E-M10 Mark II vs E-M5 original

[rogfrich]

Hi everyone, my first post here.

I currently use a Nikon D5100, but I'm increasingly finding that I never take it anywhere because of the bulk. I'm interested in supplementing (or maybe even replacing) it with a small mirrorless camera.

The E-M10 Mark 2 happens to fit my budget, and I was quite close to pulling the trigger on one. But research suggests that a second hand E-M5 and lens (the original, not the the mark of the 2) costs roughly the same as a new E-M10 kit, and that got me thinking.

I know the E-M10 ii is newer, but compared to its older but more expensive sibling, which would you go for?




Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[rogfrich]

Re: E-M10 Mark II vs E-M5 original

Oops, I've just realised that autocorrect mangled some of that post. Hope it still makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Bikie John]

Re: E-M10 Mark II vs E-M5 original

I'm not too sure how they compare features-wise, but I know that the E-M5 is weathersealed and the EM-10 isn't. This may not be important to you , of course - and even if it is, to take full advantage of it you will need a weathersealed lens as well.

And welcome to the forum!

John

[pdk42]

Re: E-M10 Mark II vs E-M5 original

The E-M10ii is a better camera in almost every respect - except for weathersealing. I'd go that route. OTOH - I have an original E-M5 in the For Sale section that you can have for a very reasonable price (make me an offer!) that might give you a flavour for the system quite cheaply. The IQ will be the same from both.

[rogfrich]

Re: E-M10 Mark II vs E-M5 original

I'm not too sure how they compare features-wise, but I know that the E-M5 is weathersealed and the EM-10 isn't. This may not be important to you , of course - and even if it is, to take full advantage of it you will need a weathersealed lens as well.

And welcome to the forum!

John

Yes, that's one factor that got me thinking.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk