Olympus OM_DE_M10 DSLR camera

I have been thinking of moving up from my compact camera and have been considering the above. Is there anyone who has one of these and are they happy with it.

geek_beechee51, Jul 3, 8:45 pm

It's not a dslr.
There's an extensive review here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m10

geek_mm12345, Jul 3, 11:38 pm

That's an EVIL camera, Not a DSLR.
But that's good. SLR's are big and bulky; EVILs are (almost) always a better option for amateurs/ enthusiasts these days.
I don't know that model, but from the picture it looks quite useable and Olympus are generally good.

geek_oclaf, Jul 4, 2:21 am



Despite that being repeated as "gospel", approx 80% of interchangeable lens cameras being sold are DSLRs.
It would be more accurate to say that they're a different option to DSLRs - not a "better" option.

geek_mm12345, Jul 4, 9:06 am

I have an E-M1. Image quality is every bit as good as my old Nikon D90 and it's capable of amazing things however it does present something of a learning curve - the menus and so on are quite confusing. Put a decent lens on it like the 45mm f/1.8 or the 75mm f/1.8 and it's brilliant!

geek_piperguy, Jul 4, 10:39 am



Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras are a big market now. Very compact and comparable quality to DSLRs

geek_suicidemonkey, Jul 4, 12:10 pm



Yes. But I'll stick with my comment that most interchangeable lens cameras sold are dslrs (CIPA data):
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CIPA-DSLR-vs-mirrorless-camera-shipments.jpg

geek_mm12345, Jul 4, 12:35 pm



Pretty much irrelevant. DSLRS have been around longer and there is still this misconception amongst amateurs that they must have a DSLR to make all photos suddenly amazing. There is very little that a DSLR can do now that a mirrorless cannot. If you don't need the optical viewfinder then you are better off without it. It adds unnecessary bulk and complexity to the camera.

I have met so many ammature photographers who want to upgrade/ have upgraded from a pocket point and shoot to a DSLR. None of them needed the optical viewfinder. I usually tell people that if they don't know why they need a mirror in their camera, then they probably don't need a mirror at all. Hell I don't even know why I need a mirror any more. My only gripe with EVILs are the sensor sizes, most are only MFT. Granted that is only marginally smaller than the APS-C in most consumer DSLRS. My next camera will be something like the sony A7. Ill miss my a850's optical viewfinder, but with a pancake I could have full featured 35mm digital in my jacket pocket. Not many reflex cameras are pocketable.

geek_oclaf, Jul 4, 1:38 pm



Why is it that (dslrs outselling EVILs) is "irrelevant"?
There's a frequent assumption made by mirrorless fanatics, that any amateur buying a DSLR must be some kind of a moron. Are pros using DSLRs also making a bad decision?

geek_mm12345, Jul 4, 3:05 pm

I wouldn't say they are irrelevant, but I could never go back now I have used a good EVF - being able to preview your exposure with blinkies right in the viewfinder- how did we ever manage before?

geek_piperguy, Jul 4, 3:26 pm



I'm not a mirrorless fanatic. Whilst I've used them, I've never owned one. Up until the 35mm models came on the market they were of little interest to me. I just have enough experience to know what is and isn't important in cameras for various demographics. The two systems have their own strengths and weaknesses. Many pros are switching to mirrorless entirely. Many use both. And many prefer the optical viewfinders. It's all personal preference. Also pros and enthusiasts will have lens collections that will heavily influence buying choice. New entrants don't have that consideration (I only chose Sony alpha because of my existing Minolta AF Lenses).

What I am saying is many people feel they need to have DSLR because SLR's have long (decades) been seen as "pro" cameras and if it's not an SLR then it is just not going to be as good. Which has never been the case, but that is just the general perception. For an amature photographer who wants a good camera with a large sensor, manual features and creative control that they can chuck in a bag and carry around to the beach, take hiking or whatever than a good mirrorless is 9 times out of ten going to be the better option. If it is someone who is really into Astro that wants to set up a tripod and hang a large aperture telephoto on the camera then I would suggest perhaps an DSLR is a better choice.

DSLRs out selling mirrorless cameras is irrelevant because they are the newest kids on the block. There are not as many models to chose from and they are still living in the shadow the DSLRs. That is aside from the fact that sales of DSLR's vs mirrorless is really not saying anything at all about which is more suitable for a given application. I'm sure if you looked at compact cameras sales vs DSLR sales you would find that DSLR sales pale into insignificance. That does not make a compact camera any better.

geek_oclaf, Jul 4, 4:40 pm



No you don't. You didn't even bother to ask the OP what they'll be using the camera for.

geek_mm12345, Jul 4, 4:58 pm



You are arguing for the sack of arguing. The OP gave enough info to establish that a mirrorless camera will be adequate for their needs. The fact that they mistook a Olympus OM for a DSLR only reinforces my point.

geek_oclaf, Jul 4, 5:54 pm



Incorrect. They said that they wanted to upgrade from a point and shoot. You don't know why.

geek_mm12345, Jul 4, 7:02 pm

Thanks for all the replies, I am an amateur, started with a Sony H5, then a Panasonic T27, then used a new Panasonic TZ 40 which I didn't really like and enjoy taking photos of my dogs,scenes and family. The dogs move very fast so I need something that can cope with this and also like to take photos of them at the beach and have trouble with the compact viewer in the bright light. The reason why I am asking about this camera is that it apparently is recommended by the camera club but I need something that is simple to use.

geek_beechee51, Jul 4, 7:40 pm

That camera sounds fine. The electronic eyepiece will solve your viewer issues in sunlight. Image quality is up there. Decent ISO range with minimal noise. It sounds like it has some good autofocus features that should help you catch the dogs. And it's pretty compact, so carrying it around wont be chore.

You'll want at least a 18-50mm or similar lens. Which should be perfect for the dogs. More than likely it will come with one as a kit. I have no idea what exact lens it will come with, but the kit lenses do tend to be slow and basic. No doubt it will be adequate to start with. But you might find it worth investing in another lens at a later date if you do a lot of shooting in low light or just want to expand your options.

I'll leave it to mm12345 to tell you why a DSLR is probably better.

geek_oclaf, Jul 5, 12:32 am



Because the focus-tracking (for moving kids/dogs) will suck on the Olympus. Better than a point and shoot - but not as good as even basic dslrs.
A Sony a6000 (mirrorless with on-sensor phase detect AF) or used Nikon D7100 (dslr) is a much better option.

geek_mm12345, Jul 5, 8:50 am

End of the day you probably carry that Olympus in a carry bag anyway (does not quite look pocket-able) so the stretch to a dSLR (crop type sensor) is in the same ballpark in terms of portability - still going to need a bag. Also just to clarify - dSLR shooters use the viewfinder for a variety of reasons - one that does not pop up enough is AF performance. always makes me cringe when a newbie dSLR shooter is composing with the LCD display (which is a lot slower). Mirrorless camera are catching up in terms of AF performance well at least top end ones are. You trying to shoot the dog at the beach running around - one to shoot this is in high burst mode. the Olympus is rated at 8FPS with is bloody fast - shoot and hope that the AF keeps up :P.

geek_acura, Jul 5, 9:20 am

I am of an age where I now have to hold the camera further away to see the screen, or drop my glasses down to see it. I prefer an optical viewfinder, but it is a few years since I looked at an EVF. I remember them being pixel-ly, inaccurate in colours and impossible to tell if the scene was focussed. Are they better now?

Edit: also slow - a measurable fraction behind the action.

geek_emmerson1, Jun 10, 11:08 am

Share this thread