Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk III is a humane upgrade from a bestseller. OLYMPUS OM-D E-M10 Mark III - New Travel Companion Olympus OMD EM 10 Mark 3 Reviews

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 III is a 16MP Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera. It looks like a slightly prettier version of its predecessor and the main changes are to the user interface (UI) and menus, in an aim to make the camera more accessible to relative newcomers to photography.

From a hardware point of view, it "s a fairly minor update to the Mark II, with some small adjustments to the ergonomics and a new processor. But the UI changes do make some of its smarter features easier to get at.

Key Features:

• 16MP Four Thirds CMOS sensor with no AA Filter
• 5-axis image stabilization (4 stops of correction)
• TruePic VIII processor
• 4K video with in-body and digital stabilization
• 8.6 fps continuous shooting (4.8 fps with continuous AF)
• 2.36M-dot electronic viewfinder
• 1.04M-dot tilting touchscreen
• 330 shot-per-charge battery life (CIPA standard)

Beyond the attempts to make the E-M10 III and its more specialized photographic modes easier to use, a more powerful processor brings 4K video shooting. Impressively, the camera is able to offer a combination of mechanical and digital stabilization in 4K mode (most cameras can only digitally stabilize 1080), giving uncannily smooth footage, even when moving the camera around.

Beyond this, the camera "s Auto mode has also been reworked so that it attempts to detect movement in the scene, to help it better select the right settings for shooting. Overall it" sa subtle update, but calling it the OM-D E -M10 II Mark II would be silly, even for Olympus.

Rivals and Peers

Although the E-M10 III is the entry level to the OM-D series, it "sa distinctly mid-level camera. Its profusion of direct controls make it a camera with plenty of space to grow into and, even with the work done to ease access to its full set of features, it still feels like a camera aimed at people who want to do a lot more than just point and shoot.

As such, it falls somewhere between Sony "s a5100 and a6000 models (offering the touch-screen ease-of-use of the former with the hands-on control of the latter). Its pricing also puts it squarely into competition with Canon" s EOS T7i (700D) and Nikon "s D5600. Panasonic" s GX85 is its closest Micro Four Thirds peer, and the only other 4K-capable camera in this class.

Anyone have probes with he actual camera such as the rubber grip coming odd? (twice w OMD MI, once w OMD MII - 12 mo old), battery pin malfunctions after second battery change in brand new OMDEM-5 MII, battery lever on battery door breaks loose after 4 years of use .... shutter stops working entirely after 2 years ..... have had Canon till 4 years ago and never had problems other than dust on sensor. Comments please .... and who is reputable Oly repair site as Oly service in past has been quite slow
Thanks !!

Revived 12 40 pro today to find it is incompatible with camera ... lfn button is unusable .. spoke to olympus who said there may be upgrade in future .Ie firmware. Usable with mark ii according to reviews but why is this not mentioned when you buy lense .. function button is on lense so why sell as usable ..

Please help me. I have the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 and the Tamron 14-150mm f3.5-5.8 Di III lens for M43 and the Olympus OMD EM10 II camera body. The Olympus Camera Updater can "t handle these lenses. How can i upgrade the firmware of these lenses?

Just got a new MKIII yesterday and gave my MKII to my son. I "m missing loads of important features which I don" t quite understand why these have been removed.

Remote flash trigger

The ability to save settings for each of the PASM modes

The inability to program the L-FN on lenses that have this button (the 12-50 / 12-40 cannot be fully utilized on this body)

Super Control Panel always on monitor, compose only on EVF

Different OS modes

Can "t Olympus offer a firmware upgrade and" restore "these features?

Trouble for me is I use higher-end models. I "m spoiled. I advise even total newcomers to buy high-end models if they" re really serious about getting into photography, even if high-end model feature sets bewilder them at present. This model is a stepping-stone. Let "s just get one that" s made wholly for experienced users, and grow into it.

I don "t know ... I" ve owned high end cameras and lenses for many years (mostly Nikon and Olympus). I usually advise newcomers to avoid high end bodies and save some money to invest in quality lenses. A lot of photographers need little beyond manual controls and a good sensor, but in the end it depends on what you want to shoot.

Ha, really? I can "t imagine spending this kind of money in 2017 for a camera that doesn" t support USB charging. My Fuji X100S doesn "t support it, and for that reason it gets left behind all the time. I take trips a few times a year where my main source of power for my camera and phone is a USB battery pack and USB solar charger.

I could live with a USB powered battery charger ... but it "d definitely be suboptimal.

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

is 16mp really that lower than 20mp on flagship 4/3 bodies.
a quick maths tells its just 20% lower pixels-count on em-1 ii and gh5

also 50% higher than fullframe A7S, and just 33% lower than sony flagship A9
don "t understand what" s about all this negativity

Who really NEEDS to shoot 4K video? And, if you are among the select few who do need it, wouldn "t it stand to reason that you would also need a microphone jack? Even though headphone jacks are cheap, I understand why that might be reserved for more expensive models. I own the proprietary SEMA-1 microphone kit, but it can "t hold a candle to something like a RODE external mic.

Give me 1080p video with a mic and headphone jack over 4K video without them!

Also, the lack of ANY phase detect AF points is really disappointing because that would actually be extremely useful for people who might want to take photos of their fast-moving kids and pets.

With this camera, Olympus let their marketing people set the priorities instead of their photography and engineering people. Too bad.

Ability to crop in post, punch-in in post, zoom in post, apply additional image stabilization without sacrificing on (1080) resolution, better quality when downsizing from 4k to 1080p than what a native 1080p file will give you and so on. Plenty of reasons even if you don "t see the value in distributing in 4K. Besides, at least in my circle of friends, pretty much everyone has at least one 4K tv and would benefit anyways.

Cons: Autofocus not dependanble?
Question for Richard Butler and Carey Rose.
Could you please clarify?
Is your complaint about C-AF + TR / C-AF or is it about the AF performance in general?
In my experience with the (now defunct) OLYMPUS EPM2, C-af was acceptable provided you used single focus piunt and careful handling. C-AF + TR was actually useable for slow mowing subjects, for instance at concerts.
With the EM1 mk1 and mk2 I often use C-AF + TR in good light conditions for static or slow moving subjects with good results.
All my Olympus M43 camera performs very good when using S-AF, this goes for accuracy and speed.
I suppose this is also true for the EM10 mk3 or am I wrong?

I "ve amended it to say" not dependable for action shooting. "

The AF section of the review includes more detail. Essentially, as you say, single AF is fast and accurate, C-AF is reasonably good if you specify the focus point but subject tracking isn "t dependable if you" re shooting a moving subject (unlike the E-M1s, the M10 III has PDAF / distance awareness).

It really isn "t metal on the Mark III - it" s the first E-M10 variant or indeed OM-D model of any type to have plastic covers. They are really good plastic covers though - the finish is excellent (the silver one looks convincingly like metal) and the feel is far superior to that which you usually get with plastic covers and arguably feels more solid than the anodized aluminum alloy covers of the E -M10 Mark II, which have a slightly "tinny" resonance. The brushed effect inserts on top are separate now and ARE metal (they were in one piece with the rest of the (metal) top plate on the Mark II. I am 100% sure of this - I have both models and am strongly myopic, so I can see the fine plastic molding lines on the E-M10 Mark III "s covers. For the rest of the top of the camera, pop up the flash of this and the Mark II, and the earlier model" s separate metal cover is easy to discern, as is its absence on the Mark III.

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

(unknown member)

Ah so they changed it from the MK II to the MK III then okay. I have the MK II, and Oly said the same thing about the build, so they should amend their website.

DPR also in a video said the MK II was plastic, which was false, so I figured they just carried over the same misconception to the MK III.

Yes, that "s right. I" ve all three generations of the E-M10. The original is a painted metal like the E-M5 series (mixed reports of what the metal under the paintwork is - magnesium alloy as on the E-M5 models or aluminum alloy - but it feels similar to the E-M5 and E-M5 II). The E-M10 Mark II, as you know, is aluminum alloy (excuse the extra letter - I "m from the UK !!) and is anodized. The metal is pressed into shape rather than cast, and it consequently feels slightly hollower than the original. The Mark III is polycarbonate but incredibly well finished and disguised as metal - it actually is heavier and feels a little more solid than the Mark II - not that either are anything other than solid. The black version has paintwork exactly mimicking that on the black E-M5 Mark II, and the contours of the Mark III echo that model more closely than the Mark II did - to my eyes it "s very beautiful. Unfortunately it has been shorn of a lot of configuration options and features though.

I find the Mark III to be a disappointment for the same reason the review mentions. It is long past time for Olympus to pit OSPDAF in all of their cameras. There is no excuse for this. If anything Olympus is hurting themselves because their 4 / 3rds lenses need OSPDAF to function satisfactorily.
I am a big fan of the format, but I would highly recommend a Panasonic, Sony or Fuji over the Mark III because of the problems focusing.

I absolutely loved my EM10 back in the day: Fast focus, responsive touch screen, nice sharp compact Olympus lenses. I just wish Olympus adopted a bigger sensor, I never fell in love with m43rds image quality which always had a very flat less life like look to it.

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

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

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

(unknown member)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course there is a difference. The question is, is the difference noticeable in the end for the majority of enthusiast / pro uses. If you set up the test mentioned above, I "d bet 999 out of 1000 wouldn" t be able to consistently choose which image was taken with the FF and which taken with 4/3. Obviously if making huge prints, more MP required

(unknown member)

jlabelle, question is WHEN the difference comes obvious, not that it is there always.

Ferrari is as fast as is a Volkswagen Beetle in normal roads ... but on a paved race track in other hand ..... and in other hand on crossroad track ...

"Moving the mode dial from Auto to Art, I noticed the E-M10 III has another trick up its sleeve; you can now scroll through every Art filter on the camera along the bottom of the screen while your scene changes in real time."
That is what I noticed on the E-M1 Mk II as well (just for the sake of looking) although it isn "t with touch scrolling & done with the front dial instead. It is a better implementation for using Art Filters than previous models (that I know of).

(unknown member)

Cons: "16MP starting to look a little dated"

Because we are all buying into the marketing bs? Nope, having exhibited 36 x 24 inch prints in a London exhibition, produced from a 16mp sensor, I can honestly say that 16mp is a perfectly usable res. Don "t buy into the marketing BS guys - 16 is plenty!

The competition has moved on and left this camera in the dust. If the choice was between an old dated 16 MP sensor and a new 24 MP sensor I would go with new and not buy an older sensor camera especially since this isn "t a cheap budget camera.

(unknown member)

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

The quote I used doesn "t say that the sensor is old or dated, but that the resolution is. That" s my point really.

@ quietrich: I would take the full frame sensor any day, no matter 12 Mp, 24 Mp (which I use), 50 Mp ... for low light photography / clean shadow / high ISO performance, what matters is the total light- gathering area of \u200b\u200bthe sensor, not the pixel density. When pictures are scaled to the same size, noise level will be very much the same, no sensor Mp.

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

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

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

@ ozturert: When I went mirrorless, I took a deep look into 4/3, aps-c and full frame. My findings were that there is little to gain when it comes to weight, volume and price between the twice as large aps-c format and the 4/3 format when using lenses up to short to medium telephoto.

For medium to long telephoto the size adventage is there, but is very much lost if you buy two full aperture stop brighter 4/3 lenses to compensate for the small sensor! Such lenses are very expensive too.

I found that I could build a FF system for daily use that is not much larger og heavier than a 4/3 system, so that was my choise. I an live with some added weight at the long telephoto end.

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

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

At 16MP the four thirds sensor has the same pixel size as a full frame sensor with 64MP. And some folks think that pixels that are too small aren "t a good thing, as evidenced by the 12MP Sony A7S and 16MP Nikon Df.

@ ozturert: I don "t see a large difference between 4/3 and micro 4/3 lens size, but if compactness is the goal, sure smaller is better. ;-)

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

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

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

@ Jefftan: With today "s sensors, comparing sensors with the same light-gathering area (FF vs FF, aps-c vs \u200b\u200baps-c, 4/3 vs 4/3, etc.), the noise level will be about the same when pictures are scaled to the same size, no matter pixel size / pixel pitch.A full frame 12 Mp and 36 Mp will show about the same level with noise for, say, a 110 cc / 44 inch wide print.

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

For most casual photographer who display there shots on the web or print them off at 7x5, 16MP. I have about less than 1 percent printed at 8x10. The E10 is not a pro or even a pro-am camera. It "s very much a consumer camera / beginners camera. It majors on smaller size total size (lens + camera). I would be happier with 8-10MP with the bump in low-light and dynamic range improvements the bigger photo-sites would bring coupled with smaller file sizes. If you need bigger print m4 / 3-\u003e APS-\u003e 35mm-\u003e MF-\u003e LF depending on the red you want.

Comparing it to the one year old Panasonic G85, the E-M10 III is only better with High-ISO performance, nowhere else. I don "t know if this makes up for the" gold award "vs" no award ", but Olympus is definitely 1 to 1.5 years too late with this camera.
(I personally hope the E-M5 III will soon be announced.)

(unknown member)

You do know that Olympus released E-M10 at 2014?
This model is only a 3 years old. And this is now a third mark version of it to just keep it fresh on the market before upgrade comes.

And this is entry level from OM-D line, something that so many is totally missing.

The sensor performance and the resolution are more than enough for the target audience. Then added the stabilization, Olympus design and idea of \u200b\u200bthe features in m4 / 3 body are that is making up to many other things.

Well taken great photos with 5-8Mpix 1 / 2.3 "cameras years back have not gone worse or noisier. They are still great ones. It is now just easier and more enjoyable to get with the technological features like a stabilization or ILC.

E-M10 is, and will likely always stay as very capable body who seek a ILC over smartphones and bridge cameras.

But it ain "t a top model for low price.
It ain "t a ultra performer for every possible situation that is there.

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

E-M10s were easy to recommend to beginner photographers getting their first ILCs. However, it is no longer as easy when there "s X-T20 available from Fuji for not that much more money. Sure, it does not have an IBIS, but it rips the entry-level OMD" s to shreds in pretty much every other aspect. Better build quality, better sensor, better handling, better menus, better EVF, better focusing ... better overall shooting experience. Pretty much everything is better.

Olympus needs to further drop the price of E-M10 III to stay competitive. Otherwise, I don "t see a good reason to get one.

(unknown member)

The E-M10 mark III is 650 and the X-T20 900. Not that much more? Almost 40% more. The E-M10 mark III has nice features the Fuji lacks, and a few of the pro "s you mentioned are personal. Also the lenses for m4 / 3 are cheaper in general. The E-M10 mark III will easily outsell the Fuji, as always.

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

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

A bit of a difference!

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

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

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

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

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

"I don" t own M10 MK III, but I do own the MK II and most of the features of the 3rd revision stay the same. "

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

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

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

"X-trans hasn" t been a problem in years. "

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

I "ll never understand why both Olympus and Panasonic cripple auto-ISO in most of their cameras. The primitive auto-ISO is the main thing I dislike about my current m4 / 3 cameras and I" m not going to buy another one until they "ve sorted it out.

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

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

(unknown member)

What still amazes me is that while on digital cameras ISO doesn "t change the exposure, people still expect to get Exposure Compensation to operate the non-Exposure value.

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

@Tommi K1
Nitpicking about terminology doesn "t change the fact that this can be a really useful feature in a lot of different circumstances.

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

If the EM10 MkIII has a menu system more akin the E-M1 Mk2, I would expect it to have this.

It is actually quite useful in some scenarios. For example, when you do sports or BIF and want a minimum aperture & shutter speed. It isn "t having either a fully manual mode or a combination of S&A priority modes, but it is about giving options.

What is the point of this camera?

It needs better integration with mobile OS to make it a true stepping stone from a smartphone, but Olympus don "t provide it. The whole beginner thing comes across as marketing shtick. As it stands, a smartphone is a great deal easier and more convenient while a full-on camera model is a great deal more capable and, unlike this new model, is something a user can grow into.

Not at all, in my personal experience. I "ve had endless problem with codex compatibility, and have gone back to my OM5ii for important video projects because the G85 provides unpredictable results, and chokes up anytime I try to use 4K in WiFi mode.

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

It "s about offering a better experience than that available on a 3" screen, about sorting images, landing them on social media, applying VSCO stuff and etc. Offering wifi is a basic start, no more. OI Share is a basic start, no more, and I use it a lot. It a very limited app. And wifi is not the only wireless way either. Imho, camera-makers need to embrace mobile OS and stop offering token solutions.

No one said an Olympus FF would replace any beloved m43 body. I am an M43 user but would seriously consider a future Oly FF since I currently also shoot Nikon and Sony FF. Some people "s slavish loyalty to certain sizes of silicon wafer baffle me.

(unknown member)

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

What "s up with the FF then?

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

Yet, some people has that loyalty to larger silicon wafer purely because the larger size and then claims things for it because of a pixel peeping and other theoretical advancements that most users can "t see in real world photography!

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

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

The uproar is adding to my bemusement. I use m43, apsc and ff bodies. I have no "loyalty" to MF or one inch sensor sizes LOL. I currently shoot Oly, Nikon, Sony and Pentax and I have literally owned all the consumer brands at one time or another. Yup, no "loyalty" to Hassy, \u200b\u200bPhaseOne, Mamiya, etc.

At Tommy K1, what you wrote could be written the same and replace FF with 4/3 and 4/3 with iPhone.
But you could agree (I hope) that there is a difference, isn "t it?
So at what given sensor size / lens aperture it stops to matter for you? It improves until 4/3 and then stops when getting better?

There is enlightening article on dPreview of a few weeks ago about equivalence that I strongly suggest you to read on this matter.

@multisystem: Fuji followed a bit your idea in proposing 2 parallel line of products, one aimed at the compact and most bang for the buck aps-systems, and the medium format aimed at another type of customers who need the resolution and rendering above all (at the expense of things like very low fps, etc).

FF market is saturated, but it is a bit behind in terms of innovation. I mean, Nikon users are just discovering in September 2017 that you can now focus using the touchscreen? Not that I find it crucial, I personally don "t even use it that much, but hello ... it" s been in Panasonic cameras since 2011.

(unknown member)

You are trying to do foolish argument with that.

There is a standard for image quality and DOF evaluation. And that has been for decades a 8x10 "print viewed from 12" distance by a person who has an average (20/20) eye sight. And that all is based to many other factors how humans eyes work and how humans minds works, empiric tests.

The DPR article is a circulated reasoning, and once you realize one thing: Photography ain "t about mathematics, it is about visuals arts. And when you can make something thats IQ looks identical on real world, but by math it is totally false / different.

There is a real world requirements when a quality of something is "good enough" and when it is "not good enough" and that line is little dynamic, but not much, but it is set.

And technology has got improved so much that what you knew about 5 years ago, can already easily be obsolete. A 2008 body doesn "t have 20011 sensor but likely 2000-2003. More tech crossing the line" good enough "

@Tommi K1; your "rant" about art versus math makes no sense. For instance, yes, movie are about art even with the best technique in the world, but technique is a VERY important aspect of filming movies and you are the only one that is trying to deny that.

@Tommi K1; You are saying that we reach "good enough" but what is good enough?

You said that for "most users":
- "no resolution benefits": I can tell you that clean 36Mp image allowed me to crop significantly images, especially when I am traveling with the small and light 35mm, and still have good pictures that you cannot get with a 24Mp APS-C with mediocre lens.

- "No noise benefits": when there is not a lot of light, images at even 1600 or 3200 ISO can look seriously crappy even on the A7R.

- "No DOF benefits": there is because I only need to carry the f / 4 70-200 and 24-70 and I save 1.5kg and a lot of money compared to the f / 2.8 versions on APS-C ...

People could use a Canon 85L f / 1.2 (because the 1.4 is not good) on APS-C. But with FF, you can have a Sony 85mm f / 1.8 which is 1.5kg lighter, 1500 $ cheaper and give better result on FF with still this creamy bokeh.

Bigger sensor, in the long run, allow you to have lighter, cheaper kit and better IQ. Simply as that.

Does this use the EFC implementation of the E-M10 II and older bodies (physical curtain - delay - electronic first curtain) OR that of the E-M5 II, PEN-F, and E-M1 II? Might not make a practical difference in a lot of cases but it does have an impact on burst modes and stuff like the 75-300 ($ 300 something at their refurb outlet) is also equally impacted and not a pairing that "s unheard of.

Around a 1.5yrs ago, I almost opted for an E-M10 II instead of an E-M5 II (the tilt screen on the former was more appealing) but the EFC thing was one of the former "s turn offs, so I ended up just finding a good deal on the E-M5 II ... Weather sealing and a few other things were also a factor mind you.

The E-M10 Mark II provide EFC, like the E-M10 version I, but also a full electronic shutter which is totally silent and vibration free with a speed up to 1 / 16000s. It looks like you did not read the manual carefully enough ...
I own the E-M10 II and use the full electronic shutter by default.

It looks like YOU didn "t read my comment carefully enough, none of what you" re stating contradicts any of what I said, and I was inquiring about the specific nature of the electronic first curtain (EFC) shutter used. Perhaps read a bit more carefully before choosing the condescending route of telling people to RTFM.

To be clearer, in case you "re not fully versed in the subject, Olympus has two very different EFC implementations of EFC across their bodies depending on age and price. Most newer or pricier bodies (as alluded to above) have a straightforward EFC where you have an electronic curtain followed by a mechanical

The E-M10 II has the older EFC implementation (despite being a more recent body) where a physical curtain is still triggered (because it uses an older shutter design where they can "t get rid of it), followed by a short delay, followed by an electronic curtain which is the actual first curtain, and finally the second physical curtain.

That works fine in many situations, but not all (again as alluded to above), just like the entirely electronic shutter works in some situations but not all. A true / straightforward EFC has no major downside.

Wow it looks like ratings are "jumping the shark" with this one.

As I read this review I kept on having flashbacks to the canon 6D MK 2 review. Essentially it "s the same situation? Almost everything is improved but the IQ.

Dpreview slams the 6D MK II verbally and does not even give it a rating but with this camera it "s like they are apologizing for olympus" s lack of investment in the entry level market and giving it a pat on the back with an 80 % rating even though it can "t AF reliably.

16mp "STARTING to look a LITTLE bit dated" starting .... little bit? lol.

Here "s dpreviews other some 80% ratings:

80% Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D / Kiss X9i Review (May 3, 2017)
80% Sony Alpha a6000 Review (Jun 3, 2014)
80% Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (Mar 20, 2014)
80% Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review (Mar 18, 2014)
80% Fujifilm X-E2 Review (Mar 5, 2014)
80% Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Review (Nov 17, 2012)
80% Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review (Apr 30, 2012)

This is the Dpreview Canon bias that they continually deny but somehow always shines through. They have a blind spot to it so Its not going to change. My advice is to still read the reviews as there "s still lots of good info there and look past the slant. That said the OM does have IS which is unheard of at this price point and is still a very capable cam (although the same could be said of the 6D I suppose).

(unknown member)

It can AF very reliably .... That haven "t been a problem never really.

An 16Mpix problem is only in the number "bigger is better" when you put products specs sheets side by side.

But start doing real work with 16Mpix and it ain "t going to stop you, unless you are using a 17mm while you would need a 45mm or 60mm.

Can somebody answer, why recent Olympus cameras are so horribly ugly? Where did the style and elegance of PEN P1 or P5 gone?
Did they ditch proper designers and employed Southamerican rainforest headhunters? Olympus cameras of the last 2-3 years look either like miniature shrunken boxy rangefinders from 1950s packed up to teeth with wheels and knobs, or shrunked DSLRs from early 1980s. All squeezed in, disproportionate, ugly, like those shrunken heads cooked by headhunting tribes in South America.
When will Olympus wake up from this hypnotic, delirious dream caused by the mangement who practice random aiming with curare arrows?

I like the design, with exception of the on / off switch, that should be accessable by the right hand. Good ergonomics for such a small body. But otherwise, the optical design was not the reason for buying the Mk II of this camera line for me.

@Triplet Perar:
I am not blind, and do find the whole olympus OMD line to be ... VERY attractive, even if that would only refer to their aesthetics. Now, fwiw in my book that doesn´t only refer to aesthetics: I like them a lot as tools, too! ;-)

(own the EM-5 mk1 and the E-M1 mk1)

“Traffic disputes are the last thing,” so I never think about a camera on the road. It should be small, indestructible, give a number of clear advantages over competitors and not pull a backpack. In Kazakhstan, it just so happened, I took with me the Olympus OM-D E-M10 mark III for a month - as it turned out, despite the size, an extremely powerful tool, especially if you get hold of three or four good lenses that are in place and weight take as much as a full-frame zoom, and perhaps even less.

Quality and style

Olympus initially chose the retro style in the production of its cameras, which means a combination of quality materials and thoughtful lines. However, design is not an end in itself here, as the company's designers do not follow their religion in a single line. The entire OM-D line differs from the simpler Pen, just in the design for a DSLR and has a pronounced grip. Naturally, in a compact camera it was impossible to make the same grip as in a unit, since the body here is almost half the volume. However, the designers did not just rescale the large camera to the small one, as the body became smaller, but the control wheels did not. Yes, this led to a slight imbalance in the size of organs, but the priorities are set correctly, since it is controllability that is primary, and not dull adherence to the style aesthetics, because our fingers do not get smaller from a small camera. Naturally, the grip here is not so confident, and you hold the camera with three fingers of your right hand, but thanks to the protrusion at the back, it is quite confident. However, for the sake of following the style, the left hand toggle switch is made traditional here, and the length of my right fingers is not enough to switch it, but this is an Olympus trademark, so I would attribute my opinion to taste, you can get used to it.

Compactness and convenience, functionality and ergonomics

Compactness is the main advantage of the micro-4/3 system, and here the ten is significantly ahead of both the five and the one. If you add a compact lens here, the camera will fit in a winter jacket pocket, but it is also easy to carry in the summer, which is ideal for the traveler. You can really walk with her all the time, if you wish. Today, the standard is generally considered a mobile phone, to which the camera, in terms of compactness, naturally loses, but not so much as modern DSLR and mirrorless full-frame cameras. But in terms of quality and flexibility, it will naturally be at its best, especially with good lenses that are in the system. Well, in terms of functionality and convenience, the camera is probably not inferior to other cameras at all.

First of all, the organization of the shooting space through the quick menu is done very well here. Here are the basic settings for photo and video shooting, but also here you select the focus mode, image stabilization settings, which is important when you need to turn it off, as is done with the stabilized lens toggle switch, and a number of other settings. You can control the quick menu with wheels, keys, and fingers. The location of the buttons on the body is reduced to an expanded, but necessary minimum, these are the obligatory two wheels for control, separate shutter buttons, thanks to which you can simultaneously take both photos and videos, including them in any sequence, a standard navigation unit, shooting modes and access to quick menu. The rest is on the touch screen, from which, for example, in video mode, it can quite comfortably control shooting.

Functional

In photo mode, I have traditionally enjoyed the digital features of Olympus, which almost no one else has. Live comp has long been an extremely handy tool for shooting, but every time I discover additional possibilities of using it. There are quite flexible settings for it here, allowing you to choose a base exposure for the first frame, on which everything will be superimposed. Previously, I was wildly annoyed that the camera shoots for a couple of seconds, and then overlays only light zones on top, creating tracks from the headlights of cars, but now you yourself choose how much to expose the first frame, and accordingly, you can partially adjust the sensitivity so that the first frame is less noisy ... With this function, you can successfully wash water into fluff, even when you simply do not have a ND filter, so you can shoot at shutter speeds for several minutes, if it is light outside - the exposure may last a couple of seconds, but the effect will be like an ultra-long exposure.

Stabilizer

The strongest point of Olympus is its image stabilizer, which in the advanced version is present only in the OM-D, while the Pen series has a slightly simpler stabilizer. In addition, the weight of the camera itself has a good effect on the result of its work, which is larger here, and the foam is traditionally lighter. Knowing this feature, I was completely insolent while traveling and shot at shutter speeds for a couple of seconds at ISO sensitivity 200-400 using the 1.8 fixes that I had on the test. The absence of the need to carry a tripod with you is a very serious help, as well as low-noise pictures as a result.

Autofocus

The second huge plus is the effective and really working tracking autofocus, which I mocked quite a lot, but it clings pretty well even to a lone blade of grass dangling in the wind, while not breathing lenses in the video, but rather fast in photo mode to refocus between frames in series. Here it is not as fast as in the E-M1, but more than sufficient for capturing the dynamics of the traveler.

Video

We have not separated video from the photo for a long time, and the fact that Olympus has pulled up its capabilities to modern standards is certainly pleasing. 4K / 25 or 30p, depending on your standard, and even with a full stabilizer, will certainly make the weather a lot. I noticed that even with the stabilizer turned off, the camera cuts the image area by about 5%, but I would not find fault with this, since this was done for per-pixel readout and good sharpness. Naturally, a sharp picture can only be obtained with good glasses, but it will really look professional. Olympus here relies on shooting to fit his needs with stylization right in the camera, although there is also room for post-processing here. The color can be flexibly adjusted in the menu, you can apply any of the digital filters present in the camera, even the external effects of motion blur or old film are present. It is not very easy for a beginner to duplicate them in post-processing. The flat profile allows for standard image grading as early as the video editing stage. What is missing is a port for an external microphone, although the company has long been providing timecode synchronization with its dictaphones, bloggers can also use a dictaphone even in their phone. It is usually customary to say that the flip-up screen is not compatible with blogging interests, but you can always remove yourself from the control from the phone, and in this case everything will be visible not at a distance of three meters, but from an outstretched arm, which will not only start and stop shooting, but also change almost all of its parameters.

Conclusion

Balance is important in life. It is clear that there are no ideal cameras, there are those that are ideal for your interests. If you are a professional studio or videographer with a lot of work, of course, you can try to put your demands on this camera, but it is ideal for you only on vacation. She will not pull her neck, drag her home and put pressure on her conscience with the budget of the locomotive spent on her. It will even allow certain weaknesses, such as unwillingness to carry a tripod and a mountain of iron everywhere, while meeting almost all the needs of a traveler who does not want to limit himself to poor telephone quality, but strives to make the picture ideal for these conditions, providing you with both standard and additional creative opportunities ...

Photos in original qualitymade on Olympus OM-D E-M10 mark III can be downloaded from .

So, working with the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III camera for a month and analyzing the results obtained allow us to draw certain conclusions. This is a very good camera for daily shooting and capturing all the interesting moments on the trip. We especially note that this is true for those photographers who attach great importance to comfort, and therefore to the weight and size of the camera and interchangeable lenses. The E-M10 Mark III produces very decent image quality, especially if you dig into the settings a bit and start using smart features like handheld night shooting or HDR. If you master the capabilities of the camera properly and use manual settings in combination with a highly effective stabilization system, you can get high-quality images even in difficult lighting conditions. Of course, this little girl cannot compete with full-frame multi-megapixel cameras in terms of quality. But she will give them a head start on the comfort of shooting when traveling light. The camera is small and light, especially with the M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1: 3.5-5.6 EZ Pancake stock zoom lens. Olympus has many other compact and lightweight lenses in its arsenal that will fit perfectly with our model. Let me remind you that the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III is an entry-level positioning camera in the lineup. Therefore, she is deprived of some professional opportunities. There are no interfaces for high-quality audio recording, contrast (rather than hybrid) autofocus is used. During high speed continuous shooting, focusing is performed on the first frame only. But such requirements for a camera with a recommended cost of about 45 thousand rubles (let's not forget about the ruble exchange rate) would be wrong to present.

A compact and lightweight re-styled camera with 4K video recording, matrix stabilization, large viewfinder, tilting touchscreen display ... all at a very reasonable cost. Too good to be true? We will look for shortcomings, because there is no such thing without them. In any case, if you compare exclusively in terms of performance, then many competitors pale against the background of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III. In fact, the only direct competitor with a similar cost, weight and dimensions and functionality is only the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85. Sony ILCE-6300 is more expensive, does not have matrix stabilization and a touch display, is similar in many respects, but is already much more expensive. Fujifilm X-E3 is still somewhere nearby, but it does not have built-in stabilization, and the price is much higher. Of course, the more expensive competitors are aimed at the experienced photographer, while the target audience of the tested camera is amateurs and beginners.

Specifications

Appearance

Olympus has been actively using retro design in its cameras since the PEN E-P1. Initially, all models were carried out in this style, but with the advent of the premium OM-D line, pure classics remained only behind it. Of course, the cameras of the modern PEN series models also have a touch of retro, but the inscription "Since 1959" on their bodies would not have looked anymore.

The novelty is enclosed in a plastic case with small aluminum inserts. At first glance, the premium series and the absence of magnesium alloys in the design are bad manners. But let's not forget about the cost of the camera, which already in our retail is about $ 800, i.e. commensurate with such amateur devices as, for example,. There are no premium materials, but the camera still looks great, and the build quality is high. In addition, when working with the camera in cold weather, the plastic case is much more convenient and pleasant to work with than the metal one. Among the features of the novelty, it is worth noting a slightly increased grip, which makes it easier to operate the camera with one hand.

On the front is the lens mount and LED autofocus light. At the rear to the right of the inclined display, there are keys for locking the exposure / focusing, entering the main menu, changing the information display mode, deleting, switching to the viewing mode, as well as a round multifunctional 4-position manipulator with an enter key in the center.

At the top center is a lifting flash with a "hot shoe" at the base, as well as a pair of microphones. To the left of the flash is the power lever, which is also the lock of the uplift flash, and the mode menu key. On the right side there is a round selector for shooting modes, digital zoom and video recording keys, as well as a pair of control dials, one of which has an integrated shutter release button.

The display is exactly the same as that of its predecessor - inclined, touch-sensitive, with a resolution of 1040 thousand points. Of course, cameras with a much higher display resolution are now available on the market, but all of them are much more expensive than our experimental one. The display has large viewing angles, so it is easy to sight the image even when viewed from an acute angle. The brightness of white at standard settings is 336.5 cd / m2, and if you unscrew the brightness of the backlight to the maximum value - 822.51 cd / m2, the brightness of the black field is 1.07 cd / m2. In general, you can work with the camera even in direct sunlight falling on the screen.

But the touch control of Olympus cameras leaves much to be desired. It is there, but it does not seem to exist, especially when compared with the main competitor in the person of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85. You cannot control the main menu using the touchscreen, the quick menu is also available only using physical keys, multiple touches are not supported, so you have to scale the footage by calling the touch slider. Well at least swipe gestures are supported. Of the advantages of the touch screen, one can note the possibility of smooth control of shutter speed, zoom, aperture and sound level in video recording mode, as well as the ability to select a focus point when sighting an image through the viewfinder. But Olympus pioneered the introduction of touch control in mirrorless cameras, so you expect significant progress from every new product in this area, but it still does not. And do not forget that the camera is primarily aimed at beginners, some of whom, perhaps, have never seen a button cell phone.

The menus of the previous OM-D E-M10 models were extremely similar to the user interface of the older premium Olympus cameras. In the new product, the menu has been greatly simplified. In addition, an "advanced shooting mode" has been added, which will be especially useful for novice photographers. In order not to tire with the description of the interface, below are some screenshots for your reference.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Features and additional functions

All unusual camera modes are placed in a separate "Advanced shooting mode", which can be switched to when the mode dial is moved to the "AP" position. There are modes for long exposure, multiple exposure, HDR, silent mode (electronic shutter), panorama, keystone correction mode, as well as exposure bracketing and focus bracketing modes. The last mode will be especially appreciated by lovers of various small "objects". It is noteworthy that all of the above modes are not fully automatic, and the user is free to enter a lot of corrections in the settings, including shooting in RAW. By the way, in HDR mode, shooting in RAW is also possible, but only when you select RAW + JPEG, while shooting exclusively in RAW in this mode is impossible.

Correcting Keystone Distortion in the Camera Menu

Like all competitors, the tested camera is equipped with a WiFi module. There are no Bluetooth and NFC modules. However, even without NFC, setup is done quite quickly - just install the Olympus Image Share application on your smartphone and take a picture of the QR code on the camera screen. With a wireless connection, you can view the footage and transfer it to your smartphone. Of course, remote control is also provided, and not only photo is supported, but also video recording. But in the case of video recording, the resolution cannot exceed 1920 * 1080 pixels, the quality is reduced by the bit rate (to the “Fine” quality mode), the bit rate - up to 30 frames per second. During remote control, the lag on the smartphone screen is almost invisible. With remote control, it is possible to adjust the shutter speed, aperture opening, sensitivity, white balance, as well as zoom control (provided that an electrically powered lens is used), both in photo and video modes.

Camera in operation

How long it takes to get the camera ready for use depends on the type of lens installed. With the supplied M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-42mm 1: 3.5-5.6 lens, the first picture can be taken only 1.17 seconds after turning on the power. But here you need to take into account that a motorized lens takes time to reach the working position. With conventional lenses attached, the first shot can be taken 0.51 seconds after turning the power lever. Far from being a record, but not bad.

The claimed continuous shooting speed is 8.6 frames per second, which was confirmed during measurements, and the camera stretches out the declared speed both when using the JPEG format and when using RAW. It is noteworthy that even when activating software processing or noise reduction, the speed of continuous shooting does not decrease, and this is expensive. First of all, this is the merit of a powerful 4-core TruePic VIII processor (it should be noted that the flagship camera OM-D E-M1 Mark II uses a pair of the same processors). When shooting in RAW, the camera is able to shoot a burst at maximum speed for 22 frames, and when shooting in JPEG - until the memory card is full. But for those results, you have to fork out for an SD UHS-II card, as even the fastest SD UHS-I cards are bursting at 10 frames in RAW and 21 frames in JPEG.

Autofocus in the camera works only in contrast mode, while many mirrorless cameras are capable of working in hybrid mode thanks to the phase sensors built into the matrix. The camera provides various modes for selecting zones, including the ability to select by moving your finger across the screen when sighting through the viewfinder, which is very convenient. Using the supplied M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-42mm 1: 3.5-5.6 lens, the camera was able to hover over the test pattern in 0.36 seconds. This is a good result, because, for example, the one who visited us for testing was able to focus in only 0.46 seconds. But at the same time, it should be noted that the SLR camera in Live View mode was able to focus in 0.09 seconds. In terms of autofocus sensitivity, nothing supernatural - during testing, the camera was able to focus at an illumination of 0.52 lux, which is approximately equal to -2 EV. Here modern Panasonic cameras are ahead, because they often easily cope with the task at illumination of -4 EV, and in such darkness even the eyes are no longer an assistant.

With manual control, the focus area can be enlarged by 3x, 5x, 7x, 10x and 14x, which allows you to target the subject even in the most difficult conditions. In addition, there is a "focus peaking" function with the ability to select one of 4 colors for highlighting the edges of sharpness. This function will be useful not only for manual optics lovers, but also for fans of macro and subject photography. It is worth noting that a huge set of Soviet cheap optics can be easily installed on Olympus mirrorless cameras via an adapter, including for the M39 mount for rangefinder cameras (in the case of using M39 lenses on SLR cameras, only macro photography is possible), which cost mere pennies at flea markets ($ 2-5).

Exposure setting is possible in PASM modes, which is the standard for the vast majority of system cameras. But in the settings of the exposure metering mode, in addition to the standard trio (matrix, center-weighted, spot), there are modes "light zone" and "shadow zone", which are proprietary features of Olympus cameras. In addition, there is the possibility of separate adjustment of highlights, mid-tones and dark tones, which allows you to publish a picture without post-processing and even without the need to shoot in RAW (of course, if an urgent publication is required via a smartphone). The metering proved to be quite accurate, and in testing, the metering error was only -0.1 EV, which is almost impossible to notice without comparison with the reference image.

In terms of the number of white balance settings, the tested camera is not inferior to much more expensive cameras. Of course, there is a set of presets (sunny, cloudy, shade, incandescent lamp, fluorescent lamp, flash), automatic mode with the ability to activate the function of keeping warm tones, as well as manual input of color temperature. In manual mode, there are 4 cells for storing settings, which is not often found in relatively inexpensive cameras.

Noises

The maximum ISO level is 25,600. The minimum sensitivity in the standard range is ISO 200, the extended range also includes ISO 100.

click on thumbnails to view full size

When determining the level of luminance noise in numerical terms, the shooting was carried out both in RAW format and in JPEG format with disabled noise reduction. The shooting was carried out in the RAW + JPEG mode, that is, frames in both formats were obtained simultaneously. As you can see in the graph, when shooting in JPEG, starting from ISO800, hidden noise reduction algorithms are activated. This is not to say that noise cancellation is too active, but at the maximum sensitivity value the difference reaches 5.7 dB, and this is almost a twofold difference in the noise level.

Stabilization

The camera has a built-in 5-axis gimbal with a declared efficiency of 4 EV when tested according to the CIPA method. The efficiency is not the most impressive, as the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II claims a gain of up to 5.5 stops. But unexpectedly, the subject performed even better. Perhaps this is due to the lower weight of the camera, which is why the hands are less tired. But even without comparison with the flagship, the result seems incredible - 10 frames out of 10 are clear already at a shutter speed of 1/6 second. All in all, Olympus has proven once again that its stabilizers are the best in photo mode. In fact, holding your breath and freezing like an idol, you can get a blur-free frame when shooting handheld at shutter speeds of a few seconds, but it implies normal use of the camera.

Flash

The in-camera flash is not particularly powerful, with a guide number of just 8.2 at ISO200. It can be used only for wireless "ignition" of flashes when synchronizing via the light channel. But there are a lot of settings for such a budget baby. In addition to the choice of modes (synchronization on the first or second curtain, the mode of correction of the "red-eye" effect), a power divider (1 / 1.3 ... 1/64) is provided. Of course, when using the built-in flash, the presence of a divider is not relevant, but when installing on-camera speedlights, this is already a plus, because you can make adjustments without using the external flash menu. There is also a function for adjusting the duration of the synchronization speed, with the minimum being 1/250 s, while the main competitor has 1/160 seconds.

It is also worth noting that Chinese manufacturers have already mastered not only manual, but also TTL flash for Olympus. The same Godox has a great solution with a guide number of 60 at ISO100, a swivel head and a built-in radio sync module, and for only $ 110. Of course, for a flagship, this is not an actual offer, but for a relatively inexpensive camera, this is an excellent solution, which simply did not exist for the Olympus system a couple of years ago, which made many potential buyers of budget cameras look towards the Canon system (for some reason, budget Nikon so far, when working with an external flash, the functionality has been significantly reduced), for which Chinese TTL flashes have appeared for a long time.

Sample photos

Video recording mode

A relatively inexpensive camera with many bonuses like matrix stabilization, which also works in video mode, in addition to everything else, it can record 4K videos. But you shouldn't expect a miracle - either in FullHD mode or in 4K mode, the color representation is only 8-bit, and color subsampling is 4: 2: 0. But there is the possibility of recording in 1080 / 60p mode. There are no microphone and headphone jacks. To record high-quality sound, you can use an external HDMI-recorder or voice recorder. The camera, of course, does not support time codes, but you can synchronize the sound during the subsequent video processing with a banal clapping of your hands instead of the “cinematic” clapper-numbering device. In general, you can get out. It is noteworthy that the "focus peaking" mode works when shooting video. Inexperienced operators can completely rely on autofocusing, because it works correctly and imperceptibly, which is a pleasure. The stabilizer in the video recording mode accurately determines the panning mode, so no jerks are manifested during vertical and horizontal wiring. In general, the stabilizer works exemplary.

Sample 4K video (3840 * 2160 pixels)

Sample 1080 / 60p video recording

Video example 1080 / 30p

Battery and autonomous work

The camera uses a 8.7 Wh Li-ion battery BLS-50, which is the same as the predecessor model. Battery life when tested according to the CIPA standard has increased from 320 to 330 frames. Most likely, the new processor turned out to be a little more economical, because the power of the built-in flash, display and battery, which directly affect the battery life, have remained unchanged. In normal day-to-day use, the battery lasts 350-400 shots. If you do not forget to turn off the camera, then you can safely count on half a thousand, which is a very good result for a compact mirrorless camera. But still, DSLR cameras are far ahead. Charging the battery from a USB bus / charging is not supported, so you can replenish the charge from a mobile battery only using a variety of Chinese adapters, which is not very convenient.

Conclusion

I liked the camera, and very much. Of course, there are some drawbacks, but even the flagship cameras have plenty of them. The Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III is a great mobile and, importantly, multifunctional tool at a reasonable cost. It's small and lightweight, making it great for street photography. Thanks to an excellent 5-axis stabilizer, it is able to shoot blur-free shots at huge shutter speeds of a few seconds, allowing you to use minimum ISOs even at night. That is, in low light conditions, to obtain a noise level and dynamic range commensurate with expensive flagship SLRs, which in such conditions are simply forced to use high sensitivity values. Focus bracketing allows the camera to be used for both subject and macro photography. In addition, the camera is capable of recording good quality 4K video. In addition to this, there is a viewfinder and tilting touchscreen display for added convenience. In general, a complete set for the price of a budget DSLR.

Minuses:
- the materials of the case do not pull on the premium series (but the plastic case is more convenient in the cold);
- no jacks for a microphone and headphones;
- poorly developed touch control system;
- autofocus sensitivity is lower than that of the main competitor from the Panasonic camp;
- no possibility of charging the battery from the USB bus / charging;
Pros:
- design and ergonomics;
- light weight;
- Support for SD UHS-II cards;
- Possibility of touch selection of the focus point when sighting through the viewfinder;
- focus bracketing function;
- function of remote control with the ability to shoot video;
- excellent 5-axis stabilizer;
- Support for 4K video recording;
- battery life (in comparison with the main competitor).

Just before the beginning of the school year, Olympus presented an update to the youngest in the OM-D line of the E-M10 camera. The novelty received the Mark III index.

Let's say right away: from the point of view of the photographer, there are almost no changes in it. The reason for this step by the manufacturer is not at all stinginess, but rather in the extreme success and balance of the design of its predecessor, the E-M10 Mark II, which was awarded the title of the best compact system camera according to EISA in 2016.

As a result, the Mark III:

• The matrix was left the same - 16-megapixel LiveMOS. For a micro 4/3 sensor, this looks like a reasonable compromise, allowing it to work with a sensitivity range of 100-25 600 ISO and quite successfully compete with cameras equipped with 24-megapixel APS-C sensors.
• The best-in-class 5-axis stabilization system on the matrix shift has not undergone any changes, because the E-M10 Mk II had the same.
• The successful case design was left almost unchanged.

• Dimensions and weight, number and location of controls, touchscreen design and viewfinder are all the same.

• The protrusion on the front panel has undergone minimal changes - it makes it easier and more reliable to hold the camera with it.

• The previously unnamed navipad keys have now been signed, assigning well-defined functions to the "up" and "right" directions - the choice of sensitivity (ISO) and the flash setting.

• Located next to the power switch, the function button Fn3 (as it was called in the Mark II) now calls up the touch-screen menu containing almost a complete set of settings for the shooting process. This menu itself is not new. Many Olympus mirrorless cameras have much the same, but its choice as the main one was so deeply hidden in the labyrinth of camera settings that many users did not even suspect that it existed.

• Finally, the proprietary USB port has been replaced with a regular micro USB.
• The mode dial has become larger.

• The position responsible for shooting collages was replaced by Advance Photo, within which advanced Live-modes and shooting modes that require an integrated approach have found their refuge: such as shooting panoramas, collages, HDR photography, multiple exposure shooting and bracketing bursts.
• In the software component, the changes are, in fact, cosmetic, since the predecessor of the E-M10 Mk II was endowed with a bunch of advanced functions: focus bracketing, Live Compositing / Live Time / Live Bulb modes, tonal curve adjustment, in-camera RAW conversion with the ability to correct all basic parameters exposure and, of course, with the possibility of applying a very successful set of creative filters.
• Keystone correction is now bi-axis.
• The main menu has undergone some redesign (rather cumbersome and confusing in all modern Olympus cameras). Many advanced features have been brought to the surface.
• The most noticeable change is the Scene Mode menu. It was organized in the form of six thematic groups, within which the plot programs themselves are located.
• In the mode of viewing the footage there are practically no changes. Olympus continues to dance on a rake and with a tenacity worthy of better use, "forgets" to enter the full-screen view with the display of the exposure pair.
• The battery is the same as that of its predecessor (here Olympus' conservatism is quite appropriate). In addition, thanks to a set of energy-saving technologies, the autonomy of the new camera has significantly increased.

The most important innovation of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk III is the new TruePic VIII processor - the same as that of the flagship E-M1 Mk II. This increased the number of focus points to 121 and raised the continuous shooting speed with AF tracking to 4.8 fps.

According to a number of reviewers who have done preliminary tests, the Mark III has significantly improved high ISO performance compared to the higher-class Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II equipped with the same sensor. Obviously, more sophisticated noise reduction algorithms give much better results. This is best seen at the limit of ISO 25,600.

But the most noticeable improvement in the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk III, due to the new processor, is support for 4K video recording at up to 120 Mbps, as well as high-speed HD video recording at 120 fps. Moreover, while the predecessor OM-D E-M10 Mk II, the real resolution of Full HD video stream did not differ from simple HD due to the image readout from the matrix with skip lines, the Mark III's increase in resolution when moving from Full HD to 4K raises no questions - video detail grows in a very obvious way.

Unfortunately, for some reason, the new camera could not do without downgrade. Focus bracketing has been greatly simplified. While the OM-D E-M10 Mark II could have an arbitrary number of frames taken in this mode, reaching a maximum of 999, the Mark III has a maximum of eight frames. Cut in the new camera and the possibility of choosing an arbitrary focusing step. Now for the Mark III, only two fixed values \u200b\u200bare available - 5 and 10 units, while the predecessor allowed setting an arbitrary step value in the range from 1 to 10 units.

Thus, in the face of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III, we got an updated version of one of the best mirrorless cameras for the advanced hobbyist. The vast majority of its potential buyers will enjoy the huge advancements in videography much more than the exotic stacked macro capability. If you already own the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mk II, then you don't need to look at the new product. Especially if at one time you purchased the Mark II as a tool for serious macro photography. If you're looking for a feature-rich mirrorless camera, the Mark III is one of the best candidates for the role.

Agree, is this not a manifestation of humanism in relation to your customers? ;)