Olympus packed a big punch into a tiny camera today with the announcement of its OM-D E-M10 Mark III. The camera features a 16-megapixel sensor and can shoot at 8.6 fps. These features, added to the 3-inch touchscreen and even the 5-axis in-body stabilization, are nothing new. The treat here is the addition of 4K video with a respectable 102 mbps bitrate and a new 121-point autofocus system — all for the same price that the Mark II sold for yesterday technically still sells for today.
The E-M10 Mark III is a micro-four-thirds camera, so it doesn't quite measure up to the 24-megapixel APS-C sensor of the recently announced Canon M100. But for a couple hundred dollars more with a lens, it's hard not to make this something you'd convince your friends to spend their money on over the Canon. I'm all about sensor size, but the added features and more robust, enthusiast-oriented build of the E-M10 makes more sense as a long-term investment. Essentially, if still photography image quality is all you care about, the Canon M100 might still be slightly better with its larger sensor. But for everything else from handling to video shooting, the E-M10 Mark III looks like the new entry-level king.
The OM-D E-M10 Mark III can be pre-ordered in black or silver for $649 body-only or $800 with a kit 14-42mm lens. Both the body-only and kit setups will ship toward the end of September.
Why did they made it micro-four-thirds. I am assuming that it has to do with costs. I love all of the features on it though.
Smaller lenses and therefore a more compact system. APS-C lenses are still quite big.
well it has been said olympus does have the same quality as a apsc sensor
I own the Mark 2, imagequality is amazing and really compareable to a aps-c camera at the same price.
>>Sure, but not very good image quality compared to say an APSC camera like the Sony a6000 series, which really isn't that much bigger.
Honestly, you don't know what you are talking about. It's virtually impossible to tell APS-C and m43 pictures from the same generation apart. I know, because I just tested both.
Also
https://blog.mingthein.com/2017/06/25/the-un-camera-camera/
You could also check image comparisons, techradar graphs - there really is damn all in it.
>> Well I've done my own testing
But did you do it competently? If your results show a "huge" difference when properly conducted tests show a minimal one, it's unlikely isn't it?
>> I print huge and often crop so the extra quality is important to me.
Then a piddly little aspc bayer sensor isn't really going to help you if you want technically good results. If you care about image quality and want to shoot that way you need to get an A7R and primes or Sigma Foveons. Or switch to a small m43 and carry several focal lengths at the same time so you don't have to crop.
>> >Sure, but not very good image quality compared to..
So that's a reasonable synonym for huge. It certainly has nothing to do with the truth, which is that shot at the same dof, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between m43 and aps-c.
Ok.. so you are saying that aspc will good image quality and m43 won't... But that the difference is not huge??? That makes sense...
It's just what they chose to do for this line. Olympus broadly went the m4/3 route because of cost, sure, but also because it allows for a still-great image while keeping the size of the body and lenses compact. There's something to be said for that. And as we get better sensor tech every day, the cameras with larger sensors slowly start to become less and less important...
Totally agree with this. These smaller sensors are getting better with every release and often surpass slightly older Full Frame sensors. The IQ from my APSC sized fuji XT-2 is just incredible. I won't delude myself into thinking that it's as good as an A7rii or any other current flagship full frame sensor, but it gets pretty damn close.
So...an incremental upgrade then. Actually the IQ itself hasn't gone up much since the E-M5 MKI and that's not a bad thing. I've always found my results to be pretty good and they make wonderful prints. Looks like they just improved the imaging system and added the expanded video. Combine that with the IS and it makes a good buy for people who just need a basic camera that does just about everything.
Basically they are appealing to the people who really drive their sales...the average consumer. Smart.
>> Essentially, if still photography image quality is all you care about, the Canon M100 might still be slightly better with its larger sensor.
Sensor size is not the same as sensor ability in a camera. The sensor and the amount of heat from the camera matter.
>> But for everything else from handling to video shooting, the E-M10 Mark III looks like the new entry-level king.
If you knew anything at all about video, you'd know that the vast majority of serious video shooters on m43 use Panasonic. Not because of the 4K but because Oly's video codecs have (unfortunately) always been comparatively poor. To give you some idea of how far behind Oly have lagged on video, they don't have even have a sub-forum on cinematography.com and "personal-view" (a reasonably representative enthusiast forum) they share a section containing around 50 threads with Fuji -compared to Panasonics almost 900 threads. If you know this problem has finally been fixed, then please say so. Realistically of course, you're writing from a press release about a subject you don't know anything about, and don't have sense enough not to make claims in areas you don't understand.
Also, the GX85 is cheaper than this camera and already has ***good*** 4K and IBIS - and excellent focus technology - so it's hard to see why the OM10ii would be automatically be "the entry level king"...