EM 1 iii vs EM 5 iii

Peter Bond

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Peter
EM1 iii vs EM5 iii

Currently I own an EM 5 II, a brilliant and light camera that I love. I was thinking of upgrading to either the newer EM 1 iii or EM 5 iii. I am something of a generalist in photography and use my cameras for travel, bird photography, landscape, flowers, cityscapes and portraits.
I would appreciate some feedback from Olympus users on this.

My lenses are: Olympus 12-40 2.8 Pro, Olympus 75 1.8, PL 15 1.7 and PL 100-400

Regards Pete
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,942
Location
Sydney, Australia
Well you will get pro capture and a faster burst with the two cameras you are looking at.
Myself if funds allow the EM1.3 with it's ND mode, hand held hi res, etc offers you more.
I like the HDR mode in the EM1.3.

I think your PL 100-400 would be better suited to the EM1.3, but would also be quiet usable on the EM5.3

As for the low light performance I cant tell the difference from my older Oly bodies. [I own the EM1.3]

If you want to use a tripod I would get the EM1.3 as the EM5.3 with it's plastic base may give you problems depending on how use you it. Since the plates can stick out the front of the camera it can place leverage on the mount hole. The EM1.3 has it's hole in the same place but seems a bit stronger.
With a tripod hole it that position it does not look like it was meant to be used to me. What I have done to my cameras with a hole near the edge is screw on a cheese plate from "Smallrig" then use a more central hole in the cheese plate to attach a quick release plate. That way there is no overhang causing a leverage to the mount hole.

Suppose it comes down to available funds.
 
Last edited:

turbodieselvw

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
571
Location
Ottawa
If you don’t need hand held high res or starry sky AF then the EM5.3 or the EM1.2, if it’s still available, may be suitable for your needs.
 

Hendrik

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
2,081
Location
Wayland MA
Real Name
Hendrik
Assuming you have used your E-M5 Mark II in a way that included Mysets, I suspect you would find the E-M5 Mark III frustrating and hobbling. For this sort of use, the E-M1 Mark III is at least the equal of the E-M5 Mark II, if not slightly superior. The E-M5 Mark III, by contrast, has only one C setting (C1) on the mode dial and accessing either of the two non-default C-settings (C2 & C3) is way, way more difficult than it needs to be. Worse, the choice of either C2 or C3 is not sticky and must be made each time you change the mode dial. Download the manual and read those instructions carefully. Read and weep. It's an astonishingly poor implementation. If you don't care about Mysets or Custom Settings, then it's quite a fine camera and suffers little else by comparison to the Mark II.
 

Michael Meissner

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
845
Location
Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
Except for slightly smaller size and a little less weight, I can't see what the EM5.3 has to recommend it in comparison to the EM1.3.
Well my usual answer is the E-m5 mark III has an OLED viewfinder, while the E-m1 mark III has a TFT LCD viewfinder. Due to migraines, I need to wear polarized sunglasses ALL of the time when I'm outdoors in daylight. I can see the OLED viewfinder of the E-m5 mark III in either orientation. With the TFT LCD viewfinder on the E-m1 mark III, if I use polarized sunglasses and shoot in horizontal (landscape) orientation, there is distortion in the viewfinder. This distortion is in the form of parallel horizontal waves, where one section has no distortion and the other section is heavily distorted. If I'm using single point auto focus, I can generally frame the shot, letting the camera auto focus do its job. But I wouldn't be able to manually focus or use multi-point focusing, since some areas may be where the distortion is.

The usual reason given for sticking with the TFT LCD viewfinder is it refreshes faster than the OLED viewfinder. Panasonic has an OLED viewfinder in the G9 that refreshes as fast, but Olympus has not used that viewfinder. I do find color rendition in TFT LCD viewfinders to be a little more 'natural' than OLED, which tend to supersaturate things slightly (IMHO).

After dealing with this distortion for the last 7 years (with the E-m1 mark I, E-m5 mark I and Stylus-1 cameras), I was tired of dealing with it.

There is also the $600 difference in price between the two. When the E-m1 mark III was being rumored, one of the rumors was that the viewfinder would be improved (it wasn't). I budgeted for what I expected the E-m1 mark III to be ($1700). When it turned out the E-m1 mark III had the TFT LCD viewfinder, I fell back to ordering the E-m5 mark III, and used the difference to buy a reconditioned 12-200mm lens.
 
Last edited:

doxa750

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
311
Location
KC USA and BKK Thailand
Real Name
Narin
EM1 iii vs EM5 iii

Currently I own an EM 5 II, a brilliant and light camera that I love. I was thinking of upgrading to either the newer EM 1 iii or EM 5 iii. I am something of a generalist in photography and use my cameras for travel, bird photography, landscape, flowers, cityscapes and portraits.
I would appreciate some feedback from Olympus users on this.

My lenses are: Olympus 12-40 2.8 Pro, Olympus 75 1.8, PL 15 1.7 and PL 100-400

Regards Pete
I had used EM5 II for almost 3 years before adding EM1 III in May last year. About a few months ago, I added EM5 III with plan to hand EM5 II (which I still really love) to my relative.

If I can keep only one body, it would be EM1 III. That is because it has faster FPS (18 vs 10 with CAF), faster EVF, HHHR, Live ND, faster speed of camera and ability to assign customize settings to various buttons. These are things that make or break some of my shots. If EM5 III would have similar specs, I would rather have it than EM1 III purely because of its look.

EM1 III is a much better fit for larger lens than EM5 III, but I never had issue using EM5 III with Olympus 300mm F4 +MC20, except battery drains really fast in comparison to EM1 III. I often use EM5 III with 300F4+MC20 to make my life more difficult :). This way when I use that lens combo with EM1 III, it makes my life even a lot easier.

If I read your mind, weight and form factor are more important factors to you. The fact that you have been using EM5 II with PL 100-400, you would be doing better with EM5 III as it has slightly better ergonomics. Without seeing your wildlife images or know how you currently use your EM5 II, I incline to suggest EM5 III.

Good luck :).
 
Last edited:

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,982
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
@Peter Bond , I bought the E-M5.3 mainly as a travel camera, to replace my E-M10.2. I also can use tripod hi-res for some of the photography I do, so that was another reason. When I bought the E-M5.3, the E-M1.3 had not come out yet, but even though I was tempted by the E-M1.2, the smaller and lighter body of the E-M5.3 sold me on it.

Since then, I also bought an E-M1.3. I wanted HHHR, the more robust body, 2 cards, larger shot capacity, ability to tether to a computer (MUCH desired by me), etc. But I still intend to use the E-M5.3 for travel.

If I could only buy ONE, I still think I would buy the E-M5.3, because of the size. I would find it pretty heavy to carry an E-M1.3 on a trip, especially mounted with that 12-40 that you have (I have a PL 12-60 2.8-4). I can do most of what I want to do with the E-M5.3.

One other advantage of the E-M1.3 (over all other bodies in Oly and Panasonic's lineup, as far as I know) is that its tripod hi-res produces 80MP jpgs (instead of 50MP as with the other cameras, even the E-M1x). Since I usually use the RAW files from hi-res anyway, it's not a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.

One thing about using large lenses with either camera - I actually prefer to use the E-M5.3 for the Olympus 100-400 because I pretty much always use a tripod for that lens, so it's better for me to have the lighter body just to keep the total weight down for carrying the load.

Even when I am going to go handheld with a lens, I often still use the E-M5.3 (like with the 75-300) because again I want to keep the total weight down for example when I'm birding and have other equipment to carry (binocs, spotting scope, etc). (Yes, I know the 75-300 is hard to handle with a light body, but MY light body has a hard time handling anything heavy.)

So, it depends on how you use the large lens. If I were going to use the O100-400 handheld, I do think I'd use the E-M1.3 because of the better grip, of course (although even there, adding a Fittest grip to the E-M5.3 makes it just about the same, so if I only had the E-M5.3, that's what I would probably do).

Hope this confuses... ;) !
 

Peter Bond

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Peter
@Peter Bond , I bought the E-M5.3 mainly as a travel camera, to replace my E-M10.2. I also can use tripod hi-res for some of the photography I do, so that was another reason. When I bought the E-M5.3, the E-M1.3 had not come out yet, but even though I was tempted by the E-M1.2, the smaller and lighter body of the E-M5.3 sold me on it.

Since then, I also bought an E-M1.3. I wanted HHHR, the more robust body, 2 cards, larger shot capacity, ability to tether to a computer (MUCH desired by me), etc. But I still intend to use the E-M5.3 for travel.

If I could only buy ONE, I still think I would buy the E-M5.3, because of the size. I would find it pretty heavy to carry an E-M1.3 on a trip, especially mounted with that 12-40 that you have (I have a PL 12-60 2.8-4). I can do most of what I want to do with the E-M5.3.

One other advantage of the E-M1.3 (over all other bodies in Oly and Panasonic's lineup, as far as I know) is that its tripod hi-res produces 80MP jpgs (instead of 50MP as with the other cameras, even the E-M1x). Since I usually use the RAW files from hi-res anyway, it's not a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.

One thing about using large lenses with either camera - I actually prefer to use the E-M5.3 for the Olympus 100-400 because I pretty much always use a tripod for that lens, so it's better for me to have the lighter body just to keep the total weight down for carrying the load.

Even when I am going to go handheld with a lens, I often still use the E-M5.3 (like with the 75-300) because again I want to keep the total weight down for example when I'm birding and have other equipment to carry (binocs, spotting scope, etc). (Yes, I know the 75-300 is hard to handle with a light body, but MY light body has a hard time handling anything heavy.)

So, it depends on how you use the large lens. If I were going to use the O100-400 handheld, I do think I'd use the E-M1.3 because of the better grip, of course (although even there, adding a Fittest grip to the E-M5.3 makes it just about the same, so if I only had the E-M5.3, that's what I would probably do).

Hope this confuses... ;) !
Thanks
 

Peter Bond

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Peter
@Peter Bond , I bought the E-M5.3 mainly as a travel camera, to replace my E-M10.2. I also can use tripod hi-res for some of the photography I do, so that was another reason. When I bought the E-M5.3, the E-M1.3 had not come out yet, but even though I was tempted by the E-M1.2, the smaller and lighter body of the E-M5.3 sold me on it.

Since then, I also bought an E-M1.3. I wanted HHHR, the more robust body, 2 cards, larger shot capacity, ability to tether to a computer (MUCH desired by me), etc. But I still intend to use the E-M5.3 for travel.

If I could only buy ONE, I still think I would buy the E-M5.3, because of the size. I would find it pretty heavy to carry an E-M1.3 on a trip, especially mounted with that 12-40 that you have (I have a PL 12-60 2.8-4). I can do most of what I want to do with the E-M5.3.

One other advantage of the E-M1.3 (over all other bodies in Oly and Panasonic's lineup, as far as I know) is that its tripod hi-res produces 80MP jpgs (instead of 50MP as with the other cameras, even the E-M1x). Since I usually use the RAW files from hi-res anyway, it's not a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.

One thing about using large lenses with either camera - I actually prefer to use the E-M5.3 for the Olympus 100-400 because I pretty much always use a tripod for that lens, so it's better for me to have the lighter body just to keep the total weight down for carrying the load.

Even when I am going to go handheld with a lens, I often still use the E-M5.3 (like with the 75-300) because again I want to keep the total weight down for example when I'm birding and have other equipment to carry (binocs, spotting scope, etc). (Yes, I know the 75-300 is hard to handle with a light body, but MY light body has a hard time handling anything heavy.)

So, it depends on how you use the large lens. If I were going to use the O100-400 handheld, I do think I'd use the E-M1.3 because of the better grip, of course (although even there, adding a Fittest grip to the E-M5.3 makes it just about the same, so if I only had the E-M5.3, that's what I would probably do).

Hope this confuses... ;) !
Thank you
Well you will get pro capture and a faster burst with the two cameras you are looking at.
Myself if funds allow the EM1.3 with it's ND mode, hand held hi res, etc offers you more.
I like the HDR mode in the EM1.3.

I think your PL 100-400 would be better suited to the EM1.3, but would also be quiet usable on the EM5.3

As for the low light performance I cant tell the difference from my older Oly bodies. [I own the EM1.3]

If you want to use a tripod I would get the EM1.3 as the EM5.3 with it's plastic base may give you problems depending on how use you it. Since the plates can stick out the front of the camera it can place leverage on the mount hole. The EM1.3 has it's hole in the same place but seems a bit stronger.
With a tripod hole it that position it does not look like it was meant to be used to me. What I have done to my cameras with a hole near the edge is screw on a cheese plate from "Smallrig" then use a more central hole in the cheese plate to attach a quick release plate. That way there is no overhang causing a leverage to the mount hole.

Suppose it comes down to available funds.
 

Peter Bond

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Peter
@Peter Bond , I bought the E-M5.3 mainly as a travel camera, to replace my E-M10.2. I also can use tripod hi-res for some of the photography I do, so that was another reason. When I bought the E-M5.3, the E-M1.3 had not come out yet, but even though I was tempted by the E-M1.2, the smaller and lighter body of the E-M5.3 sold me on it.

Since then, I also bought an E-M1.3. I wanted HHHR, the more robust body, 2 cards, larger shot capacity, ability to tether to a computer (MUCH desired by me), etc. But I still intend to use the E-M5.3 for travel.

If I could only buy ONE, I still think I would buy the E-M5.3, because of the size. I would find it pretty heavy to carry an E-M1.3 on a trip, especially mounted with that 12-40 that you have (I have a PL 12-60 2.8-4). I can do most of what I want to do with the E-M5.3.

One other advantage of the E-M1.3 (over all other bodies in Oly and Panasonic's lineup, as far as I know) is that its tripod hi-res produces 80MP jpgs (instead of 50MP as with the other cameras, even the E-M1x). Since I usually use the RAW files from hi-res anyway, it's not a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.

One thing about using large lenses with either camera - I actually prefer to use the E-M5.3 for the Olympus 100-400 because I pretty much always use a tripod for that lens, so it's better for me to have the lighter body just to keep the total weight down for carrying the load.

Even when I am going to go handheld with a lens, I often still use the E-M5.3 (like with the 75-300) because again I want to keep the total weight down for example when I'm birding and have other equipment to carry (binocs, spotting scope, etc). (Yes, I know the 75-300 is hard to handle with a light body, but MY light body has a hard time handling anything heavy.)

So, it depends on how you use the large lens. If I were going to use the O100-400 handheld, I do think I'd use the E-M1.3 because of the better grip, of course (although even there, adding a Fittest grip to the E-M5.3 makes it just about the same, so if I only had the E-M5.3, that's what I would probably do).

Hope this confuses... ;) !
Thanks
 

Peter Bond

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Peter
@Peter Bond , I bought the E-M5.3 mainly as a travel camera, to replace my E-M10.2. I also can use tripod hi-res for some of the photography I do, so that was another reason. When I bought the E-M5.3, the E-M1.3 had not come out yet, but even though I was tempted by the E-M1.2, the smaller and lighter body of the E-M5.3 sold me on it.

Since then, I also bought an E-M1.3. I wanted HHHR, the more robust body, 2 cards, larger shot capacity, ability to tether to a computer (MUCH desired by me), etc. But I still intend to use the E-M5.3 for travel.

If I could only buy ONE, I still think I would buy the E-M5.3, because of the size. I would find it pretty heavy to carry an E-M1.3 on a trip, especially mounted with that 12-40 that you have (I have a PL 12-60 2.8-4). I can do most of what I want to do with the E-M5.3.

One other advantage of the E-M1.3 (over all other bodies in Oly and Panasonic's lineup, as far as I know) is that its tripod hi-res produces 80MP jpgs (instead of 50MP as with the other cameras, even the E-M1x). Since I usually use the RAW files from hi-res anyway, it's not a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.

One thing about using large lenses with either camera - I actually prefer to use the E-M5.3 for the Olympus 100-400 because I pretty much always use a tripod for that lens, so it's better for me to have the lighter body just to keep the total weight down for carrying the load.

Even when I am going to go handheld with a lens, I often still use the E-M5.3 (like with the 75-300) because again I want to keep the total weight down for example when I'm birding and have other equipment to carry (binocs, spotting scope, etc). (Yes, I know the 75-300 is hard to handle with a light body, but MY light body has a hard time handling anything heavy.)

So, it depends on how you use the large lens. If I were going to use the O100-400 handheld, I do think I'd use the E-M1.3 because of the better grip, of course (although even there, adding a Fittest grip to the E-M5.3 makes it just about the same, so if I only had the E-M5.3, that's what I would probably do).

Hope this confuses... ;) !
Thank you
 

Peter Bond

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Peter
Well you will get pro capture and a faster burst with the two cameras you are looking at.
Myself if funds allow the EM1.3 with it's ND mode, hand held hi res, etc offers you more.
I like the HDR mode in the EM1.3.

I think your PL 100-400 would be better suited to the EM1.3, but would also be quiet usable on the EM5.3

As for the low light performance I cant tell the difference from my older Oly bodies. [I own the EM1.3]

If you want to use a tripod I would get the EM1.3 as the EM5.3 with it's plastic base may give you problems depending on how use you it. Since the plates can stick out the front of the camera it can place leverage on the mount hole. The EM1.3 has it's hole in the same place but seems a bit stronger.
With a tripod hole it that position it does not look like it was meant to be used to me. What I have done to my cameras with a hole near the edge is screw on a cheese plate from "Smallrig" then use a more central hole in the cheese plate to attach a quick release plate. That way there is no overhang causing a leverage to the mount hole.

Suppose it comes down to available funds.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,591
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
IF you even think you may get the 12-100, I suggest the EM1-mk2 or mk3. The reason is the larger battery.
I don't know about the 12-40/2.8 and PL lenses, but the 12-100 is a power HOG. My EM1-mk1 went from 4 hours (continuous ON) with the P-Lumix 12-60, down to 2-1/2 hours with the 12-100. :(
I think the EM5s have the same or similar capacity battery as the EM1-mk1.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
231
Location
Gloucester, UK
Real Name
Deryck
I have the mk ii versions of both and use them both in equal measure.

I went from a e-m10 to e-m1ii for all the reasons you suggest in you post.
However after selling my e-m10 I wished I had kept it to use alongside the e-m1.
I then found an e-m5 at a good price and I am happy again.

I use zooms on the e-m1 (12-60, 40-150, 100-400) and small primes on the e-m5.
If I am doing serious shooting, then I always turn to the e-m1. For fun and walking around it's the e-m5

My advice is buy the e-m1 and don't ditch your e-m5.
If, you can't afford the em1iii without trading against the e-m5, then get the e-m1ii instead, it is cheaper can be found at a good price and it is no slouch.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,003
Location
Tanagra (not really)
One other advantage of the E-M1.3 (over all other bodies in Oly and Panasonic's lineup, as far as I know) is that its tripod hi-res produces 80MP jpgs (instead of 50MP as with the other cameras, even the E-M1x). Since I usually use the RAW files from hi-res anyway, it's not a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.
It's not exactly on topic, but the G9 will do 80MP images on the tripod as well. It just has no official HHHR mode (you can attempt it in mode 2, if you can be steady and have a fast shutter speed, though I can't say it would gain you much).

To OP, my vote is toward the EM1, be it mark 2 or 3, especially if you intend on keeping your EM5. Then you end up with a light and portable body and a more substantial gripped body for those bigger lenses. The PL100-400 can be operated on the EM5iii, but it's definitely lens-heavy, and with the stiff zoom action, it can almost feel like you're going to bend the mostly plastic EM5iii. I handled that combo for a little bit, and it just felt disconcerting with as hard as the PL100-400 can be to turn. I assume the O100-400 is easier in that regard. I think the EM1 line is going to handle your fast focus stuff better anyway. Either option is good, but it's just the path I would go if I had to choose.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom