Olympus OMD E-M10 Mark III Underwater Review?

13 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

Me!

Me too! I use it all the time.....

At least someone does so there is a reason 

My sequence

1. tracking on stuff that is semi-moving not too small and not changing shape nudibranch for example off centre or semi static fish

2. Pinpoint stuff that does not move and is super small and centre of frame all the way down to pygmy can work but is hit and miss if you move

3. Manual focus and AF On button moving the camera and peaking for supermacro

I would never trust AF for super macro especially as not all my shots are in the centre of the frame. 

This is somewhat of a digression, but we are comparing cameras.

Many SLR shooters use AF for almost everything (including super macro). I should qualify the latter comment by saying that I use AF to rack the focus in and then also rock the lens in and out with powerful macro conversion lenses. 

Back button activated continuous AF holds focus on subjects that are not center frame. 

I do not have manual focus gears on any of my lenses. I used to occasionally switch to manual with the D2Xs and D7000, but since the D800 have found that the camera's AF is more accurate than my eyes...

If manual focus is required with mirrorless, this kind of shows how far behind the curve their autofocus is....

Adam

I shoot AF only with my Sony A6300, both wide/midrange (10-18mm and 16-50mm) and macro (90mm). DMF with focus peaking works quite reliably even for supermacro with a +13 diopter. 

3 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

This is somewhat of a digression, but we are comparing cameras.

Many SLR shooters use AF for almost everything (including super macro). I should qualify the latter comment by saying that I use AF to rack the focus in and then also rock the lens in and out with powerful macro conversion lenses. 

Back button activated continuous AF holds focus on subjects that are not center frame. 

I do not have manual focus gears on any of my lenses. I used to occasionally switch to manual with the D2Xs and D7000, but since the D800 have found that the camera's AF is more accurate than my eyes...

If manual focus is required with mirrorless, this kind of shows how far behind the curve their autofocus is....

Adam

 

 

It is not required with mirrorless. There are plenty of people on here who use the exact same technique you describe with the Em1mkII. The Em5mkIII autofocus is roughly on par (maybe slightly worse) than that. 

Panasonic and C-AF is a different question. It is the one aspect where they are really behind the competition, mostly because they refuse to adapt Phase Detection-AF. However, for Video they are so far ahead the competition (the GH5 is now nearly three years old and still (one of the) best) that they can get away with that, especially because many video people will not use AF anyway (for good reason).

Panasonic sticks to contrast detection because of reliability phase detection can drift and perform differently lens by lens
Maybe in the cropped sensor mid market there are some DSLR cameras that in terms of focus do better than the same price mirrorless but in the high end Sony is ahead of others because of more advanced software on top if any physical focus
Canon will stop making top range DSLR soon and everything will go mirrorless so distance will reduce also in the other segments
I started with compact cameras underwater and I use certain techniques because I have high yield in this way and maybe I could try trusting the system it is not that I use manual because auto does not work I use manual because I have full control in certain situations that would not change if I had another camera



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reading your comments, then Olympus OMD E-M10 III and Panasonic Lumix GX9 are good cameras for use in underwater photography without PDAF (Phase Detection Auto Focus), light and cheap options with many lens options.

In the case of E-M10.3 with older 16Mpx sensor and GX9 with better 20Mpx sensor and better autofocus Contrast-Detect Depth from Defocus System, both cameras are using in-body image stabilization (IBIS) and has Built-in Flash. 

E-M10.3 has a 121-point while the GX9 has only 49-point system.

E-M10.3 has 330 shots Battery Life while the GX9 has only 260 shots.

My 2 cents regarding the initial question of the tread (EM10III). I am not a camera technician, nor a UW camera salesperson, but I believe my view is firm advise: The EM5II (and also the already discontinued EM1I) represent the climax of the Oly cameras with 16 Mpix sensor. As this era is coming now to an end, one can find used camera bodies plus Nauticam housings (EM5II and EM1I) here in the classified section on a regular basis for between 600 - 1200 $ (often including vaccum valve, tray and trigger (tray and pistol type trigger are a versatile, almost mandatory required, addition for the EM5 and EM10 type housings, while the NA-EM1II housing has these features already - this explains the higher price)). This is the way to go. In case there is money itching in the pocket, much more will go away for lenses, ports, extensions etc...  (and at a later stage, when the time and the bank balance are ripe, one just upgrades to a new camera body with housing).

When you look in treads of general photographers, e.g. DPreview, the EM10III itself is not regarded as a real upgrade to the EM10II by many: it is more a step towards automatic mode "point and shoot" photographers and less customisable as EM10II - many were disappointed by EM10III (they expected a step more towards the EM5II). I would not go for such a camera plus housing both new for approx. 3000 $ (gut feeling calculation, when one adds tray, vacuum and pistol trigger)...

Regarding AF performance of the Zuiko 60mm and Pana 45mm macros, I only can confirm what Massimo and Chris are saying: Zuiko 60mm is difficult to use (Pana 45mm works better) with CDAF. Both 60mm and 45mm macros work flawless with PDAF (al least with EM1II). With both 60mm and 45mm macros the manual focus ring is unusuable as too much turning is required for focusing. MF, however, would be very useful for macro but it is practically impossible with both of these lenses. (With the 0.71x and 1x adopted Canon 100mm IS macro, the manual focus ring works very well, as it is expected and from here I know that MF is very useful for macros. AF with this lens is difficult, at most comparable to the 60mm with CDAF (this is the price for using a non-native lens via third party adapter). I personally like this lens as it allows great magnification even without diopter (up to 1:2) at a reasonable working distance, but I would not recommend this lens to a newby (I am probably an eccentric, even most swashbucklers will not like this lens on a MFT camera) - I write this just to add information to the AF/macro part of this tread)...

Wolfgang

I agree with Wolfgang right now though I would not invest in a 16 Megapixel MFT when 20 is consolidated and performs great

Second hand market seems the way to go