Olympus EM1 Mk 2 vs Mk3

myotis

myotis

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,503
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
This has probably been asked before, but it's tricky to search for. I'm interested in views from those who have upgraded from an EM1 Mk II to an EM1 Mk III


I want a smallish, lightish, and weather resistant camera set up to live in my "every day" small messenger bag. Subject matter will be opportunistic: street, landscape, stately homes, historic gardens, tame wildlife, etc. It will be used when I don't have a tripod, so good ibis is one of the reasons for going with Olympus.

I'm pretty well wedded into using Nikons, but I also have a couple of older Fujis, and used to have an Olympus EM5 Mk II with three lenses.

I found the EM5 too small, but liked the 12-40 f2,8, and am thinking of getting back into Olympus with an EM1 Mk2 or Mk3, with another 12-40 f2.8. I may also add a longer lens such as 40-150 (or even a 100-400) for opportunistic wildlife.

However, if I started to use Olympus regularly for wildlife I would try and add an OM1 to the body I buy just now. But a second body would be a long way off, and as I would struggle to fit extra lenses into my bag, this is a secondary consideration.

For about the same amount of money, I can get a Mk III body on it's own, or a MK II body plus the 12-40 f2.8. A MkIII plus 12-40 pushes me beyond my current financial comfort zone, but I would still go for the MkIII if there were some pressing reason to get it over the MK II. It would just push back the purchase by a month or so.

I know the MkIII has a stop extra IBIS, a joy stick to move focus point and handheld high resolution, which would be nice to have, but I could live without them. But I'm also concerned about discussion on rubber failing on the MkII bodies. Other that these things, either body would appear perfectly fine for what I need.

I don't like buying cameras, so what ever I get I would want to last (my newest camera is a Nikon D750, released in 2014, and its got many years left in it, even though I might change it for a D850 sometime)

So for those who upgraded, once you got your MkIII were there things about it that made the upgrade particularly worthwhile? If you were making the decision today, would you spend the extra on the Mk III.

I would be interested to hear your views.
 
My take when I went from the MK II to the MKIII.

Image quality is a wash between both cameras. Unless I look at the EXIF, I won't be able to tell which is which.

For me the ergonomics were a plus and a minus. Plus was the addition of an AF joystick which the cameras were sorely missing and really adds to the experience. However, I wasn't so impressed with the moving of the menu button from bottom right to the top left of the camera, but I got used to it (eventually).

The MK III also has some nice improvements over the MK II for instance Handheld High Res (HHHR), Live ND (which I used quite a bit) and Starry sky AF (which I never used).

I think to sum up, unless the AF joystick are important to you or one of the new AI modes is something you are needing, then if I was doing it again, I'd probably save my money and get a MK II over a MK III (unless a MKIII is at a belting price). The latter isn't a disappointment, it's a very good camera, it's just that so long after the MK II was launched, we were expecting more.

The OM-1 on the other hand is a totally different beast in pretty much every way other than perhaps image quality (which I'd still just give the nod to the OM-1 over the EM1's).
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
My take when I went from the MK II to the MKIII.

Image quality is a wash between both cameras. Unless I look at the EXIF, I won't be able to tell which is which.

For me the ergonomics were a plus and a minus. Plus was the addition of an AF joystick which the cameras were sorely missing and really adds to the experience. However, I wasn't so impressed with the moving of the menu button from bottom right to the top left of the camera, but I got used to it (eventually).

The MK III also has some nice improvements over the MK II for instance Handheld High Res (HHHR), Live ND (which I used quite a bit) and Starry sky AF (which I never used).

I think to sum up, unless the AF joystick are important to you or one of the new AI modes is something you are needing, then if I was doing it again, I'd probably save my money and get a MK II over a MK III (unless a MKIII is at a belting price). The latter isn't a disappointment, it's a very good camera, it's just that so long after the MK II was launched, we were expecting more.

The OM-1 on the other hand is a totally different beast in pretty much every way other than perhaps image quality (which I'd still just give the nod to the OM-1 over the EM1's).
Click to expand...
Many thanks for this, I was kind of leaning towards a Mk II, but didn't want to discover some unknown pressing reason for a MK III weeks after I had made the plunge.
 
Having made the change I would go for the mkiii
 
Can’t edit for some reason definitely get the mkiii it’s extra features are well worth having especially the pro cap low/high plus if you have oily skin the rubbers are a menace, takes a while to get used to but I love mine . The OM1 is still subject to niggling problems so I am in no hurry to upgrade
 
the black fox said:
Can’t edit for some reason definitely get the mkiii it’s extra features are well worth having especially the pro cap low/high plus if you have oily skin the rubbers are a menace, takes a while to get used to but I love mine . The OM1 is still subject to niggling problems so I am in no hurry to upgrade
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'm not that concerned about Pro-capture, or the other features that I listed for the Mk III, but as I mentioned in my post, the rubber issue puts me off. But, I've still not made up my mind.
 
I've had both and preferred the mk2 over the 3, Maybe that was because I didn't have the mk3 for very long and found upgrading to it very underwhelming. I didn't really use the so called extras but the cameras for what I used them for were pretty much the same. The OM-1 is a massive leap in my opinion. There are some good 2nd hand deals around for the MK3 so I would say go for the newer tech if you don't mind paying the extra £300 or so but, both are very good cameras. ;)
 
Last edited:
I had a mkiii for a short while, joystick was nice, but still the same not great evf as the mkii
Kept the mkii and returned the mkiii, used the cash to get a G9 which was much better value.
 
ajophotog said:
I've had both and preferred the mk2 over the 3, Maybe that was because I didn't have the mk3 for very long and found upgrading to it very underwhelming. I didn't really use the so called extras but the cameras for what I used them for were pretty much the same. The OM-1 is a massive leap in my opinion. There are some good 2nd hand deals around for the MK3 so I would say go for the newer tech if you don't mind paying the extra £300 or so but, both are very good cameras. ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm obviously torn between saving a good chunk of money versus buying the latest model I can afford, given I plan to keep it for a long time (in camera terms).
 
tijuana taxi said:
I had a mkiii for a short while, joystick was nice, but still the same not great evf as the mkii
Kept the mkii and returned the mkiii, used the cash to get a G9 which was much better value.
Click to expand...
Thanks, it does seem the MK II and Mk III are pretty close .

The G9 is an attractive camera in many respects, ( I almost bought one a few years ago) but for various reasons I will be sticking with Olympus.
 
back to the rubbers ,unfortunately I have very oily skin and my mkii had to go back twice in the first year .. first time was great there and back in a week , second time due to Brexit left me without a camera for a month .. hence the mkiii .. if its a long term plan then go for the mkiii even if you dont use the features there in it if needed ,, its taken me over a year to use pro-cap low but its a godsend in the right situation
 
the black fox said:
back to the rubbers ,unfortunately I have very oily skin and my mkii had to go back twice in the first year .. first time was great there and back in a week , second time due to Brexit left me without a camera for a month .. hence the mkiii .. if its a long term plan then go for the mkiii even if you dont use the features there in it if needed ,, its taken me over a year to use pro-cap low but its a godsend in the right situation
Click to expand...
Thanks again, that is useful information on the rubber coverings, which was the main driver for me looking at the Mk III. I think that may well put the Mk III back as favourite.
 
The best way to judge is if you use a mobile phone or I.pad does your screen/s need constant cleaning .if so you have oily skin this seeps into the rubber eventually causing it to swell and break lose ,it was a common problem on certain Nikon models to .. .. as to prices have you checked out current deals from H.DEW there generally a lot cheaper
 
the black fox said:
The best way to judge is if you use a mobile phone or I.pad does your screen/s need constant cleaning .if so you have oily skin this seeps into the rubber eventually causing it to swell and break lose ,it was a common problem on certain Nikon models to .. .. as to prices have you checked out current deals from H.DEW there generally a lot cheaper
Click to expand...
Some of my Nikons have become a little "tacky" over the years, and my spectacles are constantly getting greasy, so I suspect I have slightly greasy skin, even if it might not be a major issue. But, I would rather play safe.
 
I recently got the MKiii from an online shop £700 for almost new boxed - trying to set it up which is kinda tricky compared to the canon R6 but, I used to have the MKi and got some lovely pics from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top