What potential new feature would make you buy the E-M1iii?

[ac12]

Yes Oly have the touch and drag to move the AF point but to me it is too clunky compared to Panasonic to use.

I use the dpad to move the AF point.
The back screen is not convenient to my thumb, so I have not tried to use it to move the AF point while using the EVF.

 

[pdk42]

Hand held hi-res isn't just a tool to increase resolution. Because it works by median stacking, it significantly reduces noise too (in the raw file). When I played with the EM1x at its launch, I took a bunch of shots in poor indoor lighting at ISO 1600 and they looked like were taken at ISO 200 from a noise point of view. The rapidity of taking the exposures means that slight subject movement is just about OK. I even took a couple of portraits that were more than acceptable. For low light work of mainly static subjects, I think it's a real game changer.

 

[Gromit]

Necessary - joystick.
Desirable - HHHR

Job done.

 

[JensM]

Ehrm, none... :O

 

[JamesD]

An af joystick is a real nice feature as it's located near where your right thumb rests. It allows easy one handed operation while you let your left hand handle other things like lens function (zooming and or holding camera or lens for stability). My G9 has a joystick and it's so much easier. Sure I could use the touch screen on my g85 and gx85 or press left then down on the dpad and then use the dpad to move focus, but an af joystick is such a convenience that I wish all my other cameras had it.

Not to mention, for we left eye shooters, the touch focus pretty much has to be disabled unless we happen to be deft ar focusing with our noses.

 

[fishtug]

Lit back buttons like the E620 - I found that feature incredibly useful -

 

[GBarrington]

I voted 'new sensor', but in truth, that only moves if from a 'probable buy' to a 'definite buy'. I don't care THAT much about a > 20 mp sensor. It sounds pretty darned wonderful, as is. I'll likely wait until the early adopters start buzzing about it either way.

 

[GBarrington]

Not to mention, for we left eye shooters, the touch focus pretty much has to be disabled unless we happen to be deft ar focusing with our noses.

What! You can't do that? Sheesh! Amateur!

 

[jbinco]

Aas per title. What would convince you to spend $2k (or thereabouts)?

Nothing would convince me to spend $2k on a new m43 body. That is the wrong pricepoint for m43. Fuji and Sony have stronger offerings below $2k. Olypmpus and Panasonic need to be in the $1000-$1500 range with their flagship bodies. The feature that would get me to buy at that lower price point would be greatly improved sensor noise. I shoot my m43 equipment knowing the low light and exposure limitations. If I expect to shoot above ISO 800 I'm using another system. I want a 2 stop improvement in SNR so I see today's ISO 800 noise when I'm shooting at ISO 3200. 20-24mp is enough resolution.

 

[Pluttis]

Lets be realistic...2-stop improvment in SNR want happen.

 

[soundfanz]

Nothing would convince me to spend $2k on a new m43 body. That is the wrong pricepoint for m43. Fuji and Sony have stronger offerings below $2k. Olypmpus and Panasonic need to be in the $1000-$1500 range with their flagship bodies. The feature that would get me to buy at that lower price point would be greatly improved sensor noise. I shoot my m43 equipment knowing the low light and exposure limitations. If I expect to shoot above ISO 800 I'm using another system. I want a 2 stop improvement in SNR so I see today's ISO 800 noise when I'm shooting at ISO 3200. 20-24mp is enough resolution.

I disagree with some of your comments.
As much as I'd love cheaper gear, I think that the MK II was/is fairly priced, given it's capabilities.
So I think that a 2k price for the MK III is reasonable.

 

[JonSnih]

I disagree with some of your comments.
As much as I'd love cheaper gear, I think that the MK II was/is fairly priced, given it's capabilities.
So I think that a 2k price for the MK III is reasonable.

Undoubtedly the mark III will be very enticing for the E-M1i users. Not so much for mark II users, especially if you bought it during the last 12 months and installed FW v3. It is still a new camera.
But videos like that bellow keep me more on optimistic side. The capabilities of the E-M1X boosted by more processing power + new EVF in mark II form factor would be very interesting. Will it be an Oly attempt to mach the D500?

$2000 price point is a lot at first glance but if you buy a new camera body after 5 years (= $400 per year), it should be fine. There are so many things with limited or questionable use you buy/pay for every year. All the fees and unnecessary items. Or a software subscription (do you really need it?). But I agree that $1750 would be better. I would not say no to a lower price.

 

[pake]

"What potential new feature would make you buy the E-M1iii?"

New sensor + reduce the size and weight to match E-M5III - or even better: E-M5.

 

[Robstar1963]

Only a New Sensor with significant improvement in mp and or low light performance - otherwise I’ll be happy with the EM1X

 

[zanydroid]

Nothing would convince me to spend $2k on a new m43 body. That is the wrong pricepoint for m43. Fuji and Sony have stronger offerings below $2k. Olypmpus and Panasonic need to be in the $1000-$1500 range with their flagship bodies. The feature that would get me to buy at that lower price point would be greatly improved sensor noise. I shoot my m43 equipment knowing the low light and exposure limitations. If I expect to shoot above ISO 800 I'm using another system. I want a 2 stop improvement in SNR so I see today's ISO 800 noise when I'm shooting at ISO 3200. 20-24mp is enough resolution.

$2000 price point is a lot at first glance but if you buy a new camera body after 5 years (= $400 per year), it should be fine. There are so many things with limited or questionable use you buy/pay for every year. All the fees and unnecessary items. Or a software subscription (do you really need it?). But I agree that $1750 would be better. I would not say no to a lower price.

As others said, 2 stop SNR is too much to ask for, if that were really possible we would have heard lots more rumors about it, along with seeing hints of it in recent other cameras.

$2K seems a big premium for EM1X's niche featureset. It also has a really bad market positioning problem for new entrants to the system. Used A7r3s (a very nice camera for crop mode, where you get 18MP) are already available below $2K, and the lenses in crop mode is very size- and cost-competitive versus using Olympus pro lenses. Obviously it doesn't stabilize as well as M43, but well enough outside of handheld long exposure and video. Hypothetical XT4 with IBIS at $1600 would also be super problematic for a $2k EM1.3, same for EM5.3; maybe not the GH5/G9 for video shooters.

 

[GBarrington]

$2K seems a big premium for EM1X's niche featureset. It also has a really bad market positioning problem for new entrants to the system. Used A7r3s (a very nice camera for crop mode, where you get 18MP) are already available below $2K, and the lenses in crop mode is very size- and cost-competitive versus using Olympus pro lenses. Obviously it doesn't stabilize as well as M43, but well enough outside of handheld long exposure and video. Hypothetical XT4 with IBIS at $1600 would also be super problematic for a $2k EM1.3, same for EM5.3; maybe not the GH5/G9 for video shooters.

Only the very wealthy or people with a strong economic reason, such as pros and pundits, would consider the E-M1 III as their entry-level camera. In that case, the price is probably irrelevant. It's taken me 6 years to decide to step up from the E-M10 series. Those Mk1 and Mk2 "tens" are pretty darned good cameras even if they are a bit light on features. And the entry-level kit lenses are quite capable in the right hands.

People who are buying the E-M1 are looking for features, and the $2000 price point is quite competitive with other cameras with similar, and in some cases, fewer, less capable, features.

We have got to somehow get rid of the ridiculous notion that m43s is a lesser system and worthy only of less money. If you want to dance to the music, you got to pay the band.

 

[drd1135]

I voted for improved sensor, bu I would like a modest increase in MP but mostly better hi I so and dr. Even then it would be a close call. Better evf and a joystick would make it closer.

 

[bbarnett51]

Sony level eye detect, better ISO performance, and handheld high res would be the three things I need.

The EVF doesn’t bother me at all. They should probably update it to keep up with competition but I personally don’t care. DR is pretty dang good. Sure I’ll welcome improvement there but I find the RAW files recover detail really well.

 

[XR1505]

I hear people talking about £2000 being expensive personally I’m not in the market for a new camera but if I was and it had the same features as the em1 x I think the price is right, just look at what a new pro ff body costs you, and if you still think its to expensive well just give it a miss

 

[zanydroid]

Only the very wealthy or people with a strong economic reason, such as pros and pundits, would consider the E-M1 III as their entry-level camera. In that case, the price is probably irrelevant. It's taken me 6 years to decide to step up from the E-M10 series. Those Mk1 and Mk2 "tens" are pretty darned good cameras even if they are a bit light on features. And the entry-level kit lenses are quite capable in the right hands.

I didn’t mean it as a camera that beginners would buy, but as a top end camera for the system meant to provide a halo effect/something to aspire to.

People who are buying the E-M1 are looking for features, and the $2000 price point is quite competitive with other cameras with similar, and in some cases, fewer, less capable, features.

We have got to somehow get rid of the ridiculous notion that m43s is a lesser system and worthy only of less money. If you want to dance to the music, you got to pay

I will gladly pay more for more features even on a small sensor. EG on video side I would be pretty happy with an E2 for $2000 even though the Z6 and S1 (full frame with decent features) are close to that price. If I was a pro videographer back when GH5s came out, I would have paid that premium too (and I think that camera is more widely accepted than the EM1X)

Which cameras? IMO it depends on the features that are needed. I cross shop a lot of systems (and have rented/tried bodies from quite a few of those) and consider the $1200 grey market price of EM1.2 about right. Going up $800 to some rumored EM1.3 specs is not attractive to me.

While on Sony for going from A7r3 ($2000) to a R4 or A9 (+$1000, used market prices), I get massive upgrades in autofocus, resolution, and a silent shutter that’s approaching global shutter speed. I can also throw money at an A9m2 that adds more AF capability if I want. If one invests in Olympus, pretty stuck wrt stills photography upgrades. Just EM1X which is meaningful AF improvement, but I don’t need anything else from it.

So my personal thought is to stop considering Olympus for a sports/wildlife photography kit and go all Sony for that. I had previously considered M43 for compact sports/wildlife and Sony for the big lenses only

Now video is another matter, there are massive upgrades to be had in terms of bodies in M43, ie GH5, GH5s, P4K, E2 and E2 S6.