E-M5 mk III released at US$1199

[RS86]

Editing has become much easier and ubiquitous, even encouraged with apps. And core to editing is cropping. The more data, the better. Printing is pretty far down the list of how images are used or shared now. That output makes up a share of use likely inconsequential to sales.

"Core to editing is cropping" sounds very weird to me. As similar a counter-thought I could say core to taking good photos is not needing to crop. But I understand it's good leave some leeway sometimes.

That print size thing was just an example of the difference. Isn't that size dependant on the pixel amount? So anyway we are talking about the size that 20MP gives compared to 24MP. It's not big difference at all.

24MP APS-C is 6000x4000 pixels vs 20MP M43 which is 5184x3888 pixels. 816x112 pixels more.

 

[RS86]

Have you never seen flickr? High resolution images are quite common outside of places like 500px and instagram.

Do people put maximum resolution pictures there? Wow.

 

[Pluttis]

Have you never seen flickr? High resolution images are quite common outside of places like 500px and instagram.

If i have seen flickr, sure i have. Still far from majority of the photos that end up online are published in those huge formats.

 

[BamaBoy]

I have found this article very interesting. https://www.duford.com/2016/04/megapixels-vs-print-sizes/

People wanting that 24MP sensor to M43 for it to be competitive. I don't find it very important, maximum I will print will be likely around 80 cm-100 cm on the wide side. Not even sure I will print that large, 40-60 cm sounds pretty good for a normal wall. Large ones are also expensive.

I think even 16MP camera can give me personally enough quality at that size, have seen some videos about it. I don't crop often. But that of course depends on the person.

According to that chart, if you print 220 DPI (From article: "220 DPI is the maximum discernible resolution to the human eye from 18″ (~46 cm) away"), 20MP M43 camera can print that at size Width: ~60 cm x Height: ~45 cm (23.6 inches x 17.7 inches).

24MP APS-C camera can print that at size Width: ~69 cm x Height: ~46.2 cm (27.3 inches x 18.2 inches).

That is ~9 cm larger on the wide side and ~1 cm more height at 220 DPI.

What is the fuzz about?

Best Image I ever captured was on the orig. Sony bridge DSC-R1 with Zeiss lens... At only 10.3 Mp an 8x10 or 8x12 prints superb. I am sure the outstanding micro contrast of the Zeiss helps but it is testament to the fact you don't need zillions of MPs to print a decent size image. As you stated, visual acuity and viewing distance are the very important.

 

[Aristophanes]

"Core to editing is cropping" sounds very weird to me. As similar a counter-thought I could say core to taking good photos is not needing to crop. But I understand it's good leave some leeway sometimes.

That print size thing was just an example of the difference. Isn't that size dependant on the pixel amount? So anyway we are talking about the size that 20MP gives compared to 24MP. It's not big difference at all.

24MP APS-C is 6000x4000 pixels vs 20MP M43 which is 5184x3888 pixels. 816x112 pixels more.

Cropping is just an editing tool. Much easier with digital than film. And much easier with more resolution. Cropping and straightening are so common that mobileOS apps forefront the, for usability. Other than file size, more data is always better, so the current 20mp m43 sensor may be adequate, but it’s perhaps not enough for flagship.

https://petapixel.com/2012/06/12/the-uncropped-versions-of-iconic-photos/

 

[Pluttis]

Cropping is just an editing tool. Much easier with digital than film. And much easier with more resolution. Cropping and straightening are so common that mobileOS apps forefront the, for usability. Other than file size, more data is always better, so the current 20mp m43 sensor may be adequate, but it’s perhaps not enough for flagship.

https://petapixel.com/2012/06/12/the-uncropped-versions-of-iconic-photos/

Not enough campared to what, flagship cameras with bigger sensors? FF?

Sony have 24mp, Fuji 26mp and Nikon have 20mp (in D500) in their flagship APS-C cameras....Olympus have 20mp with the ability to shoot high res.
Compared to APS-C Canon is the only one with a realy big difference in mp with the new 32mp sensor.

 

[RS86]

Cropping is just an editing tool. Much easier with digital than film. And much easier with more resolution. Cropping and straightening are so common that mobileOS apps forefront the, for usability. Other than file size, more data is always better, so the current 20mp m43 sensor may be adequate, but it’s perhaps not enough for flagship.

https://petapixel.com/2012/06/12/the-uncropped-versions-of-iconic-photos/

Yeah but you said it's "core of editing", sounds like an very important part to me. And I do not see it as such.

This is from the link it put:

"I recall from my film days that with 35mm film we could make very nice 8″ x 10″ prints and good 11″ x 14″. In some cases, if the negative was perfect, we could make a half-decent 16″ x 20″ but that was generally too big and too costly anyway. The pros shooting the most common medium format, which was 645 or 6cm x 4.5cm, they could make really nice 11″ x 14″ prints and good 16″ x 20″.

In today’s digital age, most people only publish their photos on the Internet and view them on screens. For this you only need 5-6 Megapixels, maybe 8 Megapixels if you happen to own a 4K monitor. Some say to maximize quality you should use a file that has twice the resolution of the display in order to reduce artifacts, so that would mean you need a 16 Megapixel image file for best-quality viewing at full-size on a 4K TV, but in my experience the improvement is marginal at best."

You do realize that that those famous cropped photos had film cameras which have worse cropping possibilities than current digital cameras? At least according to this article.

It says the professional photographers medium format camera could print "good 16" x 20". And if by "good" he means 180 DPI, then 20MP M43 camera can print "good" 21.6 x 28.8" prints.

From the article: "In yellow is the 135-150 DPI which my printmaker friend feels is adequate for good quality large prints that will be mounted on a wall. "

At 180 DPI that's 5,6" (~14 cm) x 8.8" (~23 cm) more. Compare that to the calculation I put on for 24MP vs 20MP which was ~9 cm x ~1 cm.

So there must be more cropping potential already compared to those famous shots.

Is it a big hindrance to not have that extra 4MP? In my view it is not. Of course more would be nice, but I think it's not very likely or important demand at this point.

Would they make 24MP flagship 1 year after they released their most expensive camera E-M1X (20MP)? I would be very surprised.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

I would say that printing is more of the medium where resolution doesn't really matter. Unless you're using ultra high end printers most photo printers turn fine detail into mush even when printed large. Viewing images on a high resolution screen where you can zoom in on details at will is far more demanding.

Printing detail is something important to some, like Ken Duncan that will stitch frames from his Phase One for a landscape image & his prints sell for a pretty price too (when printed & protected & framed the way he does). BTW, he's also been a strong advocate for Panasonic gear too with his latest being the Lumix S1, but otherwise the G9 has been one of his (smaller formats) favourites. but stitching frames for panorama scenes is what he does so well.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

Do people put maximum resolution pictures there? Wow.

Yes.

 

[mrjoemorgan]

So a camera that is essentially a em1mk2 is a smaller package that is priced in the same territory is painfully expensive????

Paul your not the only one to say this and honestly anyone who thought we would get a em1mk in a smaller package AKA em5mk3 for less money that currently street prices for a 1.2 is dreaming....

Im just not sure why I would go and get the EM5 Mark III when I could get a 2nd hand EM1 Mark II for around $800. Aside from the size and the fact I like the silver vs black which is hard to find with the EM1 series.

 

[Reflector]

Do people put maximum resolution pictures there? Wow.

I believe the forum software originally limited images to no more than 1600 pixels wide. I'm not sure what it is limited to now since the upgrade.

 

[snaimpally]

The EM5 III review by DPReview is pretty good:

Basically, they say it has some nice features but a but underwhelming. Based on what I have seen/read, I think I'd be better off with the EM1 II.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

The EM5 III review by DPReview is pretty good:

Basically, they say it has some nice features but a but underwhelming. Based on what I have seen/read, I think I'd be better off with the EM1 II.

It's only 'underwhelming' if expecting something significantly more than the E-M1 II. Anybody doing so were just kidding themselves. I would still buy the E-M1 II over the E-M5 III (except I already have one).

 

[pake]

And I would never buy an E-M1 over E-M5. I'm glad we have options.

 

[Pluttis]

I believe the forum software originally limited images to no more than 1600 pixels wide. I'm not sure what it is limited to now since the upgrade.

Max resolution for paying pro members is 6k for the longest side

https://www.dpreview.com/news/68682...imum-display-resolution-to-6k-for-pro-members

 

[RS86]

Yes.

I don't understand it though. They don't plan to sell at all, just give max resolution for free?

Anyway the point still stands, that the difference is 816x112 pixels or ~9 cm x ~1 cm in print.

 

[delirium]

Personally I find this upgrade is highly welcome as an original EM10 user. EM1.2 is too bulky for my taste. It is loaded with pro features I would hardly use. On the other side, EM5.2 didn't sound like a worthwhile upgrade since it has the same (?) dated 16mp sensor and autofocus. EM5.3 packed with PDAF and OLED EVF while being small, lightweight and stylish is exactly what I was expecting.

The thing I'm not happy with is the price. But I hope it would drop in half-year as it did with previous Oly's cameras after the initial release.

 

[RS86]

Personally I find this upgrade is highly welcome as an original EM10 user. EM1.2 is too bulky for my taste. It is loaded with pro features I would hardly use. On the other side, EM5.2 didn't sound like a worthwhile upgrade since it has the same (?) dated 16mp sensor and autofocus. EM5.3 packed with PDAF and OLED EVF while being small, lightweight and stylish is exactly what I was expecting.

The thing I'm not happy with is the price. But I except it would drop in half-year as it did with previous Oly's cameras after the initial release.

Yep, my first camera was E-M10 II and it's really great still. It has 37000 shutter count after three years.

Just got some GAS for this as an upgrade. I think the IBIS is 1,5 stops better for example. I also bought 12-50mm for 100 euros to get a weather sealed lens for future eventhough I don't prefer photographing in bad light or weather. C-AF would be interesting to try, never have before eventhough have GX9 as my other body.

I'm just wondering now that Olympus has -100 € deal on this. After 6 months will they give same reduction from 1300 € -> 1200 €? Or will it go to 1100 € in a year? Is there any reason to wait? I don't even need it in a sense, especially in winter time when I don't photograph as much, but I'm pretty certain I will buy it at some point.

Anyone have any idea of other companies releasing rival camera models in the next year? Sony just did I think and it didn't seem to affect E-M5 III pricing.

 

[Turbofrog]

Im just not sure why I would go and get the EM5 Mark III when I could get a 2nd hand EM1 Mark II for around $800. Aside from the size and the fact I like the silver vs black which is hard to find with the EM1 series.

Because if you're the sort to prefer a 2nd hand E-M1 II for $800 (sounds awfully beat up at that price), you'll probably end up preferring a 2nd hand E-M5 III for $600 in 6-12 months, anyway?

 

[animanic]

By the way does the pre-order offer in olympus online store include additional BLS-50?