E-M5 III reviews

[Shaw]

A couple of reviews on the E-M5 III

https://youtu.be/UedJfu25lgM

https://youtu.be/wiW1iv9mGSo

[Walti]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

Well it looks like it overlaps the E-M1ii significantly in a smaller lighter body, what's not to like?

[linus1884]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

"A Mini E-M1 Mark ii" as one reviewer called it, i wonder if there will be any new features released or upgraded/improved via the software updates?

[griffljg]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

I like that it now has PDAF, but do not like the fact that it still doesn't have dual card slots.

[Walti]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

I like that it now has PDAF, but do not like the fact that it still doesn't have dual card slots.

Robin Wong rightly said that the E-M5iii is designed to be smaller and lighter, so features like dual slots and larger battery have not been included, the E-M1ii has ALL the bells and whistles, so a reduced spec version does make some sense.

[griffljg]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

....the E-M1ii has ALL the bells and whistles, so a reduced spec version does make some sense.

Yes it does. But it is not for me. The lack of a second card slot is a big issue for me. I have only been caught out once with memory card failure, but that would have been significant. Fortunately I was using the E-M1 Mk II and so escaped relatively unhurt. I do like the fact that it now has PDAF and I would consider it as a backup camera, if I didn't already have an E-M1 (Mk I).

So..... I'll just wait for the E-M1 Mk III as I don't really need the additional features of the E-M1X.

[Crazy Dave]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

A couple of reviews on the E-M5 III

https://youtu.be/UedJfu25lgM

https://youtu.be/wiW1iv9mGSo

[Ian]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

I'm moving this to the E-M5 iii board.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

I think PDAF is significant.

The tiny size is necessary for the line-up and it's too much to expect a full match in specifications to the E-M1 ii.

Ian

[Mark_R2]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

I think PDAF is significant.

The tiny size is necessary for the line-up and it's too much to expect a full match in specifications to the E-M1 ii.

Ian

[Internaut]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

The original E-M1? For the 12-100, the E-M1 mk ii would be a very significant upgrade (and money can be saved by not buying new).

[Jim Ford]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

[QUOTE=Mark_R2;492483 However, action photography is usually done with a long focal length lens which is inevitably large. In such cases, the small size of the body is a positive disadvantage. It makes holding the ensemble much more difficult. [/QUOTE]

I don't really see that.

I have an E-P5 that I use with my old 4/3rds lenses. With a big camera relative to the lens you hold the camera and support the lens. With a small camera and big lens, you hold the lens and support the camera.

Jim

[Olybirder]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

I have just watched Gordon Laing's initial review of the camera. He seems very impressed by it and thinks that the delay in launching it might have worked in its favour as it is fully competitive with its rivals. I think it is rather expensive at the moment and, to my eyes, it looks cheaper and less attractive than the Mark II.

Here is the video:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bBYWdO9xTE"]Olympus OMD EM5 III preview: HANDS ON first looks - YouTube[/ame]

Ron

[Bikie John]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

However, action photography is usually done with a long focal length lens which is inevitably large. In such cases, the small size of the body is a positive disadvantage. It makes holding the ensemble much more difficult.

Interesting, my experience is the opposite. I can quite happily use a medium-sized lens (40-150 f/2.8 or the older 50-200 for example) all day on an E-M1 body using a chest pod for a bit of stability. But with bigger lenses - the "big 4/3" 90-250mm f.2.8 for example, which would be VERY roughly equivalent to the 40-150 on full frame - I can't handle it properly without a monopod.

Neither of us is right and neither is wrong, it's just a matter of personal preference. What it does show is the value of trying stuff out before committing big bucks if you possibly can.

John

[OM USer]

Re: E-M5 III reviews

PDAF is important for anyone using the old 4/3 lenses, but that must be a diminishing market.

You are probably right, but anything that helps users of older equipment to migrate to the newer systems is a benefit and anything that hinders this is bad publicity.

PDAF is also important for fast AF in action photography. However, action photography is usually done with a long focal length lens which is inevitably large. In such cases, the small size of the body is a positive disadvantage. It makes holding the ensemble much more difficult.

I don't really see that. I have an E-P5 that I use with my old 4/3rds lenses. ...

I'm with Jim on this. I'm not a professional photographer to whom a camera is a tool and who is looking for the best results even if that means the biggest tool from the toolbox. I'm looking the smallest most compact system that I can carry with me, produces the results that I am happy with, and that I find ergonomically comfortable. The latter requirement clearly rules out the whole of the E-M1 line for me even if the other requirements didn't. I do want something that can handle fast AF action with the lenses that I have and so I am pleased to see PDAF in the E-M5iii.