I have met a lot of photographers who are using an Olympus camera. They are often very enthusiastic about their gear. A lot of their functions cannot be found in other cameras, which makes Olympus quite unique. If these cameras are so unique, why aren’t these more popular? I tried an Olympus for a few weeks to find out.
The Olympus OM-D cameras are compact and lightweight. A camera with a set of lenses can be carried in a small camera bag, perfect for traveling. When I guided a tour at Lofoten, the Olympus photographers in my group were the ones that traveled with only a small camera bag, while carrying more lenses than the Nikon, Canon, Fujfiilm, and Sony users.
The Olympus OM-D E-M1 II compared to the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV.
The thing that struck me the most were the amazing options that were built into these small cameras: live star tracking, seeing a long exposure gathering light live on screen, image stabilization that rendered a tripod unnecessary, and more. Often, I understood why the Olympus photographers were so enthusiastic about their cameras.
But at the same time, I wondered why Olympus cameras aren't more common. When I talked to the local camera shop, they said Olympus isn't selling very well. A lot of secondhand Olympus cameras were available. So, why is a Olympus camera not that popular, while it seems to be so great? To find out, I borrowed a Olympus OM-D E-M1 II with a nice set of lenses.
Capturing a rainbow in the sky and in the fountain (MZuiko 12-40mm at 34mm, ISO 400, f/11, 1/125)
I wanted to try an Olympus for two reasons. First of all, I wanted to learn more about this small camera. Making myself familiar with it would make it possible to assist the workshop and masterclass participants that were using Olympus much better. But it would also give an idea of the capabilities of the camera itself.
One Camera and Four Lenses
I received the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II together with a M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.2 lens, a M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.2 lens, a M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, and a M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7. It is a wonderful set for both portrait photography and landscape photography. The lenses are great quality, although the 75-300mm lens is a cheaper, lesser model. Unfortunately, the current crisis made it not possible to arrange more than a single portrait session, for which the 17mm and 25mm lens were perfect.
The Olympus set I used for almost a month.
The camera itself has a great design. Although it is very small, it feels very comfortable in my hands. The button layout is also very good. I don’t know if other Olympus camera models have the same feel, but I hope they do. There are two SD card slots available, something I find important. The one thing I did not particularly like was the rotation wheel around the shutter button, but it is something I could get used to. Although the PSAM wheel has the three custom settings, the Olympus also has a special handle to switch between two different states. It allows the user to customize the camera even more.
Part of the button layout of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II.
I haven’t been able to adjust the camera completely to my own needs. There wasn’t enough time for that. But it became clear how the settings of this camera can easily be changed completely with just a single switch. If you like to perform different kinds of photography like I do, it is very easy to change the camera into a completely different one.
Browsing Through the Menu
The menu structure of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II is very extensive. It has six main categories, covering most standard settings. But it is the custom menu that offers an enormous amount of pages, each having up to seven settings. The pages range from the letter A to J, some of which are divided in different numbers, like A1, A2, A3, A4, and so on. In total, there are 21 different pages, making it time consuming to find a certain setting. There is some logical order, but it will take some time to learn to find the right setting very quickly. In particular, the more exotic options are located far away, and it might take more time to reach a certain setting. Some options are somewhat cryptic, requiring the manual to find out what they do.
The menu is quite extensive. If you don't know where to find a setting, it can take some time to find it.
The buttons can be customized to your needs.
One of the amazing capabilities of this camera: the live bulb. See your image gathering light live on screen.
Unfortunately, Olympus does not provide a personal menu option, which would allow you to gather a selection of menu options that will be used very regularly. Although a lot of buttons can be customized, a custom menu option would be more than welcome.
It Is So Small Because It Has a Smaller Sensor
Using the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II is a lot of fun. But taking it with you is even more fun. Compared to my Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, it feels almost like a small compact camera, while offering more options than the Canon. The size and weight of the Olympus system makes it very convenient for travel or to take the camera with you on a long hike.
The Olympus has a M43 sensor. Yes, it is small.
The M43 sensor of the Olympus is the reason for its reduced size and weight, of course. The sensor is about half the size of a full frame, which makes it able to minimize the dimensions of the camera and lenses. On top of that, it is a mirrorless camera, which has to be taking into account also when comparing it to a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV. The crop factor of the M43 sensor is 2x, making it possible to reduce the focal length. That is why the 17mm and 25mm f/1.2 lenses are perfect portrait lenses, resembling a 35mm and a 50mm on a full frame. But instead of being large and heavy lenses, these are very compact. The 75-300mm lens is an equivalent of 150-600mm on full frame, while the size is similar to a 24-105mm lens.
The 25mm f/1.2 lens is perfect for portraits. The camera has eye-AF, and it works fine. (M.Zuiko 25mm, ISO 200, f/1.4, 1/2,500)
The sensor of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II is about 20 megapixels, which is more than enough for most types of photography. It produces a great image and nice colors out of the box, although I change every photo to my liking in Lightroom. Because of the small sensor, noise is likely to occur more easily when the ISO levels are raised and when more extreme post-processing is performed also. I believe this is the biggest issue when it comes to Olympus cameras.
Noise Levels
How bad is the noise? Well, I was shooting small birds with the M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 lens, which needed a higher ISO level because of its small aperture at 300mm. I bumped up the ISO levels to 2,500 and 3,200 and found out it wasn’t too bad at all. Yes, it has some noise compared to my big DSLR camera, but it can be reduced very well in Lightroom. This way, you end up with an image that can be used for a lot of applications.
Also, the dynamic range of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II is not all that bad. Underexposed areas can be recovered reasonably well. Noise will occur more easily, of course. But then again, with the right amount of noise reduction, the result is acceptable.
The European Pied Flycatcher. The autofocus had some difficulties focusing on the bird's head. (M.Zuiko 75-300mm at 300mm, ISO 2,000, f/6.7, 1/125)
European robin (M.zuiko 75-300mm at 300mm, ISO 2,500, f/6.7, 1/125)
An Olympus Camera or Not an Olympus Camera?
I do like the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II very much. Its possibilities are amazing, and it handles very well despite its small size. But its small sensor makes it more difficult to shoot with high ISO levels. Also, the dynamic range of the camera's sensor is less than I would like to have, although I did not test it very thoroughly. For my landscape photography, I wouldn't care too much about the dynamic range of the sensor. On most occasions, it is better to use gradient filters or just plain old HDR. It is a completely different story when it comes down to my wedding photography. For that, I wouldn’t be happy using this Olympus camera.
A misty sunrise. Just use filters or bracketing for the exposure and you don't have to worry that much about dynamic range. Nevertheless, this is a single shot without filters. (M.zuiko 25mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/60)
Sheep on a dike. (M.zuiko 12-40mm at 40mm, ISO 400, f/8, 1/125)
Just before the rain (M.zuiko 17mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/100)
Bottom line, the Olympus is not the right camera for me. But I envy the users of the Olympus system for its small size and how easy it is to carry a camera and set of lenses with you. It is a very capable camera, with amazing possibilities that could benefit a lot of photographers. It is strange it isn’t more popular. I wonder, is it just because of its small sensor? Or is there another reason?
What do you think about the Olympus camera system? Are you using one? Please share your opinion or experiences in the comments below.
If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.
Being a senior, the weight and size of an Olympus (well documented in the article) makes the day for me. I do suffer with higher levels of noise which I am some what frustrated with. Perhaps a software that specializes in noise reduction may ease my pain. Otherwise, the Oly cameras are great machines and their Pro lenses are really on the money.
Heard good things about Topaz Denoise AI, but have no own experience.
I have been using micrc4/3ds since the Olympus EP1, and now own an EM1 Mark2 and Pen F. the lenses are great, the build is solid, and the latest though by now a little aged sensors still do the job. I don’t do weddings or intricate studio photography, so my switch years ago from Nikon to Olympus has worked wonders for me. My hope is that whoever buys Olympus continues the lens and camera development. We shall see.
Indeed, I hope they continue to develop and improve their products. A new sensor would be nice. A better and faster face/eye detection and tracking be very nice. Having a small body and lens, it makes a very good vlog camera but with better face focus tracking, it will make it a far better camera.
Hello, Nando!
The reason that I don't use an Olympus is because it seems that the emphasis is put on compact size and light weight ..... and these things do not matter to me.
What matters to me is the utmost in image quality at supertelephoto focal lengths. I specialize in wildlife and shoot most of my photos between 400mm and 800mm on a full frame (35mm) sensor. I like to print big, like 48" by 32". And I like to capture as much hair and feather detail as possible so that my big prints can stand up to scrutiny at very close distances.
I have never tried an Olympus, or any other camera with such a small sensor, but from all I have read and seen, it does not seem that such cameras would meet my demands for such high image quality. I truly believe that within my budget, the so-called "full frame" DSLRs and 400-800mm lenses that I use meet my needs better than anything else would.
I just don't see any scenario in which I would ever try an Olympus, unless they started making much larger cameras with much larger sensors, and offered 400, 500, 600, and 800mm lenses to go with them.
Hi Tom,
The crop factor on Olympus means that you double the lens length for the equivalent field of view. So the 75-300mm is the equivalent to 150-600mm on full frame and their latest 100-400 is equivalent to 200-800mm. Add in their teleconvertors and you can get an insane but usable 1600mm. The Canon 1dx mkiii, 7D mkii and R6 all have a 20mp sensor as do the Olympus now.
An interesting offering from Olympus is to trial their equipment, just visit their website for details.
A word of warning though Ben Fitzcosta a Youtube bird photographer did that to create a video comparison and it ended up costing him the price of an E-M1 mkiii as he bought into the Olympus system, it can grab you like that, which is why its users are fans.
What gets neglected in this type of argument is the crop factor must be accounted for across the board, not selectively when it's positive. The downsides are a doubling of the aperture settings (noise inducing, speed limiting, subject separation/bokeh, etc) and sensor light gathering (more noise prone in and of itself). It's about trade offs. Tom is simply accepting better light and noiselessness for portability, cost, and such. If he translates that to better images for better work compensation or personal tastes... saluti. For others accepting a different compromise, saluti.
Hi Michael
I was just letting someone who has never tried something because it's not for them know what other people have discovered.
Michael,
Thank you for bringing up crop factor. That is something that is important to many wildlife and bird photographers.
Many folks who specialize in wildlife and birds have trouble getting close enough to fill the frame the way they want to when using a "full frame" sensor, and they end up cropping their images down in post to get the framing the way they want it to be.
As for myself, and the way I shoot, I do not have trouble filling the frame the way I want to with my wildlife subjects. I shoot with a full frame body, but do not crop the images afterwards (except for fine-tuning of the composition, or to fit a given aspect ratio).
Those who are "reach challenged", or who use 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor DSLRs, and who are satisfied with those results, would probably find the Olympus cameras to be useful.
I shot on several 1.6 crop factor bodies a lot in the past, and was never completely satisfied with the results ..... especially when printing at 48" and beyond.
Moving up to full frame was a Godsend for me, and I find the results to be SO MUCH better for what I shoot and what I do with the images. I can't imagine going backwards and going to an even smaller sensor than the 1.6 crop sensors that I was never satisfied with in the first place.
Hi Tom,
The following youtube link gives a professional printers viewpoint on Full frame vs Micro 4/3 where it matters most:
https://youtu.be/OGn3yPl59ZM
Just to make it fair the guy taking the photographs actually chooses to crop the Micro 4/3 image down in camera rather than the Full frame one.. may be he didn't realise he was cropping it down..
That's how bad the write ups on M 4/3 tend to be from non users.
I also think the Anti-aliasing filters used on crop sensors by manufacturers of Full frame cameras leave a lot to be desired. The Olympus sensors don't have an anti-aliasing filter.
"I have never tried an Olympus, or any other camera with such a small sensor, but from all I have read and seen,..."
Yep. The amount of garbage written and said about the m4/3 do give people false assumptions. And sure, if the IQ is all that matters then a full frame with a 3 kg lens might be best for you. But for people who want excellent IQ with minimal footprint (weight) the m4/3 hits the sweet spot.
Hi Teemu
I think you under estimated the full frame weights.
The Canon 600mm f4 with lens hood weighs almost 6Kg with out the camera body not very handy for a hike on a field trip, or holiday, certainly not hand luggage for a flight bag. Might even end up with paying for excess baggage if you took a selection of the leviathon lenses a full frame camera uses.
Then again the £13,000, circa $€15,000 price tag for that lens alone might be better spent on a world trip to photograph more wild life species.
The Olympus equivalent could go as hand luggage with enough change for a brilliant world trip.
There is plenty of objective into without having to own equipment to know when something isn't right for personal needs. Tom specifically mentions himself and is not making a generalization.
To summarise from a personal point of view it is a okay for someone to pour scorn on a format they haven't even tried because the format they use is soo much better for what they do..and that's objective?
In my opinion the Anti-aliasing filters on crop sensor cameras are so bad for a reason. That reason is to make the Full frame camera offerings look good - and no I have no evidence it's just a personal opinion.
Olympus famously now appears to have only one sensor across its entire range. The range is then differentiated by weather sealing, processor frame rates and processor driven focus systems. So you can take as good a photograph with the entry level camera as with the top of the range, but you'll get more helpful features and keepers the higher up the range you go. Including the camera if you want to photograph say surfers whilst getting the camera wet.
In fact it may be that because other Manufacturers have hobbled their crop sensor cameras that M4/3rds gets tarred with that same brush.
It isn't good for anyone to pour scorn on anything. People should only say what they prefer and what they don't prefer, and what works best for them, for what they do.
I am not trying to be objective at all. I am speaking only about what I think is best FOR ME and for what I shoot and the way I shoot it. Couldn't care less about what anyone else shoots - that is their issue to figure out.
Why would I be objective when I am only concerned about what works FOR ME? That wouldn't make any sense at all. Individual choices and preferences are, essentially, subjective, as they well should be.
Thank you for taking me exactly at my word, and for not reading anything into my comments that I didn't actually say. Some people aren't able to do that.
Yes, the IQ is all that matters. Well, that an the form factor. I find a large sized camera to be much more comfortable in my hands. Had to buy a grip for the 50D I used years ago just to make it physically larger so that it wouldn't hurt my hands and cramp my fingers. So with the full frame body, I not only get a larger, more comfortable form factor, but I also get a larger sensor to record my images onto. It's a win / win for me!
And by the way, my main lens is not just 3kg in weight. It weighs in at 13 pounds, which is over 6kg! A nice hefty chunk of glass that is quite stable in windy conditions! Carry it around all day on wildlife ventures .... have never had any problem doing so. "Light and small" just isn't something that I see any advantage in for what I shoot and the way I shoot it.
Hi Tom
We're in agreement, the IQ matters and the way the camera feels in your hand. The way a camera feels is probably more important though, simply because if it isn't comfortable in your hand, it won't be in our hand, so then the IQ becomes immaterial.
All recent cameras from the major brands in all formats take outstanding pictures, some are for those who feel more comfortable driving a turbo charged truck and some are for those who feel more comfortable in a small run about. The M4/3 format is usually a small run about, it like the others is a great format and depending on the specifications will produce as many photographs as the largest truck.
For me the Olympus E-M1X is a truck being almost the same size as a Canon 1DX mkiii. I've never been interested in them simply for that reason. They're still both great cameras though.
Look up Robin Wong on YouTube. He recently did a video testing the new 100-400mm lens with the 2x teleconverter, including many sample shots. Very sharp, and very impressive, considering he shot handheld at 1600mm equivalent!
Hey, Robert!
I am sorry that I did not se your reply when you first wrote it back in Spetember.
I already have the 100-400mm of which you speak, and I have the 2x teleconverter, as well. It is my "small lens" for times when I am shooting subjects that allow me to get close, or when I want to make environmental portraits with the subject small in the frame. While it is a very useful lens, it will never be a suitable replacement for the big 300-800mm that I use for most of my wildlife photography.
The 2x teleconverter doesn't really work that well on zoom lenses, if you are as picky about image quality as I am, or if you demand rapid autofocus speed as I do. The teleconverters are things that I reserve for use on fast primes, because I am not pleased with their performance on zoom lenses (except for the built-in 1.4 teleconverter on Canon's 200-400mm lens, which is excellent).
I would see bigger size and higher counts of pixel make better sense and better suited for your needs than smaller sensor cameras. A better camera and better sets of gears is what would serve your need better.
Correction: m4/3 sensor is about 1/4 the size of FF, not half. It's about half linearly hence the 2x crop.
The side length is half, therefor the area is a quarter. So great stuff for discussion among non-engeneers.
yes, so at F/2 on MFT you get the same depth of field as at f/4 on Full Frame, but you can go down two stops in ISO staying at the same shutter speed. Ergo, as soon as you don't want to have the aperture wide open, the advantage of Full Frame is not that big after all.
Actually slightly larger than a quarter. About 28%. You can't use side length only. You have take width and height into account because aspect ratios are different. 3:2 vs 4:3 But a quarter is a good approximation, unless we are going to get picky and talk about how many pixels you can cram in that last 3.125% :D
I must admit I never really bothered to look it up that precisely. Having an approximation in mind is more than enough when switching between MFT, FF and MF (i have many film cameras in the latter two formats) and depth of filed matters.
Well, anyways, only sissies use anything smaller than 6x6 medium format, so the whole debate is probably pointless. ;) Makes me remember I should really fix the bellows on that 6x9 Coronet I was given this summer.
Guess I'm a sissy. 645 is the closest I have to 6X6. :)
don't worries, large format guys will be quick to point out that even 6x9 is tiny.
And then come astronomers with sensors that are actually meters across. Pretty much everybody is someone else's sissy :)
My father started his career as a professional photographer always used Olympus 35mm film cameras. I ended up using Pentax for the weatherproofing and features at a decent price point, but I am frustrated at the lack of lenses (adequate, but not stellar.) I have been considering a move to a Sony mirrorless as I'm primarily shooting wildlife and landscapes. Since I seem to be attracted to the dark horse, I will give the Oly a look as well!
I shoot Olympus (EPL-5, OMD-EM 10) because A. I started with OLY in 1972. It was compact then too. B. I Love OLympus’ styling and I prefer compact systems! Traveling light ‘cause I hike and camp lite! Olympus give you more bang for buck! Once OLY fan... always!!
I started with Olympus in late 77 or early 78. I remember as new driver, driving from one side of Dallas to the other side to buy and OM-1. Attracted by the size, but mostly because I read that photojournalists liked it for its ruggedness too. The Oly E510 was my first non-P&S digital.
I do have APS-C cameras too, but I'd like to move up from my e-m10 to a e-m1 i or ii.
I've been shooting with m4/3s for a decade now. I have had both Olympus and Lumix bodies but my main camera has always been Olympus. I've been making money with photography for a few years now and not once has anyone commented anything about the noise - nor image quality. I've shot weddings, different kinds of (poorly lit indoor) events, portraits, pets, real estate etc. If one can't get good enough images with this system to satisfy the customers the blame is on the photographer and not on the gear.
What I love about the system is that you can travel with a lightweight setup without needing to compromise on IQ. E-M5III + 12-40mm f/2.8 + 40-150mm f/2.8 is my go to setup that handles pretty much everything I need it to.
What I would love to have is an animal eye detection/tracking on my E-M5III. Unfortunately I'm not too confident on whether that's going to happen since no one knows what is the future of the Olympus bodies post 2020...
Hi Teemu
Thank you.
You've just given me my upgrade route, lenses first camera body last.
I moved from Nikon to a Lumix G9 M43 system when they were introduced and use all-Leica lenses in my real estate photography business. No complaints from any of my customers. Love that G9!
I have an OM-D EM-10 II and absolutely love it. Size is just right (I have a thing for Pentax's M series which are about the same size), ergonomics are superb, you can set it up the way you like and have every control you need at the tip of your fingers without needing to look at menus. I can't think of any other manufacturer offering that level of control anywhere close to that price. And since I am not Croesus, price is indeed an issue. That alone is a huge argument. Plus, you can get excellent lenses that will fit in a tiny package.
They're clearly suffering a lot from the perceived superiority of full frame. But in real life the advantages of full frame evaporate quickly. Unless you bring a tripod, superior IBIS will easily make up for smaller sensor in dark environments. And unless you're living for bokehlicious pictures - fine by me - you'll end up spending most of your full frame time between f/4 and f/8. That brings you to f/2 to f/4 in MFT to get the same depth of field, so the larger aperture makes up for smaller sensor size. And yet I meet plenty of people who are convinced full frame will deliver vastly superior images in every scenario. Then they never have it with them because the damn thing is so big and heavy.
Of course, if you are into the kind of photography where picture quality primes over all else you will legitimately want to go for full frame, but then what you actually want would be medium or large format.
I'm always confused by light sensitivity arguments when it come to sensor size, as I've never been able to use a magnifying glass to create a fire without getting it to focus down to the smallest possible point? So lumens per square mm (megapixel) is much lower until you get the focus down to a point?
The new development by Canon which further confuses me is their 600mm and 800mm RF lenses with a fastest apperture of F/11 for full frame. Does this mean that their RF Full frame sensors are now as light sensitive as the Olympus/Panasonic MFT sensors have always been?
The other confusion I have is the doubling of the F stop argument, as F stop is the ratio between apperture and Focal length so I don't see where the sensor size fits in. I can happily auto focus at F16 with the OMD, supposedly F32 in full frame equivalency.
I've owned and used Olympus cameras for years, still have my old EM5, but I moved to Sony from the EM1 Mk2, which is a lovely camera to use, and pretty much bullet proof. In fact, I've said many times, my perfect camera would be the Mk2, with a full frame sensor. Sadly, as a landscape photographer, the EM1 MK2 just didn't cut it for me, noise was an issue in low light, and I found it had poor dynamic range. It's interesting now that I'm still in the habit of exposure bracketing my shots, but find most times, that my A7R3 captures most landscapes with a high DR in the one shot, so I'm often not using all my bracketed exposures.
The E-M1 Mark II has a dynamic range of 12.8 Evs.
The A7R3 has a dynamic range of 14.7 Evs
Not that much difference.
The E-M1 Mark II can be bought for €1300 brand new (with free f/1.2 lens).
The A7R3 will cost you €2800 body only.
So yes, it has a better sensor, but at what costs? The bigger sensor has also downsides. Lesser readout speeds, lesser FPS, more heating and so on.
Keep in mind that one stop of improvement is 100% better performance (double in other words). The A7R3 nearly has a two stop advantage. That’s a four times cleaner image. That’s worth the cost for some artists.
For some it is indeed. Others care more about 60fps, superior IBIS and good weather sealing and other things the A7R3 doesn't offer.
Good thing there is a choice.
And none of those things you've listed pertains to Joe Malone's reasoning to switch from Olympus to Sony. You said that there wasn't much difference in the dynamic range between the two cameras when there is a significant gap, and the A7R3 doesn't cost 4x more either.
Then to respond to your rather strange deflecting of the subject: the EM1 Mk II really doesn't offer much more than the A7R3 for landscape photographers - like Joe Malone's case. The A7R3 has good weather sealing for 99% of the same conditions as the Olympus. The IBIS doesn't mean squat while on a tripod. Finally, lesser readout speeds? You're really grasping for straws there. The A7R3 does 10 fps. Plenty fast enough for a landscape photographer. Then finally, overheating... oh boy, when did a landscape photographer suffer from that for a stills image?
If you're going to praise Olympus's cameras, you should at least try to make relevant points that would appeal to whom you're responding to. It's fine to love the equipment that you bought into. Just don't lie to others about clear facts. A two stop advantage is significant, and very much NOT "Not that much difference" as stated by you.
More heating? 😂 You've heard if an A7R3 overheating? I don't care what the DR is on paper, in practice, they're worlds apart. I've used both cameras long term, have you?
I don't shoot portraits, where DR is not that important, I exclusively shoot landscapes, where coping with a high dynamic range is often a factor. Very few landscape photographers use a M4/3's camera, and for good reason. M4'3's has it's useful place and niche, but it isn't landscapes.
I do have a fondness for Olympus cameras, that’s probably why I have kept my E-1 and E-300. I did have the OMD EM1. Overall it is a great camera but an EOS M5 took its place (long story). The M5 is smaller than the OMD, has a larger sensor, better dynamic range and has some great native lenses and I can use my EOS L glass as well. Considering I am not out in bad weather I don’t miss the weather sealing. The OMD is nicer to use tho. EOS M vs OMD, not that much of a contest.
M5 has 12.4 dynamic range.
E-M1 Mark II 12.8
E-M1 Mark I 12.7
Source DXOMark.
You actually lost some dynamic range. Not that the difference is noticable, but still.
Hi Chris
I bought an electrically connected EF lens to M4/3 adaptor off Amazon for £109. Using that there is only one of my Canon EF fit lenses that doesn't auto focus on my EM10 mkiii and that's a third party fast zoom. True the EM10 does take on the proportions of a lens cap when some of them are mounted but the pancake primes up to the nifty fifty don't look too out of place.
Somebody is bound to have said this already, but the EM1 Mk III has custom menus