PDA

View Full Version : M10 Mark III review


KeithL
13th September 2017, 06:24 PM
Have you read the Oly M10 Mk III review in AP or DP Review? Sounds very much as though it's achieved a very neat sideways step. I thought I would read the usual rave review, but no. AP didn't even seem fazed by the price.

Has it reached the point where the magazines would express shock horror if the price DIDN'T go up with a bang every time a new model comes out? On DPR, I saw a bit of surprised comment about it having a plastic body (really?) and the lack of improvement in picture quality due to still having a mere 16 MP sensor. Garish colours when set to iEnhance (Enhance???) didn't go down too well either.

Will we soon see a similar form of update to E-M1 Mk III? E-M5 Mk III? I wouldn't be in the least surprised - and that could see the price for an E-M1 going well over £2000. If Olympus keeps up this game, it could well kill the golden goose. Trusted Reviews said, "Itís designed for budding photographers who want to take a step up from their smartphone camera" At that price, it's one helluva step up from most smartphones, unless you are a very top end phone addict!

Miketoll
13th September 2017, 06:39 PM
The Mk III is one big yawn as far as I am concerned, a rather weak excuse to put the price up.
The next one due an update is the E-M5 so I await that one with some trepidation now.

PeterBirder
13th September 2017, 07:33 PM
When comparing the price of the MKIII with the MKII you have to take into account that due to the dreaded Brexit the exchange rate for Sterling has gone down the tubes.

When I bought my MKII in Sept 2015 it was £549, body only. The MKIII is £630 body only. So, two years on plus the exchange rate crash the price is £81 higher (14.75%). Not sure that there is a "weak excuse" to put the price up, just economic reality and the consequences of asking the electorate an over simplified question and getting the wrong answer.

Miketoll
13th September 2017, 09:11 PM
OK I stand corrected on the price increase The worrying thing is that Brexit has not really hit yet.

pdk42
13th September 2017, 10:17 PM
Seems to me that the E-M10iii is a backward step for anyone who has "real photographer" pretensions. Dumbed down features via firmware. Sad...

KeithL
14th September 2017, 10:07 AM
Discussing exposure with Steve Ricoh over on "Looking for Improvement", I made a similar point. Have a careful listen to DAB radios, and compare with good quality FM; the digital processing for most DAB radios that I've heard is odd. When they are combined with a CD player, the digital processing is shared, and the CD sound is also odd. I bought a new 'hifi' a bit ago with DAB; and I've given up on it, and bought myself a second hand system without DAB that is about 15 years old. There is just no comparison in sound quality.

I think the same thing is at play with cameras. The designers/developers are so besotted with the notion of giving us load of bells and whistles that we're never going to use - but add "showroom appeal" - that they quality of the processing engine is compromised. Maybe even compromised IN ORDER to give us those bells and whistles in some cases.

Regardless of Brexit (and I agree with the sentiments here) camera makers have relentlessly jacked up prices for some time now for new models that offer little more than those they replace. There is an impact due to currency movements, not so much against the dollar or Euro, but against the Yen and Rinminbi. And the costs of Japanese makers have gone up due to storms, tsunamis, and other disasters, and of course they want to recoup their losses.

I would love to see a camera that left out most of the bells and whistles, let you pick what software add-ons you wanted later, but concentrated instead on producing truly optimized sensor and processing engine. OOPS - was that a striped pig flying past out there...?:)

KeithL
14th September 2017, 10:10 AM
When I bought my MKII in Sept 2015 it was £549, body only. The MKIII is £630 body only.r.

I didn't realise that the M10 Mk II cost that much. I thought the Mk I was about £449 body only?

pdk42
14th September 2017, 11:58 AM
Discussing exposure with Steve Ricoh over on "Looking for Improvement", I made a similar point. Have a careful listen to DAB radios, and compare with good quality FM; the digital processing for most DAB radios that I've heard is odd.

I agree with you, but that's not the problem of the DAB technology per se. The problem is that the broadcasters, showing disdain for the ability of their listeners to tell the difference, compress the data streams beyond the point of maintaining top audio quality. I suppose the rationale is to fit more channels into the bandwidth. High bit rate DAB is just as good as analogue FM in terms of dynamic range and sound resolution. It also avoids the problems of background hiss and other interference.

KeithL
14th September 2017, 04:36 PM
I agree with you, but that's not the problem of the DAB technology per se. The problem is that the broadcasters, showing disdain for the ability of their listeners to tell the difference, compress the data streams beyond the point of maintaining top audio quality. I suppose the rationale is to fit more channels into the bandwidth. High bit rate DAB is just as good as analogue FM in terms of dynamic range and sound resolution. It also avoids the problems of background hiss and other interference.

When the sound has over boosted high frequencies, weak bass and poor mid tones, that has to be due to processing. Obviously not the basic DAB technology, but digital technology gives designers/developers the chance to indulge their own fantasies/likes and dislikes rather than producing genuinely good quality sound. The only way i could get half reasonable sound from the 'hifi' that I bought was to set the tone to "flat" (which it can't have been!) and boost the bass as much as it would go. I suppose the tonality suited a lot of today's pop music, but not much else.

Good FM shouldn't have any background noise or interference problems; and, like digital TV, if there is signal dropout, or some form of excessive noise, you lose blocks of picture or sound, rather than a relatively smooth increase in noise. Which is actually much more noticeable than an increase in analogue noise. At certain times of year or with certain weather conditions, we often lose big chunks of picture, and sometimes sound as well (with a huge squawk as it goes), on some TV channels - and we're only half a mile from the antenna!

One thing I do notice, however, is the poor sound quality on not just TV but also DVDs these days. I think your comment fits well with that! I guess with DVDs, the makers try to fit too much onto a DVD, and the sound has to suffer. We have Village Cinema; that uses commercial DVDs, and we have given up going to it, because we couldn't make out what the actors were saying. It wasn't BBC-style mumbling, simply that the sound was "minced"; and we've had the same problem on some commercial DVDs that we have bought ourselves.

Internaut
16th September 2017, 05:51 PM
The price hike doesn't surprise me it all. The cost of importing stuff as gone up.

Otto
17th September 2017, 09:09 AM
DAB is ancient technology now, it still uses mp2 compression. I have given up on it for hi-fi, only Radio 3 has anything like a decent bit rate but listen to some (for example) complex choral music and compared to FM it's just a confused mush. I bought a decent quality DAB tuner early on (a PURE DRX601) but the fact that these fetch virtually nothing on eBay now suggests nobody is interested in them any more. Radio 3 sound via digital TV sounds a lot better to me than DAB.

Now "BBC Concert Sound" via the Internet, that was a different matter. The audio stream straight from the Beeb's sound desk broadcast as uncompressed FLAC. A pity it was just an experiment and no longer broadcast.

Compressing audio streams is akin to compressing pictures using jpg, the more compression the worse the result. Many DAB stations are squeezed so much that AM would probably sound better! Fine for listening via a phone's own speaker but don't put them anywhere near a decent hi-fi system. It's the same with many of the more obscure digital tv channels, their picture and sound quality are very poor compared to the main channels.

pdk42
17th September 2017, 09:20 AM
DAB is ancient technology now, it still uses mp2 compression. I have given up on it for hi-fi, only Radio 3 has anything like a decent bit rate but listen to some (for example) complex choral music and compared to FM it's just a confused mush. I bought a decent quality DAB tuner early on (a PURE DRX601) but the fact that these fetch virtually nothing on eBay now suggests nobody is interested in them any more. Radio 3 sound via digital TV sounds a lot better to me than DAB.

Now "BBC Concert Sound" via the Internet, that was a different matter. The audio stream straight from the Beeb's sound desk broadcast as uncompressed FLAC. A pity it was just an experiment and no longer broadcast.

Compressing audio streams is akin to compressing pictures using jpg, the more compression the worse the result. Many DAB stations are squeezed so much that AM would probably sound better! Fine for listening via a phone's own speaker but don't put them anywhere near a decent hi-fi system. It's the same with many of the more obscure digital tv channels, their picture and sound quality are very poor compared to the main channels.
That's a very good post - thanks. I assumed that the relatively poor DAB quality I've heard was down to over compression. I had noticed that Radio 3 was seemingly alone in using a decent bit rate, but TBH, I don't listen to it enough to know whether it's delivering compared to FM.

Where are we now with plans to retire FM? They was a plan in the late "noughties" to turn it off but I think that's been shelved. Given the aged nature of DAB, maybe the idea will be dropped entirely?

Otto
17th September 2017, 09:46 AM
If I remember correctly when DAB was launched Radio 3 was 256kb/s but has now dropped to 192kb/s. Radio 3's "HD Sound" via the Internet is (I think) 320kb/s AAC; AAC is a much more efficient compression algorithm which uses about half the number of bits.

Before FM can be switched off DAB will have to improve its coverage significantly. My car has a DAB receiver which doesn't work at all here in Wensleydale. From Leyburn east it does, but there are still dropouts. In parts of Europe there is DAB+ which is a newer and better system but not compatible. As usual we Brits do it first and then the rest of the world improves on it, which is why we're stuck with seven foot canals and a smaller loading gauge on our railways!

Ross the fiddler
17th September 2017, 10:05 AM
If I remember correctly when DAB was launched Radio 3 was 256kb/s but has now dropped to 192kb/s. Radio 3's "HD Sound" via the Internet is (I think) 320kb/s AAC; AAC is a much more efficient compression algorithm which uses about half the number of bits.

Before FM can be switched off DAB will have to improve its coverage significantly. My car has a DAB receiver which doesn't work at all here in Wensleydale. From Leyburn east it does, but there are still dropouts. In parts of Europe there is DAB+ which is a newer and better system but not compatible. As usual we Brits do it first and then the rest of the world improves on it, which is why we're stuck with seven foot canals and a smaller loading gauge on our railways!

Yes, we have DAB+, but reception is only good on ideal days in the outer reaches of metropolitan Sydney (& due to the terrain of the Blue Mountains) so I get it OK on some days & other days with dropouts. In the inner suburbs it should be good.

KeithL
17th September 2017, 10:52 AM
The comments fit with what I've noticed. I have a DAB radio in my car, and music sounds reasonably OK, not bad tonality; but when the news comes on, the speech is poor quality, and I have to turn it up to hear it properly. (Suffice it to say that when Don Williams' demise was reported, I thought the news reader on Classic FM - on DAB - said Shirley Williams!:eek:)

We seem very good at taking a forward step in a very backwards manner! The irritating thing so far as hifi is concerned though is that, if you look at hifi system pricing now, there are either cheap systems that give poor sound quality or else very expensive systems; the mid-range, decent quality systems of a decade ago don't seem to be around any more. (Except s/hand.)

The comment about bit rate fits with poor sound quality on DVDs, too. Some years ago, if you bought a film on DVD, it was often on two discs; now it is always on one, regardless of film length. Since picture quality has supposedly improved (and this applies to Blu-Ray discs too) fitting it on one disc almost certainly results in reduced bit rate - or greater compression - for sound. When we watched "Captain Phillips" on Village Cinema, we could only make out the speech properly when the sub titles were on!

I'm wondering if this is a factor on the frequently reported issue of the "BBC mumble" on a lot of new series on TV? Would make sense! (Although, I have to say, "Spies of Warsaw", a very good drama, had speech drowned out with music for most of its length - another irritating 'feature' of dramas lately!)

pdk42
17th September 2017, 11:20 AM
Back on topic - there's a very helpful post over on DPR (imagine that!) from someone who has bought a 10iii:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4204791

It seems even more dumbed down than I thought!

Ross the fiddler
17th September 2017, 12:17 PM
Back on topic - there's a very helpful post over on DPR (imagine that!) from someone who has bought a 10iii:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4204791

It seems even more dumbed down than I thought!

Thanks Paul. An interesting read from Helen.

BTW, the User Manual (http://cs.olympus-imaging.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/omd/man_em10m3_e.pdf) is also available now too (if interested in reading it), as I've posted earlier. http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46119

*chr

KeithL
17th September 2017, 12:33 PM
Back on topic - there's a very helpful post over on DPR (imagine that!) from someone who has bought a 10iii:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4204791

It seems even more dumbed down than I thought!

So I feel rather justified in thinking that it has much to do with increasing profit! I am now wondering if there will rapidly follow an "update" of the M5 MkII, with a sort of halfway house treatment; that could "justify" another price rise, and then either "update" or simply increase the price of the M1 MkII and people could perhaps be induced to go for much more expensive models. Or indeed, if they want a good prosumer level spec, be forced to go for the dearest camera in the range.

Ross the fiddler
17th September 2017, 12:43 PM
I liked a comment from Lindsay D for an apt explanation of Olympus's strategy with this new model. (on another forum (https://www.mu-43.com/threads/new-olympus-om-d-m10-mark-iii-introduced-by-olympus.93789/page-5)) as quoted.
The EM10 and EM10ii proved to be an irritation at times for Olympus, simply because they were so competent. Pros like myself bought them as additional bodies, or personal use cameras - so Olympus were losing a little of the market who would otherwise have purchased another EM5ii or EM1. Add to that the fact that many beginners found the EM10 a little intimidating and you can see why Olympus are now aiming for the 'point and shoot enthusiast' group so that this segment and the prosumers become more divided. The price point is an irrelevance, if they market it right nobody will quibble, especially if that market is newbies who believe the camera makes the photo.

AMc
18th September 2017, 10:12 AM
Read the review and the comments.

As I've said before as a Mki user I would have considered the Mkiii but it doesn't offer anything I really want over the Mkii and that doesn't justify the cost to change given how little my Mki is now worth.

It seems to me that most of the criticism is aimed at menu functions - most of us have at one time or another been irritated by Olympus menus - it would be nice if Olympus had invested in better User Interface design rather than cutting things out to make them "simpler". I would imagine if this turns out to be really unsuccessful they could add some of the "missing" features via firmware updates but that seems improbable to me.

Honestly I don't see how anyone would part with £630 for the iii over £450 for the ii (body only) unless they desperately want 4K video. If I wanted 4K I'd probably look at Panasonic.

On the plus side - I'm not tempted to upgrade which means I'm richer! :)

Internaut
18th September 2017, 06:03 PM
It's a camera for the beginner, but it doesn't sound like the camera a beginner can grow into. The lack of RC flash remains pretty glaring.

David M
18th September 2017, 06:21 PM
I liked a comment from Lindsay D for an apt explanation of Olympus's strategy with this new model. (on another forum (https://www.mu-43.com/threads/new-olympus-om-d-m10-mark-iii-introduced-by-olympus.93789/page-5)) as quoted.

That does make sense. I know Danny (nzmacro) was using a EM10 and he posted some of the best bird photos I've seen on here.

It also makes me wonder if Olympus are thinking back to the OM10 which was a massive seller and probably got a lot of people into using the OM system. Maybe they hope that the EM10 will do the same.

KeithL
19th September 2017, 10:35 AM
That does make sense. I know Danny (nzmacro) was using a EM10 and he posted some of the best bird photos I've seen on here.

It also makes me wonder if Olympus are thinking back to the OM10 which was a massive seller and probably got a lot of people into using the OM system. Maybe they hope that the EM10 will do the same.


I wonder if it would be as fragile, too? My daughter had an OM10. I was astonished how quickly it died... And I've heard that was a common criticism of it.

Otto
19th September 2017, 10:56 AM
The OM-10s were prone to sticky magnet syndrome I believe, but I've still got mine and it still works (or it did last time I looked!). I bought one when they first came out because I couldn't afford an OM-2. A year or two later the prices of both had dropped by about half and I could have had an OM-2 for what I paid for the 10!

David M
19th September 2017, 11:42 AM
I wonder if it would be as fragile, too? My daughter had an OM10. I was astonished how quickly it died... And I've heard that was a common criticism of it.

For a while I kept one as a disposable body for when the camera was being left unattended or the high risk situations such as being mounted on a motorcycle for doing bike to bike shots for road tests/reviews.

I never found it fragile although I doubt it could have taken the amount of abuse my OM1 suffered and survived over the years. It did eventually develop the sticky magnet issue but IIRC that was a cheap repair. Thinking back, I've no idea what happened to the camera, I know I didnít bring it to Canada with me.

KeithL
20th September 2017, 10:00 AM
It did eventually develop the sticky magnet issue but IIRC that was a cheap repair. Thinking back, I've no idea what happened to the camera, I know I didnít bring it to Canada with me.

What was the sticky magnet issue?

Bikie John
20th September 2017, 10:27 AM
If you search for OM10 sticky shutter you should turn up lots of links, Keith. Not much point posting one in here as there are all sorts - entries in various forums, video clips on how to fix it .....

John

KeithL
20th September 2017, 10:33 AM
If you search for OM10 sticky shutter you should turn up lots of links, Keith. Not much point posting one in here as there are all sorts - entries in various forums, video clips on how to fix it .....

John

Right, thx. My daughter doesn't have the camera now. It went the way of all things years ago, so I was just a little curious. I've enough to do, trying to repair my 1972 electronic organ, without taking on any camera repairs! (Even less designed for easy repair, I suspect.)

Edit: having had a quick shift, I don't think that was the problem. I can't remember exactly what had happened to it, it was completely dead in the water, except the shutter fired at one speed and aperture only, as I remember.

maccabeej
21st September 2017, 06:15 AM
Recently was at an Olympus and RPS event. We were told the 10 mk3 was changed to make the modes more accessible to entry level users. Much as suggested by some the camera did not appeal to the target market. Those buying their first proper camera, usually the smart phone generation, which is why the scenes modes etc come up as icons. If it brings more people into the fold then good for Olympus long term.

KeithL
21st September 2017, 09:36 AM
Recently was at an Olympus and RPS event. We were told the 10 mk3 was changed to make the modes more accessible to entry level users. Much as suggested by some the camera did not appeal to the target market. Those buying their first proper camera, usually the smart phone generation, which is why the scenes modes etc come up as icons. If it brings more people into the fold then good for Olympus long term.

The 64,000$ question is, will it? Very expensive as a first step away from a smartphone.

rockelye
3rd February 2018, 11:33 PM
The 64,000$ question is, will it? Very expensive as a first step away from a smartphone.



Itís still cheaper than an iPhone X... :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RobEW
4th February 2018, 08:26 AM
It’s still cheaper than an iPhone X... :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But it only does one thing (photography) so you still need a phone.

- - -

Interesting discussion on Mark III. Sadly people usually do buy based on rather superficial marketing material and perhaps reviews which are also based on limited experience of a product. It's difficult when making a buying decision to access the experience of long term use - especially of a product is so new that no-one has used it for long.

When I was making a decision to try and get back into "proper" photography just over a year ago, I had absolutely no idea how complex the Oly's menu system would prove. Once I'd decided on mirrorless (rather than bridge camera - RX10 III was enticing but costly) I guess the factors which drove me to Oly included reputation - especially for lenses, maybe a bit of sentimental loyalty (I'd used an OM2n years ago), traditional appearance, and of course some reviews and personal advice. But crucially I was tempted by E-M10 II, and the only thing which persuaded me to get E-M5 II instead was weatherproofing. (And I later upgraded to used E-M1 due when I realised better compatibility with FT glass).

That was a long winded way of supporting the suggestion that Oly may be irked that the E-M10 II was too good.

AMc
5th February 2018, 09:24 AM
I've just upgraded from an E-M10 to an E-M10 Mkii. If the Mkiii had anything significant in it's favour I could have spent the extra cash but there was really nothing there I wanted :(

Ross the fiddler
5th February 2018, 12:57 PM
I've just upgraded from an E-M10 to an E-M10 Mkii. If the Mkiii had anything significant in it's favour I could have spent the extra cash but there was really nothing there I wanted :(

I don't consider going to a later model of the same level an upgrade & am not surprised you're disappointed. If you wanted to 'upgrade' then going to the E-M5 Mk II would have been an upgrade.

AMc
6th February 2018, 09:36 AM
I don't consider going to a later model of the same level an upgrade & am not surprised you're disappointed. If you wanted to 'upgrade' then going to the E-M5 Mk II would have been an upgrade.
I didn't want a bigger body - the silent shutter, higher resolution EVF and extra stabilisation more than made sense to go from Mki to Mkii.
4K video on Mkiii wasn't even a consideration.

Ross the fiddler
6th February 2018, 11:34 AM
I didn't want a bigger body - the silent shutter, higher resolution EVF and extra stabilisation more than made sense to go from Mki to Mkii.
4K video on Mkiii wasn't even a consideration.

Then you just wanted to update to a later model then. The Mk III is really a model for entry level users as it has been redesigned to cater more for them than experienced users getting a cheaper body with advanced features to compliment their more expensive model. I believe Olympus wanted to achieve two things with that model, have a User Interface that is easier for entry level users & taking out some advanced features & settings & in doing so hoping that second body users would buy a higher (more expensive) model instead of the cheapest of the range.