Considering a M-10

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by 6BQ5, May 23, 2015.

  1. 6BQ5

    6BQ5 Mu-43 Regular

    May 23, 2015
    I currently own a Pentax K-3 and Q7 with a couple of very nice lenses for both. Both cameras have worked well for me. I use my K-3 for nearly everything from special events to walk-arounds to camera-scanning my film negatives. With the FA Limited primes in one hand and a DA 18-135mm in the other I am well equipped to handle the scene. The Q7 works well as a travel or vacation camera due to its size. I can pack all of my tiny lenses in a small sling bag and go to town.

    I am more than thrilled with my K-3 and it is a like monument in my photography. The FA Limited lenses are legendary in my mind and they make up for whatever shortcomings the system has a whole. Unfortunately, the Q7 leaves me wanting more. The Q7 is extremely fun to shoot and the IQ of the lenses with the tiny 1/1.7" sensor is very nice. However, I sometimes itch for a viewfinder and a faster response to button presses and dial actuations. It's not a show stopper but definitely a show "slowing-downer" if that makes sense.

    The M-10 is on sale now for $500 with a kit lens and I am starting to consider it to replace or compliment my Q7. My initial research shows that the M-10 as whole is closer to my K-3 than it is to my Q7 and I wonder if the two cameras will overlap each other too much. If they do then I would probably find myself not using the M-10 as much as I would have thought I would.

    My ideal lens kit would consist of a normal prime (40mm to 50mm in FF speak), a general purpose zoom, a WA zoom, and a tele-zoom. Four lenses and I'm happy. No LBA here. I'm afraid again that the lenses would start approaching dimensions of my K-mount lenses and I would have two competing systems.

    Obviously I have lots of research to do. I'd like to ask the forum here for their insight and opinions as part of this research.

  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    When you say that you're concerned that the K-3 and the E-M10 will overlap too much, do you mean in terms of size? Because if that's the case, you might want to look into the smaller M4/3 offerings that closely match the size of the Q7.

    The GM5, for instance is as small as the Q7, and also has a viewfinder. If you stick to the pancake lenses (9-18mm, 12-32mm, 14mm/2.5, 20mm/1.7, 35-100/f4-5.6, ) the overall kit will be super tiny, not a whole lot bigger than the Q7. It's still bit expensive, these days, though - if the viewfinder is less critical, the GM1 or GF7 are also good options for super-small size.

    If the viewfinder is a higher priority, the E-M10 is probably the best compromise of size/price/features in the M4/3 world these days, and will still be very compact if you choose the right lenses, like those listed above.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    The E-M10 will be a lot smaller then the K3 but nowhere near the Q7,485.68,464.355,544.358,ga,t

    In terms of image quality you should notice almost no difference with the K3 (based on DxO ratings). For m43 there are a LOT of lenses for almost any focal length.

    So you have different options for the four lenses you are looking as standard lenses and as "pro" lenses. Some have a great price (Oly 40-150) some can be expensive (Oly 9-18). Lenses are a lot smaller than full frame ones and a little smaller then APS-C ones (due to the shorter flange distance, especially for short focal lengths). The four lenses and the camera can fit in a coat pockets if you get a couple of pancakes.

    If you are looking for something smaller you could consider small m43 bodies like the Panasonic GM1 and GM5 or the Nikon 1 system with a 1 inch sensor and very fast response.

    The crop factor is 2 (approximately, because the aspect aspect ratio is 4:3 instead or 3:2) so it's easy to find the equivalent lenses.
  4. 6BQ5

    6BQ5 Mu-43 Regular

    May 23, 2015
    Thanks for the replies! Very helpful! :)

    @Turbofrog@Turbofrog : I remember looking at the GM5 for its size and viewfinder. One feature notably missing is in-body image stabilization. I'm too used to in-body stabilization and couldn't imagine myself without it. It enables composition adjustment to reduce keystoning and the lenses are generally smaller at the expense of a slightly larger body. Olympus all the way, in this case!

    @Klorenzo@Klorenzo : The link you posted is awesome! I see some small profile lenses that could work for me. The zooms look a little chunkier than the equivalent for my Q7 but the overall dimensions still seem manageable. I think I would be ok with "standard" lenses vs. "pro" lenses. My K-3 gives me enough "pro" capability with the FA Limiteds. I will need to find some test data on or for the lenses in your link and see how well they render the edges and corners. The 01 prime for the Q7 spoiled me. At f/2.8 it is very sharp across the entire frame with extremely deep depth of field. A lot of that has to do with the small sensor size. My targeted output would be 8"x10" or 8"x12" prints, online posting, and pixel peeping. I think the Nikon 1 system also lacks in-body stabilization and the entire system is much more expensive.

    I learned the base ISO for the M-10 is 200. Is there any sort of neutral density filter built into the lens or body? The Q7 absolutely needs one when using lenses like the 01 prime at f/2.8 for ultimate sharpness.

    How soft is the shutter? The Q7 uses leaf shutters in the lenses and the system is virtually silent.
  5. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    There is not an ND filter in any body or lens because is not generally needed. I never heard of any complaints even shooting at f/1.2 of f/0.95. There is also an extended ISO of 100. I suspect you are still considering the m43 like a small limited system (as I did): in my opinion it's a full complete system, like an APS-C one from other major brands. You can easily do A2 prints. Sorry for the marketing like speech but I'm trying to get you to consider a different point of view on this system.
    You can also check here to see what native lenses can do:

    Most of the lenses are good, there are only a few with a mixed reputation (Oly 14-42 EZ, 12-50) and a few exceptional ones (Oly 75, PanaLeica 42.5, etc.).

    The E-M10 uses a mechanical shutter with the option of an electronic first curtain mode ("anti shock" mode). Indoor you can hear it, outdoor probably nobody except you.
    The G-M1, the EM-5 mark II, GX7 and few others(?) can use a full electronic shutter.
  6. zigg

    zigg New to Mu-43

    Nov 26, 2014
    The reason for the nd filters in the pentax lenses is to compensate the 1/2000 max of the leaf shutter otherwise it falls back to electronic shutter and the smearing that entails.

    I also have a q7 and em1. Unfortunately there is nothing like the 06 lens , it is incredible to me , and the 08 lens also for their size and capability. I think maybe for tele and wide I would stick with the q7 unless needed for sports. I went the compact way with m43 and picked up a clear out em5 and in the same case I used to hold my q7 and all the lenses I have a 20mm panasonic and a 45mm olympus for walk around , this does nearly everything I want, but the q7 +06 or 08 for the wide or long. An em10 would even be smaller, and my bigger em1 kit + rest of lenses for specialized day trips. So the q7 for daytime and the em5 + fast lenses for night with the good iso of the em5. But having f2.8 200mm eqiv in high quality in something the same size as the 45mm is just not possible in m43, and the 9-18 is at least 3-4x bigger than the 08. Which is why I say play to the strengths of m43 and use the primes.
  7. 6BQ5

    6BQ5 Mu-43 Regular

    May 23, 2015
    @Klorenzo@Klorenzo : I understand and appreciate how rich the u4/3 ecosystem is. There are many bodies and lenses to choose from for nearly every style of photography. I've discovered over time what works for me in K-mount and I tried to mimic this kit for different systems. The different systems are meant to accommodate how much I can carry. There is no reasonable way for me to take my K-mount kit on an airplane. It's too big and too heavy when I consider I may already have a suitcase and a carry on. The Q7 is very easy to take with me on an airplane. However, when traveling by car or by foot then I favor the K-mount system. So I cherry pick what I think will work for me from whatever ecosystem I am exploring for whatever travel I find myself in.

    @zigg@zigg : You use the Q7 and u4/3 systems in parallel based on their strengths. The 06 and 08 lenses are both very tiny for what they are. I can fit my Q7 with a non-collapsable metal hood in the palm of my hand. See the first attached picture. The 06 lens is also capable of producing very sharp images but focus must be perfect. Another attachment shows how sharp the system can be. Unfortunately, the Q7's focusing system is a little slow and sometimes inaccurate depending on the subject. I will admit that my example is a little extreme. There was plenty of contrast between my son and the sky and my son was sitting still. The Q7 nailed it perfectly. I agree that the 06 and 08 lenses are two reasons to own a Q7. The 01 is also very sharp and is ridiculously small. We shouldn't forget about the 03 either. It's probably the smallest fisheye lens in the world!

    The u4/3 system seems to have many compact primes and this is where the system shines. I'm imagining the 14mm, 22mm, and 40mm as a great 3-pancake-lens walk around kit. It should not be impossible to fit the Q7 with the 01 + 06 + 08 and a u4/3 system with 3 primes in one bag. Carrying two systems may raise the question : could I substitute the space taken up by the Q with a wide and tele lens for the u4/3?

    Q7 + 06.JPG 06 Lens Sample.jpg
  8. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    As far as matching the tele lens, the Panasonic 35-100mm f4-5.6 is about the same size (but heavier), and reputedly has pretty decent quality. It's obviously slower, but the ISO performance of M4/3 can compensate in worse light. On the wide-angle side, the Olympus 9-18mm is a similar story - it's about the same diameter, but it's half an inch longer, and weighs about twice as much (still only 155g).

    Here's a few size comparisons for you to illustrate. The site unfortunately doesn't have the 35-100mm pancake, nor most of the Q lenses:,464.355,491.397,491.96,491.30,ha,t
  9. CWRailman

    CWRailman Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 2, 2015
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    I have been a Pentax user since 1975 and currently use a Pentax K-5 a K-5IIs and several Q7’s. (All my cameras are listed in my Profile page) I got to handle the E-M10 for about two hours and believe that in size, it falls mid way between these two cameras with the image quality better than the Q7 and per the DP review, very close to the K-5. Size wise with the kit 14-42mm zoom lens it is larger than the Q7 and significantly heavier. As I noted in a separate thread Best Buy has the two lens kit on sale for $519.99 and that prompted me to order one. (While this was advertised in their store, it does not seem to be listed on their WEB site) This seems to be a great option for all those Q7 users who have been complaining about a lack of EVF and large quality tilt LCD screen. The only downside I can see right now is that unless you get a super deal, it costs about twice what the Q7 two lens kit is selling for.

    I should also mention that my very first digital camera was an Olympus C-2100 and though he has practically worn it out, my friend who currently owns that camera, as well as several Pentax digital cameras, thinks it is one of the best investments he has ever made and because of it’s zoom capabilities he takes it on many of his nature walks.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.