Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II + 14-42mm & 40-150mm Lenses (£464 with cashback) @ Jessops - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
273

Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II + 14-42mm & 40-150mm Lenses (£464 with cashback) @ Jessops £539.00

£539.00 @ Jessops
5-axis in-body Image Stabilisation system Lightweight, compact and premium all-metal body 2.36M dots OLED Electronic Viewfinder Fast autofocus with 80-area multiple AF points Tilt-able 3-inch touc… Read More
TK42 Avatar
5m, 3w agoFound 5 months, 3 weeks ago
5-axis in-body Image Stabilisation system
Lightweight, compact and premium all-metal body
2.36M dots OLED Electronic Viewfinder
Fast autofocus with 80-area multiple AF points
Tilt-able 3-inch touchscreen

4k time lapse movie capability.
Includes 14-42mm & 40-150mm Lenses
M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 14‑42mm 1:3.5‑5.6 II R
M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40‑150mm 1:4.0‑5.6 R (£225 on it's own)

£30 off with code OLYDISCOUNT

£539 - £75 cashback = £464

Cashback
http://olympusuk.sales-promotions.com/
TK42 Avatar
5m, 3w agoFound 5 months, 3 weeks ago
Options

Top Comments

(1)
10 Likes
adamwilko007
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.

(Warning: Long post incoming)

For a long term investment around the £500 mark (with an initial spend of up to £600), there are four mirrorless cameras I would be looking at:

*Fujifilm X-T10 with 16-50mm lens for £468 (£548 minus £80 cashback)
*Olympus OM-D E-M10 II with 14-42mm & 40-150mm lenses for £494 (£569 minus £75 cashback)
*Panasonic GX80 with 12-32mm lens for £449 (£549 minus £100 cashback)
*Sony A6000 with 16-50mm lens for £499 (no current cashback offer)

All four have their own advantages and disadvantages. Firstly to cover IQ and portability you've asked about specifically- The Fuji and Sony have an image quality edge, but all four are excellent and, as a new photographer, you will be a larger bottleneck on image quality than your camera will be! For portability, click here for a size comparison of all four models. They're all quite similar, with the Sony and Panasonic being a bit thicker with their protruding grip/viewfinder, with the Olympus and Fuji are taller with their viewfinder humps. They're also a very similar weight (san-lens), with the Sony, Fuji and Olympus all weighing between 380g and 391g, with the Panasonic only a bit heavier at 427g.

So with those two factors covered, as a long term purchase there are other things to consider;
*Lenses: Panasonic and Olympus both use the same lens mount and can freely use lenses made by each other, and third part lenses will obviously work for both cameras too. This means a lot of variety and generally quite affordable prices. Sony and Fuji use their own lens mounts, and the options available are less diverse and often a bit more expensive. The Olympus also gets a big value bump in that it comes with a telephoto lens at the same price that these other cameras only have the kit zoom lens.
*Autofocus and continuous shooting: All four cameras have excellent autofocus for static shots, to the point where it's not really an issue I would make a choice on. However when it comes to subject tracking, the A6000 remains uncontested as the best mirrorless camera at this price point for focussing on moving subjects (it also does it with a continuous shooting rate of up to 11fps, the fastest of all four cameras). The Panasonic takes second place, while the Fuji and Olympus struggle in this regard (all three of these cameras shoot at between 6fps and 8fps in continuous mode, which is very respectful but nothing close to the Sony)
*Image stabilisation: Both the Panasonic and Olympus cameras have image stabilisation within the camera body, essentially turning any lens into an image stabilised one and making it easier to get sharp shots at slower shutter speeds. It also means lenses can be smaller and lighter when IS doesn't need to be built in. The Sony and Fuji do not have this feature in-body and it must instead be built into the lenses.
*Video quality: The Sony produces the best 1080p video of the bunch, while the Panasonic also has great video quality, can shoot all the way up to 4K, and the in-body image stabilisation means you can get smoother video regardless of the lens you use. Neither the Fuji or Olympus are really worth considering if video is a big priority, on account of poor subject tracking and a lack of video-oriented features.
*Viewfinder: All four cameras feature an electronic viewfinder of a good quality. All are perfectly usable, but in order of quality they go Fuji>Olympus>Panasonic/Sony.
*Styling and ergonomics: Obviously there's a lot of personal preference here, there's the more conservative design and rangefinder-style Sony and Panasonic versus the retro inspired SLR-style Fuji and Olympus. Two big considerations here though are the viewfinder placement and grip- the viewfinder of the Panasonic and Sony are placed near the left hand side of the camera, which is fine for most people but can make it awkward for people with a dominant left eye as you have to hold the camera across your face, while the centred viewfinders of the Olympus and Fuji are better in this regard. The grip also plays a big part for some people, with the small "finger holds" of the Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus being less suited to people with larger hands than the more robust grip of the A6000.
*JPEG image quality: This is not something normally mentioned in comparing high end cameras, as one of the big draws of these cameras is the editing and tweaking they allow you to do with images by shooting RAW mode. However Fuji have found a niche for themselves with their excellent JPEG presets and film simulations, and it deserves a mention here.

So yeah, ramble over. In short, all four are excellent and whatever you buy you will most likely enjoy and be very happy with the results of. However there are a few significant factors that will make some cameras better suited to some people but not others. Want an affordable camera and lens options from day one? The Olympus is a great shout. Want something you can take to sporting events or just for kids running around the garden? The A6000 will keep up with them. Want something stylish and will produce great photos out of the camera without worrying about editing? The Fuji is awesome for that. Want to dabble in videography? The GX80 has you covered the best.

Edited By: ElGofre on Nov 02, 2016 11:08

All Comments

(55) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
Add £60 for the grip. You'll need it.
#2
Scorchio
#3
A great deal for anyone looking to get into M43 (or get into "proper" photography in general), hot.
#4
ElGofre
A great deal for anyone looking to get into M43 (or get into "proper" photography in general), hot.

Agreed. Also great inconspicuous size for those of us that don't feel to (cough) 'show off' carrying the largest Canon/Nikon model inc lens available around!
1 Like #5
herodave
Add £60 for the grip. You'll need it.

Why? Unless you've attached some 1 foot lens on it or have overtly large hands the supplied lens should pose no grip issues.
#6
How portable are these things?
1 Like #7
How does this compare to rx100 m3 ? Are the portable as acasserole says , fit in a hand bag , large coat pocket?
#8
dcb01
herodave
Add £60 for the grip. You'll need it.
Why? Unless you've attached some 1 foot lens on it or have overtly large hands the supplied lens should pose no grip issues.
The grip is tiny on this, its really hard to hold.

Personally I would spend the extra and get the EZ version instead of this one also.
#9
acasserole
How portable are these things?

adamwilko007
How does this compare to rx100 m3 ? Are the portable as acasserole says , fit in a hand bag , large coat pocket?

Click the link below to see a size comparison to the Sony RX100 (a slightly larger-than-average compact camera) and a Nikon D3300 (a standard sized entry level DSLR). It is quite literally a middle ground between the two. With a small "pancake" lens (of which there's a few, for example the Oly 17mm 2.8 and Panasonic 14mm 2.5) the EM10 can fit comfortably into a coat pocket or handbag, but you aren't going to be carrying it around in your jeans!

http://camerasize.com/compact/#467,633,509,ha,f

Edited By: ElGofre on Nov 01, 2016 10:39
#10
phead
dcb01
herodave
Add £60 for the grip. You'll need it.
Why? Unless you've attached some 1 foot lens on it or have overtly large hands the supplied lens should pose no grip issues.
The grip is tiny on this, its really hard to hold.
Personally I would spend the extra and get the EZ version instead of this one also.

You buy what is comfortable to you and if that's your preference then it's all good but from my perspective of having largish hands and owning the MK 1 version of this with the 14-42mm lens it works with no added mod
#11
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
1 Like #12
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
1 Like #13
Good reviews on the included lens, compared to the EZ version: -

Olympus M.ZUIKO 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R
http://www.photozone.de/m43/846-olympus1442f3556iir?

Olympus M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ED EZ
http://www.photozone.de/m43/885_olympus1442f3556ez?
#14
gads
Somebody is offering me a lightly used a6000 for 400, is that a good price?
You can get an A6000 with kit lens for about £480 (check http://www.camerapricebuster.com for where has the cheapest deals at any given time) and Sony have their seasonal cashback offer on at the moment, so if you don't mind a slightly higher initial spend you can probably get a brand new A6000 kit for a few quid more.
#15
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.

Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
#16
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/

This is literally in the opening paragraph:

"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."

The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.

Edited By: ElGofre on Nov 01, 2016 23:31
#17
Go for the latest if you can afford https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00EY6AV96
#18
ElGofre
You can get an A6000 with kit lens for about £480 (check http://www.camerapricebuster.com for where has the cheapest deals at any given time) and Sony have their seasonal cashback offer on at the moment, so if you don't mind a slightly higher initial spend you can probably get a brand new A6000 kit for a few quid more.
Thanks!

Edited By: gads on Nov 02, 2016 02:21
#19
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/

This is literally in the opening paragraph:

"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."

The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.


From the second paragraph:-

"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.

An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
#20
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.

Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
#21
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.
10 Likes #22
adamwilko007
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.

(Warning: Long post incoming)

For a long term investment around the £500 mark (with an initial spend of up to £600), there are four mirrorless cameras I would be looking at:

*Fujifilm X-T10 with 16-50mm lens for £468 (£548 minus £80 cashback)
*Olympus OM-D E-M10 II with 14-42mm & 40-150mm lenses for £494 (£569 minus £75 cashback)
*Panasonic GX80 with 12-32mm lens for £449 (£549 minus £100 cashback)
*Sony A6000 with 16-50mm lens for £499 (no current cashback offer)

All four have their own advantages and disadvantages. Firstly to cover IQ and portability you've asked about specifically- The Fuji and Sony have an image quality edge, but all four are excellent and, as a new photographer, you will be a larger bottleneck on image quality than your camera will be! For portability, click here for a size comparison of all four models. They're all quite similar, with the Sony and Panasonic being a bit thicker with their protruding grip/viewfinder, with the Olympus and Fuji are taller with their viewfinder humps. They're also a very similar weight (san-lens), with the Sony, Fuji and Olympus all weighing between 380g and 391g, with the Panasonic only a bit heavier at 427g.

So with those two factors covered, as a long term purchase there are other things to consider;
*Lenses: Panasonic and Olympus both use the same lens mount and can freely use lenses made by each other, and third part lenses will obviously work for both cameras too. This means a lot of variety and generally quite affordable prices. Sony and Fuji use their own lens mounts, and the options available are less diverse and often a bit more expensive. The Olympus also gets a big value bump in that it comes with a telephoto lens at the same price that these other cameras only have the kit zoom lens.
*Autofocus and continuous shooting: All four cameras have excellent autofocus for static shots, to the point where it's not really an issue I would make a choice on. However when it comes to subject tracking, the A6000 remains uncontested as the best mirrorless camera at this price point for focussing on moving subjects (it also does it with a continuous shooting rate of up to 11fps, the fastest of all four cameras). The Panasonic takes second place, while the Fuji and Olympus struggle in this regard (all three of these cameras shoot at between 6fps and 8fps in continuous mode, which is very respectful but nothing close to the Sony)
*Image stabilisation: Both the Panasonic and Olympus cameras have image stabilisation within the camera body, essentially turning any lens into an image stabilised one and making it easier to get sharp shots at slower shutter speeds. It also means lenses can be smaller and lighter when IS doesn't need to be built in. The Sony and Fuji do not have this feature in-body and it must instead be built into the lenses.
*Video quality: The Sony produces the best 1080p video of the bunch, while the Panasonic also has great video quality, can shoot all the way up to 4K, and the in-body image stabilisation means you can get smoother video regardless of the lens you use. Neither the Fuji or Olympus are really worth considering if video is a big priority, on account of poor subject tracking and a lack of video-oriented features.
*Viewfinder: All four cameras feature an electronic viewfinder of a good quality. All are perfectly usable, but in order of quality they go Fuji>Olympus>Panasonic/Sony.
*Styling and ergonomics: Obviously there's a lot of personal preference here, there's the more conservative design and rangefinder-style Sony and Panasonic versus the retro inspired SLR-style Fuji and Olympus. Two big considerations here though are the viewfinder placement and grip- the viewfinder of the Panasonic and Sony are placed near the left hand side of the camera, which is fine for most people but can make it awkward for people with a dominant left eye as you have to hold the camera across your face, while the centred viewfinders of the Olympus and Fuji are better in this regard. The grip also plays a big part for some people, with the small "finger holds" of the Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus being less suited to people with larger hands than the more robust grip of the A6000.
*JPEG image quality: This is not something normally mentioned in comparing high end cameras, as one of the big draws of these cameras is the editing and tweaking they allow you to do with images by shooting RAW mode. However Fuji have found a niche for themselves with their excellent JPEG presets and film simulations, and it deserves a mention here.

So yeah, ramble over. In short, all four are excellent and whatever you buy you will most likely enjoy and be very happy with the results of. However there are a few significant factors that will make some cameras better suited to some people but not others. Want an affordable camera and lens options from day one? The Olympus is a great shout. Want something you can take to sporting events or just for kids running around the garden? The A6000 will keep up with them. Want something stylish and will produce great photos out of the camera without worrying about editing? The Fuji is awesome for that. Want to dabble in videography? The GX80 has you covered the best.

Edited By: ElGofre on Nov 02, 2016 11:08
#23
I only have more basic models of oly and sony. Olympus has very fast focusing and plenty of nice lenses available. The 16mp sensor is as good as sony in daylight. Sony nex and a5000 better low light and video but poor lens availability
I now take the oly with me in preference with a fast prime. The zoom in this deal is no big deal - I use a superzoom compact far, far more.
#24
ElGofre
adamwilko007
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.
(Warning: Long post incoming)
For a long term investment around the £500 mark (with an initial spend of up to £600), there are four mirrorless cameras I would be looking at:
*Fujifilm X-T10 with 16-50mm lens for £468 (£548 minus £80 cashback)
*Olympus OM-D E-M10 II with 14-42mm & 40-150mm lenses for £494 (£569 minus £75 cashback)
*Panasonic GX80 with 12-32mm lens for £449 (£549 minus £100 cashback)
*Sony A6000 with 16-50mm lens for £499 (no current cashback offer)
All four have their own advantages and disadvantages. Firstly to cover IQ and portability you've asked about specifically- The Fuji and Sony have an image quality edge, but all four are excellent and, as a new photographer, you will be a larger bottleneck on image quality than your camera will be! For portability, click here for a size comparison of all four models. They're all quite similar, with the Sony and Panasonic being a bit thicker with their protruding grip/viewfinder, with the Olympus and Fuji are taller with their viewfinder humps. They're also a very similar weight (san-lens), with the Sony, Fuji and Olympus all weighing between 380g and 391g, with the Panasonic only a bit heavier at 427g.
So with those two factors covered, as a long term purchase there are other things to consider;
*Lenses: Panasonic and Olympus both use the same lens mount and can freely use lenses made by each other, and third part lenses will obviously work for both cameras too. This means a lot of variety and generally quite affordable prices. Sony and Fuji use their own lens mounts, and the options available are less diverse and often a bit more expensive. The Olympus also gets a big value bump in that it comes with a telephoto lens at the same price that these other cameras only have the kit zoom lens.
*Autofocus and continuous shooting: All four cameras have excellent autofocus for static shots, to the point where it's not really an issue I would make a choice on. However when it comes to subject tracking, the A6000 remains uncontested as the best mirrorless camera at this price point for focussing on moving subjects (it also does it with a continuous shooting rate of up to 11fps, the fastest of all four cameras). The Panasonic takes second place, while the Fuji and Olympus struggle in this regard (all three of these cameras shoot at between 6fps and 8fps in continuous mode, which is very respectful but nothing close to the Sony)
*Image stabilisation: Both the Panasonic and Olympus cameras have image stabilisation within the camera body, essentially turning any lens into an image stabilised one and making it easier to get sharp shots at slower shutter speeds. It also means lenses can be smaller and lighter when IS doesn't need to be built in. The Sony and Fuji do not have this feature in-body and it must instead be built into the lenses.
*Video quality: The Sony produces the best 1080p video of the bunch, while the Panasonic also has great video quality, can shoot all the way up to 4K, and the in-body image stabilisation means you can get smoother video regardless of the lens you use. Neither the Fuji or Olympus are really worth considering if video is a big priority, on account of poor subject tracking and a lack of video-oriented features.
*Viewfinder: All four cameras feature an electronic viewfinder of a good quality. All are perfectly usable, but in order of quality they go Fuji>Olympus>Panasonic/Sony.
*Styling and ergonomics: Obviously there's a lot of personal preference here, there's the more conservative design and rangefinder-style Sony and Panasonic versus the retro inspired SLR-style Fuji and Olympus. Two big considerations here though are the viewfinder placement and grip- the viewfinder of the Panasonic and Sony are placed near the left hand side of the camera, which is fine for most people but can make it awkward for people with a dominant left eye as you have to hold the camera across your face, while the centred viewfinders of the Olympus and Fuji are better in this regard. The grip also plays a big part for some people, with the small "finger holds" of the Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus being less suited to people with larger hands than the more robust grip of the A6000.
*JPEG image quality: This is not something normally mentioned in comparing high end cameras, as one of the big draws of these cameras is the editing and tweaking they allow you to do with images by shooting RAW mode. However Fuji have found a niche for themselves with their excellent JPEG presets and film simulations, and it deserves a mention here.
So yeah, ramble over. In short, all four are excellent and whatever you buy you will most likely enjoy and be very happy with the results of. However there are a few significant factors that will make some cameras better suited to some people but not others. Want an affordable camera and lens options from day one? The Olympus is a great shout. Want something you can take to sporting events or just for kids running around the garden? The A6000 will keep up with them. Want something stylish and will produce great photos out of the camera without worrying about editing? The Fuji is awesome for that. Want to dabble in videography? The GX80 has you covered the best.
Hi,
Just out of curiosity if to compare this deal or cameras you mentioned how would it compare to DSLR cameras? At this price tag I can get nikon 5300 or pentax k-s2 etc?
#25
Anthonis
ElGofre
adamwilko007
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.
(Warning: Long post incoming)
For a long term investment around the £500 mark (with an initial spend of up to £600), there are four mirrorless cameras I would be looking at:
*Fujifilm X-T10 with 16-50mm lens for £468 (£548 minus £80 cashback)
*Olympus OM-D E-M10 II with 14-42mm & 40-150mm lenses for £494 (£569 minus £75 cashback)
*Panasonic GX80 with 12-32mm lens for £449 (£549 minus £100 cashback)
*Sony A6000 with 16-50mm lens for £499 (no current cashback offer)
All four have their own advantages and disadvantages. Firstly to cover IQ and portability you've asked about specifically- The Fuji and Sony have an image quality edge, but all four are excellent and, as a new photographer, you will be a larger bottleneck on image quality than your camera will be! For portability, click here for a size comparison of all four models. They're all quite similar, with the Sony and Panasonic being a bit thicker with their protruding grip/viewfinder, with the Olympus and Fuji are taller with their viewfinder humps. They're also a very similar weight (san-lens), with the Sony, Fuji and Olympus all weighing between 380g and 391g, with the Panasonic only a bit heavier at 427g.
So with those two factors covered, as a long term purchase there are other things to consider;
*Lenses: Panasonic and Olympus both use the same lens mount and can freely use lenses made by each other, and third part lenses will obviously work for both cameras too. This means a lot of variety and generally quite affordable prices. Sony and Fuji use their own lens mounts, and the options available are less diverse and often a bit more expensive. The Olympus also gets a big value bump in that it comes with a telephoto lens at the same price that these other cameras only have the kit zoom lens.
*Autofocus and continuous shooting: All four cameras have excellent autofocus for static shots, to the point where it's not really an issue I would make a choice on. However when it comes to subject tracking, the A6000 remains uncontested as the best mirrorless camera at this price point for focussing on moving subjects (it also does it with a continuous shooting rate of up to 11fps, the fastest of all four cameras). The Panasonic takes second place, while the Fuji and Olympus struggle in this regard (all three of these cameras shoot at between 6fps and 8fps in continuous mode, which is very respectful but nothing close to the Sony)
*Image stabilisation: Both the Panasonic and Olympus cameras have image stabilisation within the camera body, essentially turning any lens into an image stabilised one and making it easier to get sharp shots at slower shutter speeds. It also means lenses can be smaller and lighter when IS doesn't need to be built in. The Sony and Fuji do not have this feature in-body and it must instead be built into the lenses.
*Video quality: The Sony produces the best 1080p video of the bunch, while the Panasonic also has great video quality, can shoot all the way up to 4K, and the in-body image stabilisation means you can get smoother video regardless of the lens you use. Neither the Fuji or Olympus are really worth considering if video is a big priority, on account of poor subject tracking and a lack of video-oriented features.
*Viewfinder: All four cameras feature an electronic viewfinder of a good quality. All are perfectly usable, but in order of quality they go Fuji>Olympus>Panasonic/Sony.
*Styling and ergonomics: Obviously there's a lot of personal preference here, there's the more conservative design and rangefinder-style Sony and Panasonic versus the retro inspired SLR-style Fuji and Olympus. Two big considerations here though are the viewfinder placement and grip- the viewfinder of the Panasonic and Sony are placed near the left hand side of the camera, which is fine for most people but can make it awkward for people with a dominant left eye as you have to hold the camera across your face, while the centred viewfinders of the Olympus and Fuji are better in this regard. The grip also plays a big part for some people, with the small "finger holds" of the Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus being less suited to people with larger hands than the more robust grip of the A6000.
*JPEG image quality: This is not something normally mentioned in comparing high end cameras, as one of the big draws of these cameras is the editing and tweaking they allow you to do with images by shooting RAW mode. However Fuji have found a niche for themselves with their excellent JPEG presets and film simulations, and it deserves a mention here.
So yeah, ramble over. In short, all four are excellent and whatever you buy you will most likely enjoy and be very happy with the results of. However there are a few significant factors that will make some cameras better suited to some people but not others. Want an affordable camera and lens options from day one? The Olympus is a great shout. Want something you can take to sporting events or just for kids running around the garden? The A6000 will keep up with them. Want something stylish and will produce great photos out of the camera without worrying about editing? The Fuji is awesome for that. Want to dabble in videography? The GX80 has you covered the best.
Hi,
Just out of curiosity if to compare this deal or cameras you mentioned how would it compare to DSLR cameras? At this price tag I can get nikon 5300 or pentax k-s2 etc?

It's a preference thing for the most part. DSLRs have optical viewfinders, mirrorless have electronic. DSLRs have fewer autofocus points, but are generally faster and more accurate for both still and moving subjects. The larger and heavier, but better built and with better ergonomics. It all depends on your priorities.

One thing, however, is that by virtue of having viewfinders by definition, there are cheaper DSLRs than this £500 price point that I would consider viable as "long term" purchases (For reference I deem an electronic viewfinder essential to qualify as a long term buy, you can get cheaper cameras than the ones I link but they don't have an EVF or have another significant omission in their specs). A Nikon D3300 kit costs £350 and may drop (supply levels have been weird recently and increased the going rate of Nikon's entry level camera compared to earlier this year), a Canon 100D costs £330 after cashback, and Pentax's K-50 can still be found for £390 and is insane value for what you're paying. They may not be as robust offerings as D5300s, 750Ds and KS-2s (although in some ways the K-50 is actually the better Pentax), but they have all the core features covered and leave more money for lenses.

Edited By: ElGofre on Nov 02, 2016 14:24
#26
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.

ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
My point was that accurate focusing is pretty important to the image quality. There is no point in having a high resolution sensor if half of your photos are out of focus. I have a Sony A7II and a Nikon D750, the D750 is miles better in this regard (particularly when the light is not so good). The lens used makes a lot of difference also; they are much cheaper and is more choice with Nikon. It's worth taking these points into consideration when choosing a camera. If you are into sports then a D-SLR will be much better in this regard. A CSC is much more convenient though.
#27
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
My point was that accurate focusing is pretty important to the image quality. There is no point in having a high resolution sensor if half of your photos are out of focus. I have a Sony A7II and a Nikon D750, the D750 is miles better in this regard (particularly when the light is not so good). The lens used makes a lot of difference also; they are much cheaper and is more choice with Nikon. It's worth taking these points into consideration when choosing a camera. If you are into sports then a D-SLR will be much better in this regard. A CSC is much more convenient though.
If half of your shots are out of focus with an A6000, you're using it wrong. Both cameras have excellent autofocus systems for static images, neither will have a significant rate of misses if used properly. The EM10 II's significantly worse tracking performance is a far larger autofocus problem than the A6000 being a couple of milliseconds slower at shooting a still target.

Edited By: ElGofre on Nov 02, 2016 18:38
#28
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
My point was that accurate focusing is pretty important to the image quality. There is no point in having a high resolution sensor if half of your photos are out of focus. I have a Sony A7II and a Nikon D750, the D750 is miles better in this regard (particularly when the light is not so good). The lens used makes a lot of difference also; they are much cheaper and is more choice with Nikon. It's worth taking these points into consideration when choosing a camera. If you are into sports then a D-SLR will be much better in this regard. A CSC is much more convenient though.
If half of your shots are out of focus with an A6000, you're using it wrong. Both cameras have excellent autofocus systems for static images, neither will have a significant rate of misses if used properly. The EM10 II's significantly worse tracking performance is a far larger autofocus problem than the A6000 being a couple of milliseconds slower at shooting a still target.


It's not the speed that the reviewer was questioning, it was the focusing accuracy. As mentioned my D750 is much better than the A7 in this respect. The D750 gets it right every time, not so with the A7. Makes a difference.
#29
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
My point was that accurate focusing is pretty important to the image quality. There is no point in having a high resolution sensor if half of your photos are out of focus. I have a Sony A7II and a Nikon D750, the D750 is miles better in this regard (particularly when the light is not so good). The lens used makes a lot of difference also; they are much cheaper and is more choice with Nikon. It's worth taking these points into consideration when choosing a camera. If you are into sports then a D-SLR will be much better in this regard. A CSC is much more convenient though.
If half of your shots are out of focus with an A6000, you're using it wrong. Both cameras have excellent autofocus systems for static images, neither will have a significant rate of misses if used properly. The EM10 II's significantly worse tracking performance is a far larger autofocus problem than the A6000 being a couple of milliseconds slower at shooting a still target.
It's not the speed that the reviewer was questioning, it was the focusing accuracy. As mentioned my D750 is much better than the A7 in this respect. The D750 gets it right every time, not so with the A7. Makes a difference.

I did talk about accuracy: "neither will have a significant rate of misses if used properly". The A6000's autofocus is also very accurate. Your D750/A7II comparison is also completely redundant, it's common knowledge that autofocus performance is better DSLRs (especially full frame ones) compared to mirrorless cameras, and the A7II isn't even that great for autofocus in the grand scheme of mirrorless cameras (and I say that as a fellow A7II owner).

Seriously, you're just arguing semantics now.
#30
TK42
I was only pointing out that the reviewer had commented on how good focusing accuracy was with the Olympus was compared to the others. For me this would be important, as would the range and cost of lenses available, EVF quality and manual controls. If you are considering a telephoto lens also then this seems good value as you would have to budget another £200 on top normally.

I have said multiple times in this thread that the Olympus has fast and accurate autofocus, I agree with you. I have also said multiple times that the additional tele lens makes this great value. I honestly don't know why you've continued to quote me on this just because I'm saying the A6000 is also great, and better for continuous shooting.
#31
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
I was only pointing out that the reviewer had commented on how good focusing accuracy was with the Olympus was compared to the others. For me this would be important, as would the range and cost of lenses available, EVF quality and manual controls. If you are considering a telephoto lens also then this seems good value as you would have to budget another £200 on top normally.
I have said multiple times in this thread that the Olympus has fast and accurate autofocus, I agree with you. I have also said multiple times that the additional tele lens makes this great value. I honestly don't know why you've continued to quote me on this just because I'm saying the A6000 is also great, and better for continuous shooting.
Glad about that (_;)
http://replygif.net/i/333.gif
#32
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
[quote=TK42] I was only pointing out that the reviewer had commented on how good focusing accuracy was with the Olympus was compared to the others. For me this would be important, as would the range and cost of lenses available, EVF quality and manual controls. If you are considering a telephoto lens also then this seems good value as you would have to budget another £200 on top normally.
I have said multiple times in this thread that the Olympus has fast and accurate autofocus, I agree with you. I have also said multiple times that the additional tele lens makes this great value. I honestly don't know why you've continued to quote me on this just because I'm saying the A6000 is also great, and better for continuous shooting.
Glad about that (_;)


Edited By: TK42 on Nov 03, 2016 17:29: .
#33
Good review here, with comparison to the A6000 & X-T10
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_OMD_EM10_Mark_II/index.shtml

Reference to the OMD EM10 Mk II's focusing capabilities.
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/10/15/review-olympus-omd-em10-mk-ii/#.WBua2iSt-N0
#34
ElGofre
adamwilko007
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.

(Warning: Long post incoming)

For a long term investment around the £500 mark (with an initial spend of up to £600), there are four mirrorless cameras I would be looking at:

*Fujifilm X-T10 with 16-50mm lens for £468 (£548 minus £80 cashback)
*Olympus OM-D E-M10 II with 14-42mm & 40-150mm lenses for £494 (£569 minus £75 cashback)
*Panasonic GX80 with 12-32mm lens for £449 (£549 minus £100 cashback)
*Sony A6000 with 16-50mm lens for £499 (no current cashback offer)

All four have their own advantages and disadvantages. Firstly to cover IQ and portability you've asked about specifically- The Fuji and Sony have an image quality edge, but all four are excellent and, as a new photographer, you will be a larger bottleneck on image quality than your camera will be! For portability, click here for a size comparison of all four models. They're all quite similar, with the Sony and Panasonic being a bit thicker with their protruding grip/viewfinder, with the Olympus and Fuji are taller with their viewfinder humps. They're also a very similar weight (san-lens), with the Sony, Fuji and Olympus all weighing between 380g and 391g, with the Panasonic only a bit heavier at 427g.

So with those two factors covered, as a long term purchase there are other things to consider;
*Lenses: Panasonic and Olympus both use the same lens mount and can freely use lenses made by each other, and third part lenses will obviously work for both cameras too. This means a lot of variety and generally quite affordable prices. Sony and Fuji use their own lens mounts, and the options available are less diverse and often a bit more expensive. The Olympus also gets a big value bump in that it comes with a telephoto lens at the same price that these other cameras only have the kit zoom lens.
*Autofocus and continuous shooting: All four cameras have excellent autofocus for static shots, to the point where it's not really an issue I would make a choice on. However when it comes to subject tracking, the A6000 remains uncontested as the best mirrorless camera at this price point for focussing on moving subjects (it also does it with a continuous shooting rate of up to 11fps, the fastest of all four cameras). The Panasonic takes second place, while the Fuji and Olympus struggle in this regard (all three of these cameras shoot at between 6fps and 8fps in continuous mode, which is very respectful but nothing close to the Sony)
*Image stabilisation: Both the Panasonic and Olympus cameras have image stabilisation within the camera body, essentially turning any lens into an image stabilised one and making it easier to get sharp shots at slower shutter speeds. It also means lenses can be smaller and lighter when IS doesn't need to be built in. The Sony and Fuji do not have this feature in-body and it must instead be built into the lenses.
*Video quality: The Sony produces the best 1080p video of the bunch, while the Panasonic also has great video quality, can shoot all the way up to 4K, and the in-body image stabilisation means you can get smoother video regardless of the lens you use. Neither the Fuji or Olympus are really worth considering if video is a big priority, on account of poor subject tracking and a lack of video-oriented features.
*Viewfinder: All four cameras feature an electronic viewfinder of a good quality. All are perfectly usable, but in order of quality they go Fuji>Olympus>Panasonic/Sony.
*Styling and ergonomics: Obviously there's a lot of personal preference here, there's the more conservative design and rangefinder-style Sony and Panasonic versus the retro inspired SLR-style Fuji and Olympus. Two big considerations here though are the viewfinder placement and grip- the viewfinder of the Panasonic and Sony are placed near the left hand side of the camera, which is fine for most people but can make it awkward for people with a dominant left eye as you have to hold the camera across your face, while the centred viewfinders of the Olympus and Fuji are better in this regard. The grip also plays a big part for some people, with the small "finger holds" of the Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus being less suited to people with larger hands than the more robust grip of the A6000.
*JPEG image quality: This is not something normally mentioned in comparing high end cameras, as one of the big draws of these cameras is the editing and tweaking they allow you to do with images by shooting RAW mode. However Fuji have found a niche for themselves with their excellent JPEG presets and film simulations, and it deserves a mention here.

So yeah, ramble over. In short, all four are excellent and whatever you buy you will most likely enjoy and be very happy with the results of. However there are a few significant factors that will make some cameras better suited to some people but not others. Want an affordable camera and lens options from day one? The Olympus is a great shout. Want something you can take to sporting events or just for kids running around the garden? The A6000 will keep up with them. Want something stylish and will produce great photos out of the camera without worrying about editing? The Fuji is awesome for that. Want to dabble in videography? The GX80 has you covered the best.


Thank you for taking the time to provide this absolute brilliant information!

Swaying towards this one in deal but shame about no 4k
#35
adamwilko007
ElGofre
adamwilko007
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.
(Warning: Long post incoming)
Thank you for taking the time to provide this absolute brilliant information!
Swaying towards this one in deal but shame about no 4k

Thank you for taking the time to provide this absolute brilliant information!
Swaying towards this one in deal but shame about no 4k

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you you considered the Panasonic G7?

This has 4K and with the 12-60mm (24-120mm) Lens works out at £469 (with cashback).
http://www.mathersoflancashire.co.uk/product.aspx?id=2212&IsProduct=True

There's a review here:-
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G7/

This is also available with the 14-140mm Lens (28-280mm) for £599
http://www.mathersoflancashire.co.uk/product.aspx?id=2124&IsProduct=True


Edited By: TK42 on Nov 04, 2016 18:19: .
#36
herodave
Add £60 for the grip. You'll need it.


Not needed. I'm used to bulk of a 7d mark ii full slr and the grip wasn't missed on my em10 mark 1. However the CAF tracking of the 7d was missed the most. Everything is so much smaller and lighter I personally feel it's not needed
#37
acasserole
How portable are these things?


Extremely
1 Like #38
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.

ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
My point was that accurate focusing is pretty important to the image quality. There is no point in having a high resolution sensor if half of your photos are out of focus. I have a Sony A7II and a Nikon D750, the D750 is miles better in this regard (particularly when the light is not so good). The lens used makes a lot of difference also; they are much cheaper and is more choice with Nikon. It's worth taking these points into consideration when choosing a camera. If you are into sports then a D-SLR will be much better in this regard. A CSC is much more convenient though.


Totally agree I also have a d750 and 7dmark ii. The mark 1 Omd em10 is about acceptable quality and light weight and for those days where you want a nice picture of your child on the swings. I would never to the Olympus to a bird of prey flying demonstration, but I wouldn't take the d750 or 7d for a casual push the baby round the park type day as the Olympus I don't even know I've got it with me
1 Like #39
ian47
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.

ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
TK42
ElGofre
adamwilko007
What the image quality like on these compared to rx100m3, A6000 etc replacing a stolen rx100 m2
Compared to the RX100 series, a bit better, compared to the A6000, a bit worse. Lenses obviously also play a big factor, but in general if image quality is your top priority then an APS-C system from Fuji or Sony will have an edge.
Reviewed here the Olympus E-M10 MkII is rated ahead of the A6000: -http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
This is literally in the opening paragraph:"This Micro Four Thirds camera can’t equal the best cameras with larger APS-C sensors when it comes to critical image quality, but it comes pretty close if you’re shooting in good light."
The person I replied to asked specifically about image quality in comparison with two specific cameras. Later in the article they seem to imply that the EM10 II may have over taken the A6000 in high ISO performance, but this is not an opinion I've seen from any dedicated photography publication, nor have I seen evidence of it in real world samples. When it comes to an overall package then this may be a better prospect depending on their priorities, but that wasn't the question they asked.
From the second paragraph:-
"The E-M10 II not only takes great pictures; it focuses faster than any other camera we tested, locking onto subjects almost instantly with none of the wobble or focus hunting we often see in mirrorless cameras'.
An important point this, which is not always mentioned in reviews.
Again, the guy literally asked about image quality. I just said that as an overall package the EM10 II might be preferable to him based on other features, but that's not what he asked.
My point was that accurate focusing is pretty important to the image quality. There is no point in having a high resolution sensor if half of your photos are out of focus. I have a Sony A7II and a Nikon D750, the D750 is miles better in this regard (particularly when the light is not so good). The lens used makes a lot of difference also; they are much cheaper and is more choice with Nikon. It's worth taking these points into consideration when choosing a camera. If you are into sports then a D-SLR will be much better in this regard. A CSC is much more convenient though.


Totally agree I also have a d750 and 7dmark ii. The mark 1 Omd em10 is about acceptable quality and light weight and for those days where you want a nice picture of your child on the swings. I would never to the Olympus to a bird of prey flying demonstration, but I wouldn't take the d750 or 7d for a casual push the baby round the park type day as the Olympus I don't even know I've got it with me


Mirrorless have got a way to go as yet with regards to tracking moving subjects. CAF on a budget d-slr such as the Nikon D3300 is better than most Mirrorless camera. There were some significant changes made to omd10 mark II though where improvements have been made in other areas..

Compared to omd10 mark I

Focusing speed and accuracy now same as omd5 mark II

5 axis image stabilisation.

Focus bracketing

Silent shutter mode

High speed video

Touch pad focusing

Improved EVF
#40
TK42
adamwilko007
ElGofre
adamwilko007
So is this the camera to buy for portability and IQ or is there better for the money? I want to buy once and keep a long time.
(Warning: Long post incoming)
Thank you for taking the time to provide this absolute brilliant information!
Swaying towards this one in deal but shame about no 4k
Thank you for taking the time to provide this absolute brilliant information!
Swaying towards this one in deal but shame about no 4k
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you you considered the Panasonic G7?
This has 4K and with the 12-60mm (24-120mm) Lens works out at £469 (with cashback).http://www.mathersoflancashire.co.uk/product.aspx?id=2212&IsProduct=True
There's a review here:-http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G7/
This is also available with the 14-140mm Lens (28-280mm) for £599http://www.mathersoflancashire.co.uk/product.aspx?id=2124&IsProduct=True

Hi TK,

Thank you for this suggestion it looks great.

Will the picture quality be a lot better than the rx100 m3/m4?

Is it still quite portable, i dont have any in stock near me to go check in a shop?

Now i am looking at the G7 is there any others to consider which are on par with it?

I appreciate your help on this, new to the world of photography.

Many Thanks

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!