Eye relief of the E-M5 Mk III

[Centauri27]

I was very excited to hear that the E-M5 MkIII has a longer eye relief (27mm) compared to other cameras like the E-M1 Mk II (21mm).

To those who own the E-M5 MkIII (and better yet, also own the E-M1 Mk II), do you find it makes a big difference for eyeglass wearers?

Also, I read that the E-M5 MkIII viewfinder is now OLED. Can anyone tell me whether you can see properly when wearing polarized sunglasses? One thing that really bugged me about my E-M5 MkI and Panasonic GX85, is that the viewfinder "blacks out" when viewing through polarized sunglasses, due to the LCD screen. That makes them very difficult to use on a sunny day, when I'm wearing my sunglasses.

Many thanks for any help.

 

[FrayAdjacent]

hmm... I don't wear my glasses much except when driving. I haven't tried with my polarized sunglasses. If I don't see responses to this tomorrow afternoon when I'm awake, I'll try it out. Overall, though, I'm really happy with my E-M5 MkIII.

 

[Centauri27]

Thank you! Do you have an older Olympus camera? I'm interested in hearing how much easier it is to use the E-M5 MIII viewfinder compared to the other models. And if you can confirm that the viewfinder no longer "blacks out" with polarized sunglasses, that would be great!

 

[Matt Drown]

I was very excited to hear that the E-M5 MkIII has a longer eye relief (27mm) compared to other cameras like the E-M1 Mk II (21mm).

The "Olympus EP-13 Eyecup" is something you should grab for the EM1.2 (or em1.1). Slightly deeper than stock, and makes things easier. Does not solve any polarized glasses issue.

 

[Centauri27]

Thanks Matt. A deeper eyecup will help. I'll look into it. But I was excited because this is the first attempt I've seen from any camera manufacturer to make their viewfinders more "eyeglass friendly".

 

[FrayAdjacent]

So I just stepped onto the back porch with some polarized sunglasses to check what I can see with the 5MkIII. I have to press my glasses right up against the eyecup to see the entire LCD. The polarizing didn't seem to affect what I could see, though the tinted glass of course affected colors.

So it seems to me the eye relief may not be as long as one might expect.

 

[Centauri27]

So I just stepped onto the back porch with some polarized sunglasses to check what I can see with the 5MkIII. I have to press my glasses right up against the eyecup to see the entire LCD. The polarizing didn't seem to affect what I could see, though the tinted glass of course affected colors.

So it seems to me the eye relief may not be as long as one might expect.

Thanks for checking! That means the viewfinder is OLED. With my E-M5 MkI, most of the viewfinder was "blacked out" (unless I held the camera vertically). And this eye relief is already longer than other cameras, so this is about the best you can expect I guess. (Nothing like the gorgeous viewfinders back in the film SLR days!)

 

[pondball]

I was very excited to hear that the E-M5 MkIII has a longer eye relief (27mm) compared to other cameras like the E-M1 Mk II (21mm).

To those who own the E-M5 MkIII (and better yet, also own the E-M1 Mk II), do you find it makes a big difference for eyeglass wearers?

Also, I read that the E-M5 MkIII viewfinder is now OLED. Can anyone tell me whether you can see properly when wearing polarized sunglasses? One thing that really bugged me about my E-M5 MkI and Panasonic GX85, is that the viewfinder "blacks out" when viewing through polarized sunglasses, due to the LCD screen. That makes them very difficult to use on a sunny day, when I'm wearing my sunglasses.

Many thanks for any help.

I didn’t get polarized glasses for that ver6 reason... and have transition glasses instead. They’re not perfect but there are not isssues with not being able to see either the viewfinder or backscree.

however, if you have polarized glasses, did you know...
a) if, in landscape mode, you look through the eyepiece (EVF) and see nothing but a distorted image, you should see the back screen just fine.
b) if on the other hand, you turn your camera into the vertical (portrait) position you will be able to see clearly through the EVF but see squat on your back screen

It’s either that or the other way around, but if you had to wear polarized glasses for a reason you will always have at least one option for viewing the image you are about to take.
Discovered this when I got my last pair of glasses (transition) and they made the mistake of making them polarized. I had taken my camera in to check out the results and to my dismay had found I could see through the the viewfinder, until in turned the camera 90 degrees

 

[Centauri27]

I didn’t get polarized glasses for that ver6 reason... and have transition glasses instead. They’re not perfect but there are not isssues with not being able to see either the viewfinder or backscree.

however, if you have polarized glasses, did you know...
a) if, in landscape mode, you look through the eyepiece (EVF) and see nothing but a distorted image, you should see the back screen just fine.
b) if on the other hand, you turn your camera into the vertical (portrait) position you will be able to see clearly through the EVF but see squat on your back screen

It’s either that or the other way around, but if you had to wear polarized glasses for a reason you will always have at least one option for viewing the image you are about to take.
Discovered this when I got my last pair of glasses (transition) and they made the mistake of making them polarized. I had taken my camera in to check out the results and to my dismay had found I could see through the the viewfinder, until in turned the camera 90 degrees

Thanks for your feedback, Pondball. That is exactly what I've noticed too. I have prescription sunglasses that's polarized, and transition sunglasses that are non-polarized. The polarized sunglasses get blacked out by LCD viewfinders in landscape mode, but not in portrait mode. The transition sunglasses work fine either orientation. My camera's back screen though, is OLED, and works fine with any sunglasses in any orientation.

The big draw for the E-M5 MkIII for me is the OLED viewfinder and the longer eye relief. If not for that, I'd probably just get an E-Mi MkII right now (which is actually cheaper than the E-M5 MkIII after I buy the optional grip).

 

[Michael Meissner]

Also, I read that the E-M5 MkIII viewfinder is now OLED. Can anyone tell me whether you can see properly when wearing polarized sunglasses? One thing that really bugged me about my E-M5 MkI and Panasonic GX85, is that the viewfinder "blacks out" when viewing through polarized sunglasses, due to the LCD screen. That makes them very difficult to use on a sunny day, when I'm wearing my sunglasses.

Many thanks for any help.

I tried this in the store, and there were no polarization effects, just like other cameras with OLED viewfinders that I've used (E-m10 mark II, G85, FZ300). Of course it was only a few minutes test. I'll be borrowing one in two weeks, and I will give it a more proper test.

 

[ac12]

I love using a polarized sunglass, and used one all the time.
But I learned to NOT use it when taking pics.
What happened was, I did not see the glare that my camera would see. So I wasn't shooting what I thought I was shooting. And when shooting film, that was expensive film into the trash can.

 

[RAH]

I have not tested the polarizing aspect of the viewfinder with my glasses, but I can say that I am a little disappointed with the "better" eye-relief. I still cannot see the enter image in the viewfinder no matter how hard I press my glasses into the eyecup. It might be better than my old E-M10II (I mean, it no doubt is better), but it's still not all that great, IMHO. (Love the camera, however! )

 

[Michael Meissner]

I love using a polarized sunglass, and used one all the time.
But I learned to NOT use it when taking pics.
What happened was, I did not see the glare that my camera would see. So I wasn't shooting what I thought I was shooting. And when shooting film, that was expensive film into the trash can.

That was true for SLR and DSLRs where with a mirror or pentaprisim arrangement, you are looking through the actual lens, until it flipped away for taking the photo.

But for mirrorless cameras you are looking at a video monitor produced by the sensor. So you should see any glare that the camera would record. Of course you are limited by the technology of the monitor in terms of color reproduction, and whether the sensor has enough light to show the image at 25-60fps.

But for me, if I don't wear the sunglasses all of the time to cut down on that glare, it increases the frequency of my migraines.

 

[hoggdoc]

Thanks for checking! That means the viewfinder is OLED. With my E-M5 MkI, most of the viewfinder was "blacked out" (unless I held the camera vertically). And this eye relief is already longer than other cameras, so this is about the best you can expect I guess. (Nothing like the gorgeous viewfinders back in the film SLR days!)

There is another very simple solution to this issue you have with your E-M5's viewfinder, don't wear polarized sunglasses. Personally I can't stand them for any use especially in a car with tinted windows.

 

[Linh]

There is another very simple solution to this issue you have with your E-M5's viewfinder, don't wear polarized sunglasses. Personally I can't stand them for any use especially in a car with tinted windows.

Sadly , Costco doesn't sell non polarized glasses, heh

 

[Centauri27]

There is another very simple solution to this issue you have with your E-M5's viewfinder, don't wear polarized sunglasses. Personally I can't stand them for any use especially in a car with tinted windows.

I wish it were that easy... I was referring to polarized prescription sunglasses. No sunglasses = can't see through the viewfinder! (But I have resorted to that once or twice, to ensure that the blobby image without glasses is at least centered in the frame.) I stopped wearing contact lenses + regular sunglasses years ago. The only alternative is to wear transition sunglasses that are not polarized, but those aren't as effective in blocking glare.

 

[Centauri27]

I have not tested the polarizing aspect of the viewfinder with my glasses, but I can say that I am a little disappointed with the "better" eye-relief. I still cannot see the enter image in the viewfinder no matter how hard I press my glasses into the eyecup. It might be better than my old E-M10II (I mean, it no doubt is better), but it's still not all that great, IMHO. (Love the camera, however! )

If you compare the E-M5 Mk III side-by-side against the E-M10 or your Panasonic, is the eye relief at least noticeably better? After all, based on their specs, the relief is nearly 30% greater than the old cameras.

I'll be receiving my E-M5 MkIII soon, so I'll compare it against my MkI and Panasonic GX85 and report my findings back here.

 

[RAH]

If you compare the E-M5 Mk III side-by-side against the E-M10 or your Panasonic, is the eye relief at least noticeably better? After all, based on their specs, the relief is nearly 30% greater than the old cameras.

I'll be receiving my E-M5 MkIII soon, so I'll compare it against my MkI and Panasonic GX85 and report my findings back here.

OK, since you asked, I hauled out my E-M10II, put a battery in it, mounted my PL12-35 lens (set at 12mm), and compared the view side-by-side vs the E-M5III with the PL12-60 at 12mm. One thing I noticed is that the view with the E-M5 is bigger - not such a tunnel view as with the E-M10. I know they said that the size of the VF image with the E-M5III had gone down vs the E-M5II, but at least to my eyes, it is bigger than the VF display of the E-M10II.

As far as the eye relief, I guess it is somewhat better vs the E-M10II. Since the view appears larger (and kind of like it is closer to your eye) in the E-M5, it seems to have taken away some of that potential improvement of the eye-relief. I mean, I still have to shift my eye around on the eyepiece to see all the edges, especially the top and bottom. But the overall view is better on the E-M5III, I'd say.

Just handling these 2 cameras side-by-side has reemphasized to me how much better the grip on the E-M5 is. It's perfect now!

 

[Centauri27]

OK, since you asked, I hauled out my E-M10II, put a battery in it, mounted my PL12-35 lens (set at 12mm), and compared the view side-by-side vs the E-M5III with the PL12-60 at 12mm. One thing I noticed is that the view with the E-M5 is bigger - not such a tunnel view as with the E-M10. I know they said that the size of the VF image with the E-M5III had gone down vs the E-M5II, but at least to my eyes, it is bigger than the VF display of the E-M10II.

As far as the eye relief, I guess it is somewhat better vs the E-M10II. Since the view appears larger (and kind of like it is closer to your eye) in the E-M5, it seems to have taken away some of that potential improvement of the eye-relief. I mean, I still have to shift my eye around on the eyepiece to see all the edges, especially the top and bottom. But the overall view is better on the E-M5III, I'd say.

Just handling these 2 cameras side-by-side has reemphasized to me how much better the grip on the E-M5 is. It's perfect now!

Thanks for checking, Rah. Interesting to hear that the E-M5 Mk III's viewfinder looks "bigger" than the E-M10. All the reviews said it's smaller (magnification) than the older E-M5 Mk II, but I guess they put in an even smaller viewfinder on the E-M10.

Good to hear how the grip is improved! While I don't have an E-M10, I always thought the grip on my E-M5 Mk I was kind of useless for anything other than small primes. I'm hoping the Mk III's grip will work well with my 12-40 without resorting to shelling out another $225 for a grip.

 

[FrayAdjacent]

Thanks for checking, Rah. Interesting to hear that the E-M5 Mk III's viewfinder looks "bigger" than the E-M10. All the reviews said it's smaller (magnification) than the older E-M5 Mk II, but I guess they put in an even smaller viewfinder on the E-M10.

Good to hear how the grip is improved! While I don't have an E-M10, I always thought the grip on my E-M5 Mk I was kind of useless for anything other than small primes. I'm hoping the Mk III's grip will work well with my 12-40 without resorting to shelling out another $225 for a grip.

I had the 5MkII and now have the 5MkIII. The grip on the III is better, both the front 'bulge' area and the rear thumbrest. It's easier with the 12-40 on it than the MkII was... but I also had the extended grip on the II. I got the grip on the III as well, and it's very comfortable. I still think without the grip, though, the camera feels better with a small prime or a small zoom. With the 17 f/1.8 or the 14-42EZ on it, it's almost pocketable!