Really disappointed with my new E-M10IV

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,773
some random online Raynox calculator I found
Not to get too far off topic, but if you used Johan Ingles-le Nobel's Raynox calculator it should be legit. The minimum focus distance of the Olympus 60 is 19 cm, though, which gives 2.54x and just under an 8 cm working distance estimate from Johan's calculator.

If anyone's wondering, I used an Olympus DF Plan 1x on the Panasonic 45-200 II at 200 mm f/8 for the image above (I don't have any Raynox lenses and the 9-18 is the only Olympus ILC lens I own). See Johan's coupled lens page for an intro and basic approximations for calculating magnification. The DF Plan 1x has focal length and working distance similar to a Raynox DCR-150+250 stack but is better corrected and comes with corresponding penalties in size, weight, and cost.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,790
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Not to get too far off topic, but if you used Johan Ingles-le Nobel's Raynox calculator it should be legit. The minimum focus distance of the Olympus 60 is 19 cm, though, which gives 2.54x and just under an 8 cm working distance estimate from Johan's calculator.
Yep that is the one I used. I accidentally used the closest working distance in the calculator rather than closest focusing distance. Duh! That's what happens when you are trying to look up a spec quickly and don't pay attention to the wording before or after the number being presented. :doh:
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,634
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
If both the E-M5.3 and the E-M10.4 "hunt and hunt" with the 60mm macro lens, I think maybe you shouldn't be blaming the cameras. I mean, they have different sensors, different AF specs, etc. Although it sounds like you have a lot of experience with macro AF, I do think you should try to narrow the culprit down better. It could very well be that ALL m43 cameras are not good at what you are trying to do. It certainly sounds that way if both those cameras misbehave the same way, IMHO.
E-M5mk1, E-M10II (the two cameras I've shot macro with Raynoxes for almost a decade) and the E-M1mk1 I had for few weeks locks the AF (somewhat) instantly in similar/identical situations. So I'll definitely blame the two cameras!
 
Last edited:

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,634
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
Probably focusing at only a few centimeters away? What was your DoF? Down to less than a millimeter? I would image under those conditions you would kind of have to use manual focus and mostly just rock back and forth to get the focus in the right spot.
Done the same thing millions of time with the E-M5 and E-M10II without any issues. It wasn't my first time shooting at the distance I was shooting.
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,634
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
Which will work if you have a stationary subject and tripod (or other non-handheld) operation of camera. But under these conditions the DoF is going to be sub-mm so if you try and hand hold the shot or your subject is moving then even if AF nails the focus, but the time you fully press the shutter you have likely moved the camera ever so slightly and even if you only move is a mm your focus is now off the target point. With a flea this probably means off (before or after) the subject distance. So I don't think this particular setup (assuming hand held shooting as I think was implied) is a fair assessment of the AF of the E-M10.4 since there is no way to assure after AF that the distance doesn't change more than a half-mm with breathing, heartbeat, and the natural sway of our bodies to balance.

However reading his post again, maybe he did set it up on a tripod with a dead flea. But still it would seem that with the DoF so small, this would be a job for manual focusing with the magnify focus aid. I don't own the Raynox add on lenses and do not do a lot of macro work so I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the use of the Raynox kind of implies one is working outside of the handheld abilities of even the most steady people.
I shot it handheld LIKE I ALWAYS DO. Nothing in the shooting scenario was different from my usual scenarios - except the AF success.

Correction: it wasn't handheld per se. I had my camera and hand lie on a counter which I'm not able to do in the wild.
 
Last edited:

RAH

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,123
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
E-M5mk1, E-M10II (the two cameras I've shot macro with Raynoxes for almost a decade) and the E-M1mk1 I had for few weeks locks the AF (somewhat) instantly in similar/identical situations. So I'll definitely blame the two cameras!
That being the case, I agree that it must be the fault of the cameras. So I should alter what I said: "It could very well be that ALL CURRENT m43 cameras are not good at what you are trying to do (probably includes the E-M1.3, I should think)." Really a shame. :(
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,634
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
That being the case, I agree that it must be the fault of the cameras. So I should alter what I said: "It could very well be that ALL CURRENT m43 cameras are not good at what you are trying to do (probably includes the E-M1.3, I should think)." Really a shame. :(
Dunno about all current m4/3 cameras but at least the Olympus ones. More than a shame - for me at least. I just hope the 100mm macro they might be announcing next week is a 2:1 macro and focuses with a Raynox on the newer models like the the old ones with the 60mm. Otherwise I'm screwed.
 

RS86

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,004
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
So... Just noticed a week ago that my E-M5III has a broken mic. And what's "lovely" is that I noticed it by browsing through the latest videos I've recorded of our puppy. 47 videos in total and all of them without sounds. So there goes 1,5 months worth of videos to the trashcan (well, not really since the material needs to be kept even without sounds). So you can imagine the mood I was in once I figured out what had happened.

I have a a few photography gigs coming up so sending the E-M5III to Portugal for 3 weeks wasn't an option. Also looking at the prices for (new/used) E-M5IIIs made it clear there is no point in buying such an expensive backup camera. Also noticed that Olympus Pro Service (or whatever it's called) isn't available for such toy models as E-M5 - it's only available for users with E-M1 or E-M1X series. That's once again one good indication how much OMDS values their E-M5 series. Also the E-M5III with its swivel screen is pretty much unusable for macro work of mine so what to do...?

Answer: Upgrade my macro workhorse and backup cam E-M10II to E-M10IV! I had been thinking about it since spring so it was easy to make the call. I thought I could manage a few photo shoots with the new camera while my E-M5III is visiting the repair center. Placed the order on Amazon.de on Saturday and today I got the camera. Aaaand... Not happy. Not happy at all.

I knew Olympus/OMDS had decided to "dumb down" the E-M10 series after the brilliant mk2 but I honestly didn't think they would go THIS far in destroying the camera with the best quality/price ratio. I mean... The list of features they've removed is INSANE! Here's a few of them:

- No more custom settings (you can reset to factory settings and that's it)
- You cannot change burst speeds. No more 1-5 pics per second for L-setting. It is what it is. Dunno what the speed actually is. Haven't checked it yet.
- No more shutter priority. The camera will not take photos until the AF has locked into something. If the focus hunts, it will hunt and you will end up with no pic at all - or one taken a couple of seconds too late. I mean... REALLY?!
- No more HP. You cannot select the "default" AF point. I'm used to having one button dedicated for quick "return AF to center"-feature but that's not possible anymore.
- Fewer AF point/box options.
- No more direct AF selection with the cursors. You need to press Left Cursor or assign another button for that (which would mean 2 buttons do the same thing!) before you can change the focus point.
- Only 4-5 options for button assignments. VERY limited compared to the mk2.
- I'd estimate that half of the menu items have been removed from the mk2.
- Can't change the dial directions! Thank God I've used the default rotation always and haven't switched it like my wife. It would be agony to have E-M5III dials working the right way and this the wrong.

I did some quick test shots with my O60mm f/2.8 in low light and looking at the ISO-1600 shots I got the IQ is noticeably worse than with my E-M5III. I hope I'm delusional and that's not the case but time will tell.

The AF seems a bit snappier than on my old E-M10II and the EVF might be better. Also the ergonomics are a bit better. That's about it. I cannot understand how OMDS has
turned such a fine camera into something so stupid/simple that it hurts. I mean... Yes, I understand they want people to buy the E-M5 instead but what do they REALLY gain from removing features that were already there? It in fact takes R&D costs to dumb down the camera and strip down the features from the previous models. And I always thought that E-M10s were the perfect choice for 2nd cameras. It used to be a fun camera to use. Now? Far from it. I'll put my money on the E-M10V to only have iAuto-mode and that's it. The camera (maker) will make all the decisions and the user can only press the shutter.

I honestly don't know what's next for me. E-M5s are out of question for macro work as the screen won't tilt from the base position. OMDS will not put any money into developing a multifunctional swivel screen (like Nikon, Fuji and Lumix have done) that's for sure. E-M10s were great for my kind of people who prefer tilt screens. Now if you want a tilt screen, it only comes with the most dumbed down camera model there is on the market. Most of us don't want that.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see what's the path OMDS has chosen. I don't have any faith they would introduce a "hybrid screen" that tilts nicely. That means I need something else for macro. And what else is there in m4/3 format? Not that many options, eh? So... I'm starting to fear my next camera will be something completely different than m4/3. I've lost my faith and OMDS or Lumix better bring SOMETHING that would win me back. And the funny (or sad) thing is that a tilt screen on a "normal" camera would suffice. I'm not asking for all the bells and whistles. I just want a camera that isn't dumbed down to the smart phones' level. It seems I was asking for waaaay too much.
I hear you, I would never buy an E-M10 model anymore, that's why I bought a new Mark II for 300 € when the last one's were on sale.

At some point in the next few years I will likely sell that one to buy some used E-M1 model, or maybe keep it still as macro backup.

Another vote for GX9, that's my go-to macro camera now. 20MP and a tilt-screen - it's perfect. Plus the very light and good 3D-printed grip.

You just need to find a used one somewhere, might not be easy, dunno.

I would never switch system for macro photography, there is no better one imo. For other uses maybe, but I don't need better as I'm not a pro.
 

RS86

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,004
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
This made me curious, so I looked up the specs:
  • E-M1 III: 20.4 MP, 5184 x 3888 (21.8 MP actual)
  • E-M5 III: 20.4 MP, 5184 x 3888 (21.8 MP actual)
  • E-M10 IV: 20.3 MP, 5184 x 3888 (21.8 MP actual)
Since 5184 x 3888 = 20.155 MP all of the headline MP numbers are inflated. Presumably Olympus chose to inflate the E-M10 IV by less for marketing purposes.

Sony's infosheets for the IMX269 and IMX272 both say 5388 x 4040 (21.77 MP), which is correct math and presumably where the 21.8 MP actual comes from. It would not surprise me at all if the IMX269 and IMX272 share some masks to reduce costs and I suspect it's likely the IMX270 Olympus uses in PDAF bodies shares a base design with the IMX272 and the only difference is an additional mask step to block off parts of some pixels for OSPDAF. It's also conceivable the IMX269 and 272 are speed bins of the same part, with the 272 being the ones which test for 60 fps.

So, while it's an oversimplification to say Olympus has the same sensor across all price tiers, it seems likely the basic idea is correct. For example, the dynamic range measurements available for current Olympus bodies are pretty much interchangeable and likely identical within measurement accuracy and body to body variation.


My sense of the ILC market is manufacturers are mostly too paternalistic to believe we'll notice or care about crippling. Personally, it mainly acts to increase the amount of consideration I give to phone cameras. I felt Olympus telegraphed the crippling with the E-M10 III and wasn't surprised to see it increase in IV. Since the OM-D people came with JIP's purchase the mindset may or may not change.

Panasonic cripples too but, so far as I can tell, cripples about the least and seems more committed to maintaining a lower cost presence than other manufacturers. That too may change with management fiat but it's definitely one of the factors leading to my μ43 kit being all Panasonic except for one Olympus lens.
I'm pretty sure, that E-M10 IV has the same sensor as 20MP GX9 and PEN-F. This makes total sense from a financial point of view.

It has worse high ISO, closer to the 16MP sensor, and some other things than the newer sensors, but better Color Sensitivity and not some other issues that the PDAF can bring.
 
Last edited:

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,773
I'm pretty sure [the] E-M10 IV has the same sensor as 20MP GX9 and PEN-F.
It's very likely the IMX269, yes, but for this sort of analysis it's worth being bit careful about how "the sensor" is defined and interpreted. As with any other ADC, properties such as noise levels and dynamic range are influenced by both the sensor itself and its surrounding circuitry, especially power supplies and circuit board layout. I don't know of any body teardowns sufficiently detailed to provide specifics but it certainly appears there are model to model differences in how effectively bodies utilize their sensors. Both due to incremental version to version design improvements and likely the amount of supporting bill of materials spend available.

For example, it looks very much like Panasonic made changes to get more dynamic range from the IMX272 on the G9 than in the GH5 and then backported those modifications to the GH5 II. Since both the G90 and GX9 marginally increase dynamic range from the GH5 it appears IMX269 implementations can outperform an IMX272 one, consistent with abundant performance evidence from other ADC uses, and possibly indicating IMX269-272 intrinsic differences are small compared to surrounding influences. With Olympus, the E-M1 III, E-M1X, E-M5 I, E-M5 II, E-M5 III, E-M10 II, and E-M10 III are all similar but 1) the E-M10s do have the lowest dynamic range and 2) all seven of these bodies are downgrades from the E-M1 II. This seems consistent with the idea intrinsic IMX269-270 differences are small and also suggests a Olympus backed off of a G9 type improvement after the E-M1 II for some reason (though it could be a small n E-M1 II sample testing anomalously well). Since the GH6 looks to use the IMX472 it's likely some future data will emerge there. Hopefully someone will also measure an E-M10 IV and send that data to Bill Claff.

Since the E-M5 I is 16 MP it's unclear there's evidence to support the idea 16 and 20 MP high ISO are intrinsically different, so far as Olympus use of Sony sensors goes, and the dynamic range increases from the E-M1 I to E-M10 I to E-M5 I seem consistent with incremental body to body improvements. There is clear evidence in photonstophotos.net's database for improvement from the 16 MP Panasonic sensor (G7, G80/85, GX80/85), particularly in extended high ISO (16000+), on Panasonic bodies based on the IMX269 and 272. But I don't think that's really what you were getting at and, given the E-M1 II to III and X downgrade, some parallel downgrade from the E-M10 III to IV isn't implausible.

So I'd be interested in the source of the high ISO and colour sensitivity differences mentioned (colour sensitivity makes me think DxO but either they haven't posted E-M10 IV data or I'm not getting hits for it from DxO or Google search). It's unclear what was measured and how.
 

RS86

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,004
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
It's very likely the IMX269, yes, but for this sort of analysis it's worth being bit careful about how "the sensor" is defined and interpreted. As with any other ADC, properties such as noise levels and dynamic range are influenced by both the sensor itself and its surrounding circuitry, especially power supplies and circuit board layout. I don't know of any body teardowns sufficiently detailed to provide specifics but it certainly appears there are model to model differences in how effectively bodies utilize their sensors. Both due to incremental version to version design improvements and likely the amount of supporting bill of materials spend available.

For example, it looks very much like Panasonic made changes to get more dynamic range from the IMX272 on the G9 than in the GH5 and then backported those modifications to the GH5 II. Since both the G90 and GX9 marginally increase dynamic range from the GH5 it appears IMX269 implementations can outperform an IMX272 one, consistent with abundant performance evidence from other ADC uses, and possibly indicating IMX269-272 intrinsic differences are small compared to surrounding influences. With Olympus, the E-M1 III, E-M1X, E-M5 I, E-M5 II, E-M5 III, E-M10 II, and E-M10 III are all similar but 1) the E-M10s do have the lowest dynamic range and 2) all seven of these bodies are downgrades from the E-M1 II. This seems consistent with the idea intrinsic IMX269-270 differences are small and also suggests a Olympus backed off of a G9 type improvement after the E-M1 II for some reason (though it could be a small n E-M1 II sample testing anomalously well). Since the GH6 looks to use the IMX472 it's likely some future data will emerge there. Hopefully someone will also measure an E-M10 IV and send that data to Bill Claff.

Since the E-M5 I is 16 MP it's unclear there's evidence to support the idea 16 and 20 MP high ISO are intrinsically different, so far as Olympus use of Sony sensors goes, and the dynamic range increases from the E-M1 I to E-M10 I to E-M5 I seem consistent with incremental body to body improvements. There is clear evidence in photonstophotos.net's database for improvement from the 16 MP Panasonic sensor (G7, G80/85, GX80/85), particularly in extended high ISO (16000+), on Panasonic bodies based on the IMX269 and 272. But I don't think that's really what you were getting at and, given the E-M1 II to III and X downgrade, some parallel downgrade from the E-M10 III to IV isn't implausible.

So I'd be interested in the source of the high ISO and colour sensitivity differences mentioned (colour sensitivity makes me think DxO but either they haven't posted E-M10 IV data or I'm not getting hits for it from DxO or Google search). It's unclear what was measured and how.
As far as I know, there is no downgrade in E-M1 II to the newer bodies, only difference is in ISO measurements that Olympus made, so that photonstophotos chart is misleading. It's the same sensor.

The information about Color Sensitivity is from Dxo Sensor Database, if you compare PEN-F and E-M1 II.

Why would Olympus put the new PDAF sensor in the cheapest camera, when they have cheaper earlier 20MP sensor to use, and there is no PDAF in E-M10 IV?
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,773
It's the same sensor.
Which admits downgrades in other factors, consistent with measurement. Looking at the rest of the post it's unclear there's familiarity with Claff's methodology or DxO correlation (R² = 0.92) so the claim there seems as unsupported as the sensor claim. It additionally appears prior claims made about the E-M10 IV are unsupported, claims about 16-20 MP differentials are opposite the behavior of the bodies cited, and the IMX269 and IMX270 are reversed probably two different ways.

I don't mind the occasional fact check but correct use of relevant information is appreciated.
 

rezatravilla

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,150
Location
Indonesia
Real Name
Reza Travilla
Why would Olympus put the new PDAF sensor in the cheapest camera, when they have cheaper earlier 20MP sensor to use, and there is no PDAF in E-M10 IV?
Agreed. If they do that, it will cannibalize EM5 III
 
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
5,058
Location
Sydney, Australia
Found a (suspected) flea on our dog yesterday and wanted to take a macro photo to make sure it really was a flea. So I grab my E-M10IV with the O60mm and two Raynoxes attached and start firing away. Well... At least I tried to fire away. The AF just wanted to hunt and hunt and not lock on the target. It went back and forth but just couldn't do it. I had to switch to manual mode and try to determine myself when the flea was in focus.

I'm pretty sure my old mk2 would have managed to focus on it as it had done it thousands of times before. One reason why I haven't done macro work with my E-M5III is that the AF hunts and hunts. And I see the E-M10IV with its new CPU (and sensor) even the AF has taken a step backwards. I'm starting to fear this E-M10IV isn't the right camera for me after all. Although it did a great job on Sunday at the event I was photographing. But the main purpose of this camera is shooting macro so...
I use my EM10.2 with the Olympus MCON-P02 close up filter and I find that I have to be in the sweet spot which is fairly close or it hunts far too bad. Never measured but I think less than 200mm from the front of the lens.

I have both Raynox but find them a little too hard to use. Now I only shoot macro at night so that may be a limiting factor as well.

I am really hoping this new 100mm macro lense does not hunt as much as the 60mm does, and manually focuses better as well.

Like you I shoot in very think bushes and trees so a flip out screen for me is a no go. So I never use my EM1.3 for macro. Shame but that is my use case.

I would love a pro EM10, now that never going to happen, but I can dream.
 
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
5,058
Location
Sydney, Australia
Another vote for GX9, that's my go-to macro camera now. 20MP and a tilt-screen - it's perfect. Plus the very light and good 3D-printed grip.

You just need to find a used one somewhere, might not be easy, dunno.

I would never switch system for macro photography, there is no better one imo. For other uses maybe, but I don't need better as I'm not a pro.
How does the GX9 view finder work at night? I have considered this one for my night macro because of the tilting viewfinder. I have looked through one in a shop but that does not let me know what is like via torch light. I must admit it was not my favourite viewfinder but passable and the price has fallen a lot. But the viewfinder is not the most loved one in some reviews.

The reason is I like the GX9 is the tilting EVF and rear screen and was hopeing the extra pixels compared to my EM10.2 may make my rather large crops a little better, but I maybe just wishfull thinking on that one.

The limited controls are fine with me. I would just set the camera to manual, f11 and max shutter speed for the flash sync (i guess 1/160) and it would stay in those settings
 

RAH

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,123
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
How does the GX9 view finder work at night? I have considered this one for my night macro because of the tilting viewfinder. I have looked through one in a shop but that does not let me know what is like via torch light. I must admit it was not my favourite viewfinder but passable and the price has fallen a lot. But the viewfinder is not the most loved one in some reviews.
You might have good luck using a Hoodman HoodLoupe:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1353031-REG/

This would get you away from the particulars of the EVF, since the back screen might be different (OLED vs other, etc). Maybe for precision macro work? Just a thought.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,717
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Why? You don't approve my complaints about the camera? So no one should criticize m4/3 gear here? Just ignore this thread if it bothers you that much.
No, Teemu, I have zero problems with anyone making valid criticisms of any camera they own, or have owned. I agree with most of your criticisms, in fact.

However, it has been well known that since the E-M10 MkII, Olympus has seriously limited the E-M10 series.

I feel the same about my 2006 Subaru Forester. I would not buy one made after 2008.

Why my comment about DPR? Because this thread is now at 79 posts, and is becoming somewhat repetitive, just like many gear threads at DPR.

No one forced you to buy the E-M10 MkIV, and it's 'simplicity' has always been known. It is a beginner's camera. The E-M10 MkII was like my E-PM2 - not a beginner's camera.
 
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