[mecrox]

I think the EM10 is the best sleeper camera of the Olympus lineup. Everyone gravitates to the EM5 or EM1, but the EM10 has a great sensor, is tiny and has an EVF. Very nice travel camera!

Yes hear hear, and often on some kind of offer here so a bargain too given its quality. But a bit too small for my hands to be comfortable so I went for a bigger brother. An EM10 Mark III may well come later this year - I think it's the next one due for a refresh. Robin Wong delivers amazing images from his EM10 Mark II so it can deliver the goods.

[northcoastgreg]

I got into m43 initially for video and infra-red, and have stayed in m43 for the image stabilzation. I own an E-PL1 (converted for IR use), and E-M5, and an E-M5ii. I am perhaps a bit more lukewarm toward m43 than other posters. I'm well aware of m43's limitations in comparison to my K-5iis and my Pentax glass. But I've stuck with m43 because of the industry leading IBIS in the E-M5 cameras. With my K-5iis I find I need to shoot on a tripod to get the sharpness I want. The three axis stabilization is not good at longer distances frequently found in landscape photography. When I don't wish to drag a tripod around with me, I reach for one of my E-M5's. At the wide-angle focal lengths where I normally shoot, I can reliably get tack sharp shots (just as good as if they were shot on a tripod) at 1/10 a second, and sometimes even half a second will work. (However at longer focal lengths [FFE 100mm+], I don't really notice much difference between Pentax and Oly IBIS.)

In terms of image quality, while I wouldn't say there's a huge difference between Pentax and Oly raw files, it's definitely not insignificant --- at least to my eye. And it's not just the ISO and the DR. My Pentax RAW files consistently produce richer color and Pentax lenses provide more tactile rendering and consistently produce more beautiful files. Top m43 glass is very sharp and contrasty. My Oly 17/1.8 may be a tad sharper than my DA 21; and my Oly 12/2 is sharper toward the edges, with less field curvature, than my DA 15. But images from the Pentax limiteds just look better: richer color signature, better rendering. As impressive as top Oly glass definitely can be, it's impressive in a generic sort of way. Unlike some of the other posters, I'm not impressed with m43 high ISO. DR and ISO of the E-M5 is very similar to my old K200D, except the Pentax DSLR produced richer, better color. Of course evaluation of ISO is partly subjective. Some people are fine with what m43 can do at ISO 1600 and higher, some are not. I'm in the latter group. I rarely shoot above ISO 200, and am rarely pleased with what I see at higher ISOs. In landscape photos, skies are noisy at ISO 400. Above ISO 400 contrast and saturation take a hit. When the Oly 40-150 f2.8 came out, I considered it as a zoo lens. But because I was unhappy with higher ISO shots on the E-M5, I bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 instead. I'm perfectly happy with ISO 1600 on my K-5iis. No loss of contrast or saturation, very little splotchiness, and the noise tends to be very fine grain and palatable. I know I'm probably being quite a bit fussier about high ISO performance than most photographers would be; but some of my zoo pictures taken at ISO 800 have wound up as bus adds, so quality is important to me.

The new E-M1mk2 is supposed to have significantly improved ISO performance. It scores higher on ISO measurements over at DXOmark than the K-5iis. Of course, there are measurements and there is real world output, and the two don't necessarily enjoy a 100% correlation.

I find the E-M5 series of cameras are great for hand-held photography and are fun to use --- especially when matched with light high quality primes --- but when I when I'm looking for very best image quality, I always reach for my K-5iis, not my m43 stuff.

Shot taken with E-M5ii and Oly 17/1.8:

[bobbotron]

I got into m43 initially for video and infra-red, and have stayed in m43 for the image stabilzation. I own an E-PL1 (converted for IR use), and E-M5, and an E-M5ii. I am perhaps a bit more lukewarm toward m43 than other posters. I'm well aware of m43's limitations in comparison to my K-5iis and my Pentax glass. But I've stuck with m43 because of the industry leading IBIS in the E-M5 cameras. With my K-5iis I find I need to shoot on a tripod to get the sharpness I want. The three axis stabilization is not good at longer distances frequently found in landscape photography. When I don't wish to drag a tripod around with me, I reach for one of my E-M5's. At the wide-angle focal lengths where I normally shoot, I can reliably get tack sharp shots (just as good as if they were shot on a tripod) at 1/10 a second, and sometimes even half a second will work. (However at longer focal lengths [FFE 100mm+], I don't really notice much difference between Pentax and Oly IBIS.)

In terms of image quality, while I wouldn't say there's a huge difference between Pentax and Oly raw files, it's definitely not insignificant --- at least to my eye. And it's not just the ISO and the DR. My Pentax RAW files consistently produce richer color and Pentax lenses provide more tactile rendering and consistently produce more beautiful files. Top m43 glass is very sharp and contrasty. My Oly 17/1.8 may be a tad sharper than my DA 21; and my Oly 12/2 is sharper toward the edges, with less field curvature, than my DA 15. But images from the Pentax limiteds just look better: richer color signature, better rendering. As impressive as top Oly glass definitely can be, it's impressive in a generic sort of way. Unlike some of the other posters, I'm not impressed with m43 high ISO. DR and ISO of the E-M5 is very similar to my old K200D, except the Pentax DSLR produced richer, better color. Of course evaluation of ISO is partly subjective. Some people are fine with what m43 can do at ISO 1600 and higher, some are not. I'm in the latter group. I rarely shoot above ISO 200, and am rarely pleased with what I see at higher ISOs. In landscape photos, skies are noisy at ISO 400. Above ISO 400 contrast and saturation take a hit. When the Oly 40-150 f2.8 came out, I considered it as a zoo lens. But because I was unhappy with higher ISO shots on the E-M5, I bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 instead. I'm perfectly happy with ISO 1600 on my K-5iis. No loss of contrast or saturation, very little splotchiness, and the noise tends to be very fine grain and palatable. I know I'm probably being quite a bit fussier about high ISO performance than most photographers would be; but some of my zoo pictures taken at ISO 800 have wound up as bus adds, so quality is important to me.

The new E-M1mk2 is supposed to have significantly improved ISO performance. It scores higher on ISO measurements over at DXOmark than the K-5iis. Of course, there are measurements and there is real world output, and the two don't necessarily enjoy a 100% correlation.

I find the E-M5 series of cameras are great for hand-held photography and are fun to use --- especially when matched with light high quality primes --- but when I when I'm looking for very best image quality, I always reach for my K-5iis, not my m43 stuff.

Shot taken with E-M5ii and Oly 17/1.8:

I definitely agree with this assessment. I went from m43 to Pentax APS-C, agree with that you've written here.

[wildman]

often on some kind of offer here so a bargain too given its quality.

I got the E-M10 with the two kit lens's, standard and tele, for 400 bucks new with full warranty.

A quick handheld snapshot with the standard kit lens at an ISO of 3200 RAW - it gets the job done. Not bad for a 50 buck lens new. BTW I agree about the SR. Even being "only" 3 axis it's way ahead of the K5 SR I have.

Model E-M10
Shutter Speed 1/125 s
F-Number f/6.3
ISO ISO 3200
Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV
Metering Mode Pattern
Flash Auto, Did not fire
Focal Length 27 mm
Lens Model OLYMPUS M.14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II R
Date/Time Original 11/22/2016 1:09:15 PM

---

Last edited by wildman; 03-24-2017 at 01:07 AM.

[northcoastgreg]

Incidentally, Olympus is have a 20% sale on reconditioned gear. Among other items, an Oly 25/1.8 for $192 and an E-M5ii for $576.

[rob1234]

...and as mentioned, the colour of the Olympus SOOC JPEGs is great.

[awscreo]

...and as mentioned, the colour of the Olympus SOOC JPEGs is great.

One can use their software (similar to silkypix, interface is terrible) and achieve the jpeg colors with raws. In fact, I always thought Olympus is well known for their color (Robin Wong's photos look very pleasant color-wise), and I have a feeling people complaining about RAW colors are just using LR with Standard camera profile that basically butchers the raws (does similar things to Pentax colors I believe).

[UncleVanya]

I got into m43 initially for video and infra-red, and have stayed in m43 for the image stabilzation. I own an E-PL1 (converted for IR use), and E-M5, and an E-M5ii. I am perhaps a bit more lukewarm toward m43 than other posters. I'm well aware of m43's limitations in comparison to my K-5iis and my Pentax glass. But I've stuck with m43 because of the industry leading IBIS in the E-M5 cameras. With my K-5iis I find I need to shoot on a tripod to get the sharpness I want. The three axis stabilization is not good at longer distances frequently found in landscape photography. When I don't wish to drag a tripod around with me, I reach for one of my E-M5's. At the wide-angle focal lengths where I normally shoot, I can reliably get tack sharp shots (just as good as if they were shot on a tripod) at 1/10 a second, and sometimes even half a second will work. (However at longer focal lengths [FFE 100mm+], I don't really notice much difference between Pentax and Oly IBIS.)

In terms of image quality, while I wouldn't say there's a huge difference between Pentax and Oly raw files, it's definitely not insignificant --- at least to my eye. And it's not just the ISO and the DR. My Pentax RAW files consistently produce richer color and Pentax lenses provide more tactile rendering and consistently produce more beautiful files. Top m43 glass is very sharp and contrasty. My Oly 17/1.8 may be a tad sharper than my DA 21; and my Oly 12/2 is sharper toward the edges, with less field curvature, than my DA 15. But images from the Pentax limiteds just look better: richer color signature, better rendering. As impressive as top Oly glass definitely can be, it's impressive in a generic sort of way. Unlike some of the other posters, I'm not impressed with m43 high ISO. DR and ISO of the E-M5 is very similar to my old K200D, except the Pentax DSLR produced richer, better color. Of course evaluation of ISO is partly subjective. Some people are fine with what m43 can do at ISO 1600 and higher, some are not. I'm in the latter group. I rarely shoot above ISO 200, and am rarely pleased with what I see at higher ISOs. In landscape photos, skies are noisy at ISO 400. Above ISO 400 contrast and saturation take a hit. When the Oly 40-150 f2.8 came out, I considered it as a zoo lens. But because I was unhappy with higher ISO shots on the E-M5, I bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 instead. I'm perfectly happy with ISO 1600 on my K-5iis. No loss of contrast or saturation, very little splotchiness, and the noise tends to be very fine grain and palatable. I know I'm probably being quite a bit fussier about high ISO performance than most photographers would be; but some of my zoo pictures taken at ISO 800 have wound up as bus adds, so quality is important to me.

The new E-M1mk2 is supposed to have significantly improved ISO performance. It scores higher on ISO measurements over at DXOmark than the K-5iis. Of course, there are measurements and there is real world output, and the two don't necessarily enjoy a 100% correlation.

I find the E-M5 series of cameras are great for hand-held photography and are fun to use --- especially when matched with light high quality primes --- but when I when I'm looking for very best image quality, I always reach for my K-5iis, not my m43 stuff.

I haven't seen the delta in IBIS but I am shooting the K-3 which may have improvements over the K-5IIs - I have never shot the K-5IIs and my basis for comparison is the GX-7 which admittedly is also a 3 axis IBIS. So I can't say in this respect. I can say that there are a few who found the GX-7 to beat the EM5 mk II in casual handheld tests. That said, the rest of the assessment is rational. I agree the files are 'thinner" on my Panasonic's than my Pentax cameras. However easy the raw files are to differentiate - I am saying that reasonable prints (13x19) don't show detail loss in a way that is easy to identify. So the goals of the camera are important.

Me, I need a small compact system for times when I just can't bring the K-3 and the arsenal of lenses. For less than the body plus one lens I can carry a body plus 5 lenses. This is nice for some specific times but not the mainstay of my photography.

[northcoastgreg]

I have never shot the K-5IIs and my basis for comparison is the GX-7 which admittedly is also a 3 axis IBIS.

Actually, the GX-7 has 2 axis stabilization.

I can say that there are a few who found the GX-7 to beat the EM5 mk II in casual handheld tests.

Emphasis on the word "casual." While it's certainly possible that a 2-axis stabilization could do a better job of compensating for certain types of shake at certain focal lengths and shooting distances than a 5-axis system, if you did more thorough tests using greater variety of shake, many more focal lengths, with subjects at varying differences, from macro to infinity, I highly suspect that the 5-axis stabilization in the OM-D cameras would prove superior. 5-axis stabilization can compensate for my types of camera movement and is often significantly better at very short and very long distances.

Panasonic introduced 5 axis IBIS in the GX 85. The only Panasonic camera I've used is the old GH1. I was impressed with it's well thought-out interface and menus — definitely superior to most mirrorless cameras. I tend to think that Panasonic has better QC and Olympus and have done a better job of keeping their lenses reasonably lightweight and compact (the Oly pro zooms, although optically brilliant, are rather large and heavy considering the small of the sensor they're matched up with). But I've gone with the Olympus because of the state-of-the-art IBIS and because the E-M5 bodies provide a faux SLR experience in a very compact body. The smaller high-end "enthusiast" Panasonic bodies tend to be faux rangefinders, and I'm just not a rangefinder person.

[Clarkey]

All I can say, is make sure what you want your second system for and choose appropriately. It's easy to spend money and fragment your system.

I had first gen mirrorless (E-PL1) Olympus, and eventually got rid of it for Sony (NEX-5n, great cam, terrible menus and then lens choices), briefly tried a Nikon V1 (insanely fast, but not as good image quality from the first sensors) then went Fuji in 2013, where I currently am (X-E1).

Because of business travel, I also picked up the small GM Panasonic bodies, and also bought, then returned the E-M10 (not because it was a bad camera - only that the 75-300mm wasn't as good as I was hoping for birding). I prefer the Panasonic UI, and actually think it works very well and intuitively. The only limitation with the GM series (for me, anyway) is the 1/500 EFC shutter: faster drops the cam into electronic mode (10 bit capture), or starts diffraction (at more than F5.6) when you have to otherwise stop down.

Everything I've had since 2013 has 16mp, so I think I can make a fairly good comment on sensor qualities.
I'm in agreement with Greg above; For sensor capability, in my estimation, you lose about 10-20% over what good APS-C gets you. Compared to Pentax, Fuji loses some detail using Lightroom (which definitely can be made up and added to with a trip into other software), and m4/3 loses a bit, especially for DR, and shadow malleability. For sharpness (etc.), I do think there are some lens considerations, but overall, APS-C is that bit better. Especially for distant (and serious) landscape work. You lose one full stop compared to APS-C: this climbs to ~2 in harsh light conditions.

If you are printing daylight shots (ISO 200, 400, 800) at up to 16x20 inches, micro 4/3 will do fine.

I find I end up picking up the GM1 (or GM5), or my Ricoh GR about 5 times as frequently as I do the Fuji, or did the Pentax (my last cam was the K-5IIs). Each of these cameras is liberating to carry.

For Micro 4/3 lenses, I really enjoy the 45mm F1.8 Olympus, which I find gives me similar output to APS-C (the DA 70mm, in my case). For standard zooms, . At the wide end, I have the 12-32mm, and 20mm, which are good for what they are, but do have some reservations. I'm seriously looking at the 12-60mm (both panasonic and leica versions), or 12-35mm F2.8. None of the new top zooms are cheap or that light, though.

[UncleVanya]

I like the gx-1 body as a compact but capable m43. The 12-32 or 14-42 pz makes a nice compact zoom. The 35-100 f4-5.6 is a good ambeit slow 50-135 (equivalent apsc) lens. The 20 f1.7 is a nice low light option.