Small m43 cameras are the best outcome of the digital age.
I too agree that there are many situations where discretion is important. However, I don't think a person playing with what looks like a toy camera at a meeting, in a laboratory or cockpit, is less noticeable than someone using a "proper" camera.
@Revanant- It's not that it's less noticeable, it's more like many people (subjects) feel less intimidated or more comfortable around something that doesn't look like what they think of as a "serious camera". It's a mental game that some people play, and some people don't.
A fair review for what the camera aims to be. A great little and light camera for the budget conscious traveller that doesn't want to carry tons of gear. Still using the original EM10Mk1 and I don't feel limited and rarely do I wish I had a better camera to compensate for my ineptitudes. Not for everyone, but it does suit my needs after 45 years of doing photography. It is a really neat package when combined with the 12-45, with few to no equal for the small weight/size and IQ combo on the market.
It's a fair enough review, but after shooting reviews for $6K+ cameras, it's pretty clear that Chris is a little pained by being asked to bother with this obviously beginner level camera. I get that, coming from Fuji GFX-100S and Sony A1.. but I feel like Chris shoulda maybe hid his less than enthusiasm a little better.
Because for someone upgrading from a phone, this is a very exciting little camera. I still fondly remember my first digital ILCs being Olympus and they were absolutely a joy to shoot. Especially the E-M5 which I still have.
"It’s also got some photographic soul – something we can’t say about all cameras." So what are the cameras that you can't say having photographic soul?
As a Sony user I would say, all newer A-Series cameras. I enjoy useing something like my old A7RI. I couldn't say this for my A7RIII. It's as sexy as a fridge.
This is going to sound mean, but I felt this was a bit of a 'pity review', they would have been harder on the camera and brand, but wanted to give them a fighting chance knowing they don't have a lot of time or chances left to figure it out. I don't mean the DPReview team did something deceptive or unethical, it just felt like they pulled a few punches.
This could also be my bias (only you can get a lot from Sony, Fuji for the same money) manifesting itself, expecting the review to be harder on the camera than it was.
It's your bias. There is a big chance that OM Digital Solutions is making money from the start. They can't keep up production of a few lenses like the 150-400 and 100-400 (bug bonus that they don't have to pay back development costs). They've reduced the employees to 50% of last year. They are making lenses for Olympus medical equipment and selling it to Olympus. They will come with a partnership with Samsung mobile that generates income.
I think it is more of an Indication of how reviewers are going to interact with the new company. IN the past with the older Oly brand they were always harsher then necessary. And a lot of that seamed to be because of the corporate attitude.
The New Olympus seams like a much more open company and they also seam much more interested in listening to customer. I predict that in the future reviewers will be much more kind to the new company for this very reason.
Is it the two hyphens, the three spaces, their peculiar locations, the heady mix of letters, digits, and Roman numerals, or some other thing that bothers you?
(I may be the only person on DPReview to spell Olympus camera models correctly. At least, it’s a while since I’ve seen them spelt correctly by others. Consequently, these models are impossible to Google … among other problems that Olympus invites with these inexplicable model names.)
Sure, it's a competitive market with more than one company. But it's kind of funny to see all these Fuji users in this comment section trying to sell Fuji gear instead of talking about this Olympus camera. Do you guys get a commission for each sold Fuji camera?
Fuji has become a hipsters cult brand. For the woke "street" photographers that just press a button when they see somebody normal do something completely normal. Preferably with a wide-angle lens so they don't miss the shot and the viewer can't see why this pic was taken (let alone published) in the first place. Snowflake cam.
In the video (minute 7:00 – 7:05) descriptions on two pictures with IS ON and IS OFF are being reversed … basically opposite of what You would expect …
I have not read all the comment so maybe somebody already pointed this out ...
@Raist3d - If you look at DPR reviews from a decade ago, sometimes in the "Pros" section of the conclusion DPR did not even mention IBIS (when the reviewed camera had it), as though it were unimportant. And in one review, they actually listed IBIS as a "Con" because they felt it was not as effective as the IBIS in some other cameras. Now it seems DPR has more respect for it, even though IBIS is far more common in 2021 than it was in 2011.
And you're right, of course, that IBIS (and ILIS) are useful in specific scenarios.
"It's interesting to see how DPR's view on IBIS as changed over the years."
What of more interest to me, why now in lens stabilization is being disregarded in some cases, but IBIS being the priority. Some have stated in the past that stabilization within the lens is better?
BackToNature1: IBIS can stabilise roll about the lens axis, which is impossible with optical stabilisation. This becomes especially important for hand-held video, which is increasingly a consideration for reviewers if not every camera user.
But as both types of stabilisation have improved, and viable exposure times have become very long, the need for roll stabilisation – and hence IBIS – has become important even for stills.
I think what’s interesting is how the opinions shown in the comments have changed over the years never mind with DPR reviews. When few cameras had it, those who owned cameras without it decided it wasn’t necessary decried it with all sorts of silly objections and even made stuff up about it spoiling photos ignoring the fact you could turn it off.
These days now every make has it the arguments have switched to who has the best IBIS!
I was sold on it from the off as a very valuable feature when I took sharp photos with a Minolta A1 in museums to the extent when I bought my first DSLR it it swung the decision so it was a Sony A100 over a Nikon D90.
IBIS is a great innovation up there with AF in my opinion.
Their camera division is now owned by OM Digital Solutions Corporation. The agreement allows OM to use the Olympus brand name on their cameras, for an undisclosed amount of time.
@Francis85: Being able to use the Olympus brand name for "the foreseeable future" was part of the deal. How that phrase is defined is only known by the two involved companies.
"While our official company name will be OM Digital Solutions, you can expect the Olympus brand name to stick around for the foreseeable future. Olympus branded products will continue to be available even after January 1, 2021."
It's not inconceivable that Olympus could license the brand name to OMDS specifically for use on consumer cameras, like Hoya* does to Ricoh, or Kodak to JK Imaging.
*I assume that Hoya still owns the Pentax trademark, since they use it for medical products.
@Francis- OM Digital has made it clear they can use the name for a bit of a while. How long exactly it's a good question but sure looks beyond what's on stock with an Olympus name.
That said it's irrelevant. The camera models are there. The question asked seems a bit odd.
Exactly - 'For a while' which is certainly NOT indefinitely as stated. On many European previous Olympus websites they already starting to say 'Choose your OMD' now, instead of choose your Olympus camera now.
The Olympus brandname on cameras will only be short lived. I'll understand that message is hard to swallow for all thos die hard Olympus fans.
No one said "indefinitely", unless I missed it. They said "undisclosed amount of time" and "the foreseeable future". And I stated that a licensing deal is a possibility (not a known fact).
@Francis- they didn't say indefinitely. Nobody here said indefinitely. I agree it would be great to know exactly for how long, but later interviews sure point to longer than just products on stock.
I own the EM-10II. It is wonderfully customizable for an entry-level camera (actually there is none that I know that comes close to it). But some menu-diving is needed for basic tasks. Nothing very complex but mastering the menu system is not as straighforward as Panasonic's, for instance. Some pedestrian things are a bit hidden. I believe this is why Olympus simplified the III and IV iterations. The target audience was getting a bit overwhelmed. Olympus is famous for its very nice JPEG engine (among the best I heve seen, if not number 1) and wisely though presets. Though once you get it right with the menus, it is a delight to use and RAW files are awesome to process through DXO, delivering outstanding results for such a low budget equipment. For the 299 USD that I paid for it with 2 very nice lenses, It is the deal of the decade. A real steal.
Current lowest internet prices on a domestic Japanese market (incl. VAT +10% ) being asked for newer Olympus bodies - basically reduced to just two price points (rumor has it that all Olympus inventory was purchased by external buyer and they are not interested at all at lowering their own profits from the sale)
Seems like it isn't like that all over the world; in Europe, for example, current lowest street prices are more like €940 for the E-M5 III vs. €640 for the E-M10 IV (and €1,900 for the E-M1X vs. €1,640 for the E-M1 III).
For similar money I'd go for the E-M5 III over the Fuji X-E4, because I like having enough buttons to do what needs doing without menu diving, and I often (PNW resident here) shoot in inclement weather as in rain. The Fuji has a little better of ultimate IQ, but durable and customizable and plethora of third party lens options are meaningful parameters, also.
I have both Olympus and Fuji cameras now, so not bashing either brand. And I'm curious how modern day phase detect Oly autofocus compares to modern Fuji AF.
Haven't seen the video yet, but just wanted to say @Chris/Jordan-= thanks for doing this review. I thought this model wouldn't be reviewed by you and dpreview would just gloss over given the interest in FF and being "an entry level model" yada yada.
Equally importantly- thanks for taking shots NOT on the kit lens and one of the better lenses. It really shows what the camera can do. I really hate when reviews just use the kit lens on lower end cameras because while it's important to give a consumer an idea how the default package performs, it's also good to give an idea how the same camera performs with the better lenses in the system.
Agreed about the 12-45. It looks like it belongs on the camera. Some may think it's too big, not true. I shot a wedding with the Mark I and a rented 12-40 Pro. Only slightly un balanced. The 12-45 would've been perfect
"thanks for taking shots NOT on the kit lens" – ok, but then again it would help people to see what they get if they do buy the kit lens, which is what those on a budget will be doing. And it would be an all the more significant piece of information as mediocre kit lenses haven't always been something Olympus was known for, like back in their Four Thirds DSLR days. If the E-M10 IV wasn't limited to contrast AF, for someone on a budget (who also wouldn't mind slightly more bulk) it might even make sense to buy a used FT 14-42 plus a cheap adapter instead of the cheap kit lens.
@Hubertus- yes, I mentioned that the kit lens shots are also useful. But typically those are the only lenses used. So I am not saying it' bad to take shots with the kit lens (for the reason you mentioned) but bad to also not take shots with the better lenses in the system.
@aksu purist: Yes, for most new cameras there are used higher-level cameras available for a similar price. There are some other brands' models which would be part of the choice, then, as well, including Olympus itself.
@MyReality: Nothing against the X-E range of Fuji cameras, while I'd probably rather consider the X-E3 because the X-E4 was a step backwards in some aspects, but regardless of which – not having to "buy a stabilized lens" is exactly the point of why someone would want to have IBIS, especially if a lens lineup was already as (nice, but) limited as Fuji's.
@Hubertus Bigend - I consider the E4 to be a better camera than the E3 based on specs. Yes, the E3 is better based on tactile control, if that is important to you. I am thinking of buying the E4, but not as my main camera. I think the E4 is a niche camera within the Fuji niche. I would use it with just two lenses at the most(street or jpeg snapshots while traveling). It seems to be almost the perfect camera for that. I can find two Fuji stabilized lenses that suit my purpose. I have other cameras different purposes.
I'd love to have one of these, but it's pretty expensive. The E-M10mk2, although 16MP, is also a more capable camera for stills if I remember. The 10.3 was nerfed pretty hard compared to the mk2.
That being said, the IBIS for Oly's is truly the best in the business. It lets these cameras shoot way above their weight class, and I have been using an E-M1X as my main on-location camera shooting commercially since it's release. It's a joy to use, small kit means I save weight, it's extremely fast, and the sensor has always been more than good enough.
In the studio, the Multishot capability works with strobes, and gives me a very comparable file to my D800E, although the lenses I have for the D800E are better, so it's still the main studio cam.
I'm nervously excited about what OM Digital will do with the Olympus brand, but until the new Canon R3 is a really good deal on the used mkt, I can see myself shooting Oly for at least the next 2-3 years.
I think the Mk IV undid some of the more egregious UI/config nerfing of the Mk III, eg you can now use silent shutter in any mode. Helen on the M4/3 boards has a really good handle on those changes IIRC, but yeah the Mk III was originally a poor value vs the Mk II, just a dumbed down Mk II with 4K video.
The E-M10 refreshes can be kinda odd and pricing after launch has been more variable than with anything else from Olympus.
Why is Olympus still releasing cameras with only Contrast Detect AF in 2020?! One of the biggest issues with Olympus cameras has been with the old/oudated sensors for years. My last Olympus camera (whish still works) was the XZ-2, it is built like a tank and, and still takes excellent pictures, with it's great lens.
There are some cameras with good tracking AF which break easily and are not as dependable as your Olympus. Also EM10 IV LCD and is better than 90% of Sony cameras and Em10 IV IBIS is also better than all rivals as well. No camera is perfect.
@snapa - I did not say "old folks" and I was not thinking that when I wrote the post. But that is the way I sometimes take photos. I use a Nikon D5500, which is almost the same size and less expensive for that kind of photography when I travel.
Since you still "use both film and digital cameras", per your website, I can understand where you are coming from. Enjoy your D5500, it can still take very good pictures in certain *limited* situations.
Olympus sells cameras with pdaf. They also have sensors that perform just as well as the most modern full frame sensors, if you crop out the middle half of the full frame image, but the Olympus sensor has higher resolution in that case.
So what's outdated and why are you mad at Olympus? They seem to be suffering enough without your anger. They have some technology that no one else does at this point: industry leading ibis, hhhr, stimulated ND filter, in camera fish eye correction, starry sky auti focus, pro capture, etc.
Yes they don't have class leading auto focus tracking, or auto focus, but most enthusiasts don't even use focus tracking. And the auto focus is good enough as Chris demonstrates here even in this entry level camera.
Like it or not; CDAF is super snappy for single AF - all cameras have this. It is bad for Continuous AF. PDAF is needed for that based on current technology.
What WRONG is there when its a business decision? Are the lower costing models selling poorly? Nope.
If you have to have a bone to pick go for Panasonic who seem to sell their higher costing models without PDAF and hence causing lots of people to dislike using m43 cameras for sports, whereas this is readily available and well implemented on the higher costing OLY models.
I have no idea what 'wrong' there is you refer to lol.
I know we're supposed to say this is a good review if it reaches the conclusion we like, and a bad review if the reviewer finds fault with the camera (like politics, tell people what they want to hear) but I think Chris gets this right.
An older user who doesn't want to carry a ton, who remembers when focus was obtained by pointing at the most important thing instead of watching the focusing box dance around, who is accustomed to usable ISO topping out at 400, and who doesn't try to capture birds in flight or shoot videos would really enjoy this camera. The fact that it looks like a camera and handles like a camera are plusses as well.
@NexUser – It depends. With OOC JPEGs or conservative choices for raw developers and post-processing, I woulnd't shoot subjects which demand clean backgrounds and sharp fine detail at anything above ISO 800 with any existing MFT camera. Things have become different, though, since I've started using the latest improvements in software NR, specifically DxO's 'deep prime' NR in PhotoLab or PureRaw, or Topaz' Denoise AI, which really increase that limit by nearly two EV steps for me, i.e. to ISO 2000~3200 – and more, if there isn't any low-contrast super-fine detail I would miss.
It depends on the personal taste. If you can live with some visible noise and slightly softer details as me you can go down to ISO4000 with mFT. Sensor tech and noise reduction can not cheat physics. My rule of thumb: 1“ ISO 1600 = mFT ISO4000 = APSC ISO6400 = FF ISO12800
RMGoodlight: I don't like going over ISO 1600 with m43 and ISO 800 with 1" (and I do think M43 has noticeably better IQ than 1"). I guess it's personal taste, as you say.
I don't get all the comments about it looking so nice. It looks like a bumpy plastic-chrome toy to me. Beyond that, I think the Sony A6xxx models look very clean, and not at all displeasing. However, I've never bought a camera based on how good I think it looks. Overall, this seems like a very decent MFT body oddly hanging-on to slow contrast detect AF -- that's just not the direction the market has gone.
BTW, does this camera have a mechanical first curtain? If not, always being in EFCS can hurt bokeh or using the slow electronic shutter can cause distortion within a captured image. I'm particularly annoyed that some MFT bodies force you to use electronic shutter for adapted lenses... does this?
The only M4/3 bodies that force e-shutter with manual lenses, because they lack a physical front curtain (and because Pana disables EFCS with manual lenses), are the absolute smallest and IBIS-less Pana bodies...
i.e. the GM1, GM5, GF7, and GX850/880 (GF9). AFAIK Oly has never disabled EFCS with manual lenses, but the recent E-M10s dumb down some of the configuration options on the E-M1/5 so I'm not absolutely sure about that.
Look is a very personal, even I am no fan of Olympus in general only have a OMD EM 10 II and hardly touch it, but I do find their camera looks so much better than my Sony FF, not to mention the A6xxxx series now that's a pretty bad looking camera, but just like you, I did not avoid a " ugly" camera just by its look.
ProfHankD: there is an electronic first-curtain shutter too. It’s called Anti-Shock in Olympus terminology.
On some older cameras, like my E-M10 Mark II, the first mechanical curtain sweeps the frame even when Anti-Shock is used – it just serves no purpose other than satisfying some requirement of the mechanical shutter design. The delay between this mechanical first shutter and the functional electronic one can be set to values between a tiny fraction of a second (generally imperceptible but enough to eliminate shutter-shock problems with certain lenses) and some seconds.
On later cameras with a newer mechanical shutter design, probably including the E-M10 Mark IV, Anti-Shock (EFCS) disengages the first mechanical shutter curtain.
" Is there then no EFCS mode? I couldn't find any mention in the manual online. " -ProfHank
It's in there, should be the drive modes with the diamond whereas the heart ones are e-shutter, never really understood that iconography (like a lot of Oly's labeling)... Oly implemented EFCS pretty early on tho originally they crammed it into the unrelated anti-shock menu as the 0s option.
Their implemention on earlier E-M10s and the original E-M1 was also kinda funky and involved a dummy/unused firing of the front curtain followed by a very tiny delay (that's the only way they could update old bodies to use the EFCS), the E-M5 II & E-M1 II had a true EFCS with no shenanigans tho and so does the E-M10 IV IIRC.
i also avoid plastic surfaces in silver or white or any other color than black. Color often wears off pretty quickly in my use around the edges and then it looks even worse than new, and really shabby.
four under: "The Olympus reminds me of a 70s SLR. The Sony reminds me of a 90s point and shoot."
1970s SLRs didn't even have bumped-out grips. They tended to have very clean designs and no plastic. In fact, Olympus never made a film camera with such a "bumpy" body: https://www.olympus-global.com/technology/museum/camera/ . Closest would be the circa-1986 OM-4Ti, which was still a notably simpler body shape.
90s point-and-shoots tended to have very rounded forms.The Sony A6xxx isn't rounded, nor does it clone any older camera, but they feel related to the old Minolta/Leica CLE rangefinder collaborations with a grip added. It makes sense: since Sony acquired Minolta's camera business, their cameras have wrapped a lot of Minolta style, handling, and features around Sony guts. BTW, the A7-series Sonys also don't clone any film camera, but have very similar feel to Minolta's original pro film camera, the old Minolta XK.
It's really just trade-offs between this and the X-E4. The X-E4 may have better high ISO performance and AF, but lacks IBIS, which might be a deal breaker for some. The advantage though here is the the m4/3 mount is pretty open, so you can buy lenses not only from Olympus, but also third parties, as well as Panasonic. With Fuji your third party lens support is probably a bit more limited (especially AF lenses). There are some, but probably not as many as there are for m4/3.
Plus there's also a size factor to consider. This might be a great camera for hiking, and being m4/3 the lenses may be a bit smaller and compact, making it a great street or hiking / travel camera. It's all about trade-offs.
I doupt the X-E4 is the right rival for the EM10iv. The X-T30 is entry level DSLR style. Both the E-M4 and X-T30 miss IBIS that is a huge selling point of all OMDs. The X-S10 has IBIS but costs more.
mFT has a one stop disadvantage compared to APSC. This means you need to crank up ISO one stop in the same light with equal aperture on mFT. So image noise is sooner a problem. So you need a one stop faster lens compared to APSC in dimm light. You have to keep that in mind when comparing lenses on different systems. mFT is lacking some kens options too. If you think the X-E4 with a XF23mm F2 is small the EM4iv with Oly 17mm F1.8 is smaller but is not comparable because it is 2/3 stops to slow. A 17mm F1.4 does not exist and the Oly 17mm F1.2 is huge and heavy even compared to the XF 23mm F1.4. On the other hand the combination with the Pana 20mm F1.7 or 14mm F2.4 is hard to beat on size and performance. Most of the time Fujis lens lineup is pretty hard to beat for Olympus and Panasonic since the lenses are rougly the same size as comparable mFT lenses. And if you factor in the one stop disadvantage only IBIS can safe mFT from completely loosing to Fujis offerings.
Put a used Canon nFD 200mm F2.8 on the Oly and you get all the goods of mFT with IBIS, stabilized EVF magnification and (fast) tele reach. But this is another story.
From a price-standpoint the X-E4 probably is but I still think they are geared towards two difference crowds with some overlap (the overlap being those that like to shoot cameras that have all the dials that were carried over from the flim days).
@RMGoodLight: MFT may have a disadvantage with ISO but it also depends on the resolution. This camera compared to a 24MP APS-C perhaps it does have that disadvantage, but comparing a 12-16 MP m4/3 versus a 24-26 MP APS-C that might be different so there are some factors to consider.
I also don't think you can compare lens speed or optics to body size necessarily. And again this goes back to my comment about trade-offs. The Olympus is smaller and therefore we assume the noise is worse, but we're also forgetting that it has IBIS which could mean one could shoot 1 stop lower than than an APS-C camera of similar resolution.
Also with NR reduction algorithms these days, it has come a long way. It used to be even an APS-C 24MP sensor at ISO 800/1600 was quite noisy and anyone who needed to shoot beyond about ISO 800 was probably better off using a full frame. But that has changed and at least between APS-C and FF, the gap has closed down to a point where APS-C cameras today can even rival some of their FF counterparts in terms of low-noise at higher ISOs. I still think in many cases the FF will have a slight advantage, but the advantages are getting less noticeable as new technologies and algorithms are developed.
(Pixel size will also play a role in noise to a point, and if the pixel size is the same between the two sizes, then it may be somewhat of a wash or not noticeable except upon close inspection.)
That being said, ~20 MP might be getting towards the limits of what we could get out of a m4/3 sensor before noise gets so bad it's not useful at high(er) ISOs (say ISO 1600+).
It's hard to reconcile the idea of this being an "entry-level" camera test when it is being tested with over US$2000 worth of lenses. What's the big hurry? Wait until you can get ahold of the kit lens.
The review is about the camera, so you'd want good lenses to show off what the camera can do. The little kit lens is neat but not exactly sharp.
They could have gone all out and only shot photos with M Zuiko 17mm f1.2 Pro or the Nocticron 42.5 f1.2, really stellar lenses, but my guess is they didn' t access to them all the way to Calgary, not without renting stuff at the Camera store. They just went with the gear they already had.
It's the whole point about shooting with an Interchangeable lens camera otherwise there are plenty of good fixed lens cameras out there (or a phone). Personally, I'd rather spend my money on good lenses and save on the body. With the level of camera technology these days, saving money on the body still means you get a very capable one, like this Oly. Mind you, all the entry-level cameras are excellent image-making devices these days.
To test the true capability of a camera, you have to put in the very best lenses. if you put poor lenses, then you are doing an injustice to the camera by not giving it the best lenses. Your IQ will also be poor or sub par.
Yes, but 95% of people buying a low-end camera will use one of the kit lenses mostly (and also be the sort of person this review should be aimed at, people who might actually buy it), so it's good to show them an idea of what they will get in a good number of sample shots.
I still have my original small m43 camera, bought for light-weight use, but it isn't sensible for travel use due to just being so far behind the curve (GF1). Currently I have a GH5 and that is okay for travel with the 12-60 Leica, but smaller would be better. I just find most of the small m43 cameras don't seem a good idea due to what gets left out and the GH5 isn't that annoying to carry compared to the cost for something I'd only use rarely.
For really light I also have a RX100V, but that gets less outings as the phone covers similar things (13/26/64mm equiv) and it's not that far ahead in image quality.
Part of the travel camera decision is IMHO lens availability, as you want 1-2 (or 2-3 if reach required) lenses before camera size is less of an issue as you have so much stuff anyway. Lots of pixels can reduce the lens count by cropping, but doesn't help the budget. Not a m43 option. Also if you use it rarely familiarity with controls/settings can be an issue.
With the GF1 I used to take the 14-140 and the 20/1.7 BTW... The GH4 was the 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8s The GH5 is the 12-60 f/2.8-4 (This is for holidays, where I'm not specifically going to photograph/video things.) Now I'd take the Hero 9 Black as well.
@Jon555 - we are testing the capability of the camera, not how many buys them. You will not know how good the camera is with subpar lenses. IF that is the way you reason, then it would not matter what camera you buy. There is no point in arguing for paying more for a camera.
Also, you don't have to spend U$2k for a good lens. Some really excellent lenses can be had for U$250, giver or take U$50-100. Even a decent 50mm f1.8 can be had for U$200 or less.
I think showing potential purchasers what they are likely to get is a good idea. I'm pretty sure if you're buying $2000 lenses you'll be considering a 5 or a 1 rather than a 10 as the difference isn't that much. The processing to make the image isn'y going to be that different (AF might be) on the more expensive models. So list the m43 telephoto zooms that are $250 though.... there are some decent primes that are reasonable in price (20/1.7 for example).
Jon555 - There is no need to buy a U$2000 camera to show how good the camera is. A simple U$150-200 lens can already show that. IQ is not necessarily dependent of cost, though 95%, it follows. But it also follows that having a low priced lens means it is garbage. A 50mm prime, is sharp. Many lenses in the U$200-280 can be very sharp.
I don't have to list any lens. You already know what they are. But if you are to plug in there, say a 40-150 zoom, that can be had, maybe for less than U$100, does it do justice to the camera? Are you testing the camera's best or are you filtering it through a weak lens that can have CA, or poor corners, or poor color reproduction, or that flares, etc. etc.
Also, you don't have to buy a sharp lens. You can rent it. Borrow it. Or test it on the store. The issue of cost should not be a barrier to test a camera.
Please stop comparing sensor output by using sample pictures with the same nominal ISO. Apart from the fact that manufactuers cheat a lot with their nominal ISO values, it does not make sense when you compare sensors with different sizes.
For a picture with the same depth of field and shutter speed (i.e. a picture with the same total light), a larger sensor will receive less light per unit area (because it is spread thinner), resulting in a picture with lower apparent brightness, which you will then need to compensate for by dialling up the ISO. Which in turn means you will end up with a very similar noise profile.
If you keep the nominal ISO constant, you are comparing pictures with different amounts of total light. So of course the larger sensor will look better. Has very little to do with sensor performance, though.
@Auf Reisen: I don't disagree with your point that normalizing the DOF will essentially cancel out the light-gathering advantage of the larger sensor (although it's not because the light is spread thinner, but rather because you've stopped down the aperture, so less light is reaching the sensor in the first place).
But I think that all misses the point a bit. Sure, the larger sensor is capable of stopping down to capture essentially the same photo as the smaller sensor (including a similar noise profile). But the opposite isn't true. If one doesn't need that DOF, and instead can afford to open up the aperture, then the larger sensor can capture more light than the smaller sensor.
In other words, this isn't about "better" or "worse," but rather about the shooting envelope, and how wide one needs or wants it to be. Of course, the larger that envelope, the larger and more expensive the gear. It's just a matter of trade-offs, and finding the right balance for our own needs.
Agree on your points about the shooting envelope. But this is not how it is usually presented on DPR or DPRTV. This video for example did present it as sensor performance, which is misleading.
On light being spread thin: The bread-and-butter metaphor is a poor one for light anyway, but let's talk this through. If you normalise for DoF, you use equivalent aperture. With equal SS, this will result in the same amount of total light but not the same amount of light per unit area. The same amount of light is reaching the sensor overall, but less light per mm². Which means you will have to compensate with higher ISO on the larger sensor if you want the same apparent brightness. I don't think I missed anything here.
Fair enough re the presentation. Perhaps they are assuming one can compensate with shutter speed, or by putting more light on the scene. In any event, a more nuanced equivalence discussion would have made it a much less enjoyable review video for most people ;-) But I certainly understand your point, and it's a fair one.
On the exposure issue, we're definitely on the same page. I was simply referring to this line from the original comment: "a larger sensor will receive less light per unit area (because it is spread thinner)." That suggested that the exposure (i.e., light per unit area) was lower due to the larger sensor, and not due to the smaller aperture. But based on your second comment, we're certainly on the same page.
@Alex Sure, but then you are not comparing sensor performance, you are comparing different types of pictures with different looks. Which is totally fine, just don't pretend it's one when you are doing the other.
@Lamentable Lens We are in agreement! Just one thing: equivalent apertures should have the same physical dimensions, no?
You know, Auf Reisen, spreading the light thin does not change the exposure of the image. Total amount of light entry determines exposure and ISO needs.
If a mft and ff sensor have the the same number of pixels, the pixels on the ff sensor would be larger. Pixels from both sensors will get the same amount of light. Spectral responsiveness of the photoelectric effect determines what proportion of charge will be produced from any given amount of light in each pixel. Photoelectric effect does not care about 'intensity' of light. So, the intensity of light per unit area will not matter.
ISO on the other hand is the voltage sensitivity of the ADC, not the sensitivity of the sensor surface. It creates digital signals based on charge voltage of each pixel. So, ideally, image sensor size will never effect exposure. Only amount of light entry will.
Go ahead and try it yourself. Take a picture with FF and MFT at the same SS, the same equivalent aperture and the same nominal ISO and then tell me which one came out brighter.
Listen man, if go read up on how sensors work, you will see why you are wrong. How can you say that light is spread thinner makes a difference if the pixel is larger and receives the same amount of light exposure in the same time? It is like saying if the weight of 1 kg is spread over a larger area, the weight decreases.
I also don't need to do what you asked because the dpreview camera comparison photos prove the exposure is equal. They are clearly of equal brightness at same iso, ss and equivalent aperture.
It is a nuisance that every review of small sensor cameras is becomes the same argument over ISO and light gathering. Problem is that even pros can‘t follow this discussion without getting confused. It is all about math and loosing a stop or gaining a stop or FOV.
I think people interested in 1“, mFT or APSC are not interested in learning physics! They are interested in their use case and what they gain and what they loose. What lens do I need for my use case. What to expect and where are the boundaries. The less pro the more I have to find good and practical explanations. And not by comparing with FF all the time. Most enthusiast are not coming from 35mm film anymore. They are coming from smartphones or have handled the parents Canon Rebel in the past.
@Auf Reisen: Please abandon this ‘light is spread thinner’ nonsense. It’s not peanut butter. Light is light, the aperture size determines how much of it enters the camera. The sensor size determines how much of this light is actually captured.
@Welsh Sensor size is secondary. Sensor pixel size is what really matters. I could build an 1“ sensor with pixel size of a 12MP FF sensor and would get similar results. But MP of this 1“ sensor would be very low. The benefit of higher MP is that you get an „oversampled“ image with more image noise and fewer dynamic range that is sharper and less noisy when downscaled. Unfortunately most people do not care how good an 1 MP or 2 MP image looks of a camera. It only counts how noisy those 20 MP look viewed at 1:1.
@Welsh As I already said, it is a bad analogy but the best to get the point across.
"Light is light, the aperture size determines how much of it enters the camera. The sensor size determines how much of this light is actually captured."
You do realise that different cameras have different image circles, right? We are not dealing with pinhole cameras here.
The same amount of light focused on a smaller area results in more light per unit area. Go check out that link I posted above.
no matter which way you look at it, in practical terms, a quarter-surface-sensor (mFT) has a phototechnical envelope which is 2 full stops smaller than a FF sensor (with lenses covering FF image circle). FF gear can easily capture any image mFT can, simply by stopping down 2 stops - everything else equal. mFT can only, if lens is fast enough to allow for lens being opened 2 stops compared to FF. Which gets into very challenging and expensive territory as soon as FF lenses with moderate f/2.0 max. aperture are involved.
at the end of the day, mFT does not scale well vs. APS-C and FF. Cameras and lenses are nowhere near 1/4 (1/2) of the size, weight or price of FF (APS-C). So in practical terms it was clear all along, why FT and mFT would fail in the general photography market - eventually. FT already did. mFT will follow. Whether we like it or not. Advantages are smaller than disadvantages for most use cases.
Agree on the shooting envelope. Very much disagree on everything else.
The MFT system has for years offered the best bang-for-buck in the photographic world. Especially the small prime lenses are as cheap as they are fantastic and the cameras has always been feature-packed to the rim. And the size advantage is real. I can pack a small MFT camera with a 28-300 superzoom and two tiny fast primes in my jacket if need be. Try to do that with anything but a Pentax Q.
But the system always faced and uphill battle, to a large degree because of misinformation present both in the press and among enthusiasts. That everyone knows about equivalent aperture but not about equivalent ISO is just one glaring example. The press discovering the advantages of IBIS a decade after Olympus Pentax and Panasonic put it in their cameras is another. Then there is the general ignorance about equivalence, I could go on and on.
I find my Canon EOS M system gives me much more bang for the buck. Samll camera - all of them more compact than EM10 for example, and excellent supercompact lenses - both primes like 22/2, 28/3.5 Macro, 32/1.4 as well as zooms - not any larger than equivalent mFT lenses (if they exist at all) at generally lower prices - and 1 full stop larger shooting envelope.
PS: my current EOS M6 II with 55-200 plus 22/2.0 and/or 11-22 or 32/1.4 also fits into 2 jacket pockets.
Again, mFT does not scale well. Not in size and even less in price.
The EOS M is a great system. It's held back a bit by its relative lack of lens choices, they simply pale in comparison with the MFT system. There is no 600mm equivalent lens the size of a soda can, for example. Nor are there fisheyes, IIRC. And 1 stop of theoretical light gathering capability is 1) almost unoticable 2) only there if you have the lenses for it. Which you very often don't.
yeah well, the rare times when DPR has a chance to post pictures from a new m43 camera or lens i do get reminded that i moved away from it several years ago for good. Nothing in it for me personally and thats probably not gonna change in the foreseable future. Maybe in 5yrs (if m43 is still around) i will happily see that the image quality is where for me it shouldve been now, i'll see.
Olympus' default profile is a bit flat. Raw files, however, are great. You can add plenty of sharpening in the post. I prefer Oly + 12-100 output over Canon 6D + 24-105L and Fuji XE2 + XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 Regards
@Film_enthusiast. With m43 IMO adding sharpening for 4K output (8MP) leads to noticeable artefacts really fast especially with sligth crops (for 16:9 its 18MP to start with and adding perspective correction or compositional crop (horizon) will leave even less MP to downsample from). For 4K output I never had trouble with quality of FF images, but also with APSC to be fair.
If your inteded usecase is 1MP files for social media on the other hand m43 is really all you'll need. Even printing i woulnt expect much of a difference for moderate size. With 4K mointors however (not to think of 5K or even 8K) picture quality demands increased alot for me (27" viewing distance <70cm)
i am fully with phouphou. I've been using a 32" 4k monitor for some years now and will move to an 8k 32" monitor as soon as i can get a decent one at an affordable price ( < € 1500; currently still at > € 3000)
I will not buy any new camera going forward with less than full 8k rez (stills, ot interested in video) plus some cropping reserve on top = 45+ MP.
Most are still using lower (than 4K) resolution monitors according to a poll i did a while back: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64522491 Its sad that if i point out that IMO moving to larger resolution monitors might change your personal perception of the IQ of your pictures drastically (happened to me) i get attacked and banned from forums. I think awareness of this matter will come in a few years, when 4K is the standard (like FHD today). By then people will have shot millions of images that do not meet quality requirements of standard displays from travel locations they spend hours and payed thousands of dollars to get to.
A good solid review despite DPreview still failing to acknowledge the advantage of having the option of both 4/3 and 3/2 image ratio straight out of the camera contrary to the apr brands and the advantage of the 4/3 ratio when shooting vertically
Many 3:2 AR cameras have options to shoot 4:3 in camera. How is a 4:3 camera than can crop to 3:2 any different from a (larger sensor) 3:2 camera than can crop to 4:3?
Mike ran . This is absolutely NOT the case. NONE of the leica, Sony, Nikon , and FUJI APS can shoot in 4.3. I think only the Canon M bodies have that option As far as 35mm bodies, only the Panasonic and Sigma in the L mount and maybe some Canon bodies (not sure about those ) so very very few
Sony Mk IV and newer bodies added both 4:3 and 1:1 ARs, something the Mk IIIs lacked... There's quite a few small differences between R3 & R4 like that which people overlook, but anyway, leaving and leveraging some cropping leeway is also pretty trivial with 50-61MP... :P
I do really appreciate 4:3 for shooting in portrait, specially with a lower res body. I *don't* think any of the Sony APS-C bodies gained the same additional AR options that recent FF bodies did tho, which might've been the original point of contention. No clue about Fuji, but I'm surprised they'd ignore that.
Mikeran and Nokiron . Thank you VERY MUCH. Indeed my information was outdated. Indeed since 2019, 35mm sensor Sony cameras have added the 4.3 ratio which I think is a very useful move, especially for those who shoot a lot of verticals.
Why would anyone care for minor image crops at the time of taking the picture when they have a computer they upload their images to, anyway (not even talking about shooting raw)? After all, we're not talking about a multi-aspect sensor here that would give the 3:2 image more width than the 4:3 image, or any other advantage.
Hubertus Seriously ? This is called composition . There is a HUGE difference between having to crop an image sometimes in the computer and having to CROP each image . Anyone who prints his/her images in a series (book, exhibit) would know what I am talking about
You’re being a little extreme. Are you telling me you don’t want to deal with cropping in post even for images that are going to get published? Seems a little crazy.
Mikeran. This is a very strange statement. Are you contesting the fact that it is always better to get the composition of the final image in the camera whenever you can . My work is mostly for fine art prints and books and I think 90% of ly work does not need to be cropped I tend to lean a little bit when shooting so most of my cropping is a tiny bit to make the image straight This is why I do not shoot with the 3.2 ratio
If I’m taking any kind of important shot I’m leaving a slight bit of room on all 4 sides to be able to straighten and I’m cropping most important shots.
For making prints I’m leaving a little more room as I don’t know when I’m taking the shot what size my customers are going to want to print. 8x10, 10x15, 5x7... who knows. In these cases I’m always going to want to shoot without any in-camera crop.
If you make a 4:3 aspect ratio a boundary condition in your camera selection choice then it substantially limits your system options. That’s up to you.
Fortunately for me, I don’t let ly customers dictate my composition Also when you print books with both and horizontal images, you do not want to have images with aspect ratios all over the map I think people who want to leave room for cropping on all their images are not helping themselves with improving their composition skills But whatever works for you is fine with me
@Harold66: "This is called composition" – I see your point, and I agree it is a good one, even though I personally never have bothered to switch aspect ratios on my cameras, although I do tend to crop landscapes from 4:3 to 3:2 (when I've been shooting Olympus) and portraits from 3:2 to 4:3 (when I've been shooting Sony). I guess, when shooting, I can somehow imagine the cropped image well enough for my purposes without having the cropped parts blackened in the viewfinder – if I don't leave a bit of room anyway to get it perfect in post. But I agree that really seeing what you get does makes things different.
This year, despite the disruption, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. Now, as the year winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2020 DPReview Awards!
Olympus has announced the OM-D E-M10 IV, a compact Micro Four Thirds camera that adds a 20MP sensor, a flip-down touchscreen, improved autofocus and USB charging to an already capable camera.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
It says Olympus on the front, but the OM System OM-1 is about the future, not the past. It may still produce 20MP files, but a quad-pixel AF Stacked CMOS sensor, 50 fps shooting with full AF and genuine, IP rated, weather sealing show OM Digital Solutions' ambition. See what we thought.
Is the GH6 the best hybrid camera there is? Jordan has been shooting DPReview TV with the Panasonic GH6 for months, so he has plenty of experience to back up his strong opinions.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
The SmartSoft Box allows the degree of its diffusion to be controlled electronically and varied in 100 increments from clear to heavily frosted via the main control panel of the Rotolight AEOS 2 light. Changes in electrical charge alter the diffusion and the angle of coverage of the light
Camera accessory company Nine Volt now offers a camera body cap that includes a secret compartment designed to hold an Apple AirTag tracking device, giving victims of camera theft hope for recovering a lost camera.
The R7's 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor is an interesting prospect for sports and wildlife shooters. Check out our shots from sunny (and scorching) Florida to see how it performs.
Canon just launched an entry level camera using the RF Mount! You should probably take a look at some photos it (and Chris Niccolls) captured in Florida.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
The Canon EOS R7 brings a 32.5MP APS-C CMOS sensor to the RF mount. In addition to stills at up to 15 fps (30 fps with e-shutter), the camera offers IBIS and 4K/60p video.
While its lineage is clearly inspired by Canon's line of Rebel DSLRs, this 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera takes plenty of inspiration from Canon's more capable full-frame mirrorless cameras.
These two RF-mount lenses are designed to be paired with Canon's new APS-C mirrorless cameras, the EOS R7 and EOS R10. Both lenses offer seven stops of image stabilization and use Canon's stepping motor technology to drive their internal AF systems.
Late last week, DJI quietly released a firmware update for the Mini 3 Pro drone that adds, amongst other improvements, 10-bit video recording in the D-Cinelike video profile.
The patent explains how the auto-zoom feature could use a combination of digital and optical zoom to better frame subjects within a composition with little to no input from the camera operator.
360-degree action cam manufacturer Insta360 has shared a teaser video for a new product set to be announced tomorrow. And based on the visuals provided, it appears as though it might involve some kind of drone.
The Ricoh GR IIIx is a popular camera among photo enthusiasts thanks to its small size and 40mm (equivalent) F2.8 lens. Ricoh's GT-2 tele conversion lens is a 1.5X converter that extends this focal length, though it comes with some compromises. Learn more about it and check out our sample gallery shot with the GT-2 on the camera.
This 'Mark III' lens offers a few improvements over its predecessors to get even better image quality out of its ultra-fast design. The lens is available for Canon EOS R, Fujifilm X, Leica L, Micro Four Thirds, Nikon Z and Sony E-mount APS-C camera systems.
Chris and Jordan are out of the office this week, so we're taking a trip in the wayback machine to feature a classic episode of DPRTV: a review of the EOS R, Canon's first full-frame mirrorless camera.
Last week, we featured Markus Hofstätter's scanner rebuild, which saw him spend three months bringing back to life a massive scanner to better digitize his collection of large format photographs. This week, we're taking a look at the results, kicked off by a beautifully detailed 30cm x 40cm collodion wet plate portrait.
The lenses lack autofocus and image stabilization, but offer a fast maximum aperture in an all-metal body that provides a roughly 50mm full-frame equivalent focal length on Fujifilm and Sony APS-C cameras.
Apple has responded to an open letter published last month, wherein more than 100 individuals in the entertainment industry asked Apple to improve the development and promotion of Final Cut Pro.
Venus Optics has launched its Indiegogo campaign for its new Nanomorph lenses, revealing additional details about the world’s smallest anamorphic lenses.
Most smartphones these days offer great-looking video and make vlogging very easy, but there are always accessories that can help to make your footage, and you, look even better
The WG-80 remains largely unchanged from the WG-70, but it now has a front LED ring light that's twice as bright as its predecessor. Aside from that, the 16MP CMOS sensor and 28-140mm full-frame equivalent lens stays the same.
Astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti is aboard the International Space Station for a six-month mission. She and the other astronauts aboard the ISS witnessed the recent full lunar eclipse, and Cristoforetti captured amazing photos of the spectacular event.
Vivo has announced the global launch of its flagship X80 Pro device, which features an impressive quadruple-camera array on the rear, headlined by a main 50MP custom Samsung GNV sensor.
Comments