Olympus E-M10 III Image Quality

Like all recent OM-D and PEN models, the Olympus E-M10 III offers an expanded low ISO setting down to approximately ISO 100 equivalent. We usually avoid expanded low ISO settings for our image quality comparisons as we don't normally see much improvement in image quality, and they often come at the cost of reduced dynamic range. However, like the E-M10 and E-M10 II before it, the Olympus E-M10 III produces significantly more detail in its ISO 100 JPEGs compared to the lowest standard ISO of 200, especially evident in the mosaic and fabric crops as shown above. Dynamic range is definitely lower with extended-low ISO settings, but if your subject and lighting suits, you may want to use the E-M10 III's extended low-ISO setting for maximum detail.

Here at base ISO, we can see the E-M10 III's image quality is very similar to its predecessor's, the E-M10 Mark II, although looking closely, it appears the Mark III does a slightly better job at controlling chroma noise in the shadows. Unfortunately, it also doesn't do quite as well in our tricky red-leaf fabric, which is often a casualty of chroma noise reduction.

As expected, the 24-megapixel APS-C Canon M6 out-resolves the 16-megapixel Micro Four Thirds E-M10 III, offering better detail in most areas of our test target, especially in our tricky red-leaf fabric, although the M6 generated some aliasing artifacts there. The Olympus image is however crisper and colors are more vibrant, as well as a little warmer. Both exhibit visible sharpening haloes around high-contrast edges, but the E-M10 III's haloes have a tighter radius.

Here we compare the Olympus E-M10 III to another 24-megapixel APS-C mirrorless camera, the Fuji X-A5. Both cameras produce very sharp images with visible sharpening artifacts here at base ISO, though sharpening haloes are more obvious from the Fuji around high-contrast elements. The X-A5 out-resolves the E-M10 III, though the Olympus offers somewhat higher contrast which helps it to appear a little crisper than the X-A5 in some areas. Noise is actually lower from the E-M10 III. however its JPEG engine does generate a few unwanted artifacts while smoothing noise out. Both cameras produce pleasing colors, though the Fuji's are generally a little brighter.

Like the Olympus E-M10 III, the 16-megapxiel Panasonic GX85 also does not have an OLPF to maximize sharpness at the risk of higher aliasing artifacts. Here at base ISO we see both cameras offer very similar resolving power, but the E-M10 III's default processing is a bit more aggressive, with stronger sharpening, higher contrast and brighter, more vibrant colors, giving the Olympus image more "pop". The E-M10 III's noise reduction also appears to be a bit stronger, producing slightly lower noise but at the cost of reduced detail in some areas, such as in our red-leaf swatch.

Yet another comparison with a 24-megapixel APS-C mirrorless, and again, the higher resolution offered by the Sony A6000 out-resolves the E-M10 III, performing noticeably better in the mosaic and fabric crops. And the Sony manages to produce a crisp image without obvious sharpening haloes, though the Olympus does better with colors.

Both E-M10 iterations produced similar image quality here at ISO 1600, but the Mark III appears to hold onto a little more detail than its predecessor, while producing similar noise levels.

The Canon M6 continues to capture a little more detail than the E-M10 III at ISO 1600, but it also leaves behind a lot more noise. The Canon does much better with our tricky red-leaf fabric, though.

The X-A5 continues to out-resolve the E-M10 III here at ISO 1600, though its luma noise levels are higher in flatter areas. The E-M10 III works hard at smoothing away noise while still doing a good job of holding onto fine detail, however it does generate more noise reduction artifacts than the X-A5.

At ISO 1600, the E-M10 III produces a crisper, smoother, more vibrant image than the GX85, but noise reduction artifacts in the form of smudging and speckling are generally more evident. The GX85 produces fewer artifacts in areas with fine detail, but its area-specific noise reduction does leave some areas a bit rough and noisy. Both cameras struggle with our tricky red-lead swatch, but the GX85 retains a bit more detail.

The 24-megapixel APS-C A6000 captures a bit more detail than the E-M10 III at ISO 1600, while producing fewer sharpening artifacts. Luminance noise levels are comparable, but the Olympus does a bit better at keeping chroma noise in check, while producing better color. The Sony does better in the red-leaf fabric overall, though some of the detail is false or exaggerated.

Here at ISO 3200, the E-M10 Mark III rendered significantly more fine detail than its predecessor in our mosaic crop with much less smudging. Luminance noise levels appear a little higher than the Mark II, but we prefer the Mark III's superior detail retention.

Wow, the E-M10 III pulls further ahead of the M6, producing a much sharper image with more detail here at ISO 3200, while at the same time leaving behind less noise. Colors from the Canon are also a bit drab in comparison. An easy win for the Olympus.

Similar to what we saw at ISO 1600, the X-A5 retains more detail and produces a crisper, more vibrant image with fewer noise reduction artifacts, but with more obvious sharpening artifacts. Noise levels are similar in flatter areas, however the X-A5's grain pattern has a less consistent nature than the E-M10 III's.

The Olympus E-M10 III produced a smoother, yet more detailed, contrasty and vibrant image than the GX85 here at ISO 3200. Colors are better from the Olympus as well. Another easy win for the Olympus.

The Sony A6000 image starts to take on a bit of veiled effect, and flatter areas show more noise reduction artifacts with a more processed look here at ISO 3200. Again, contrast in the red-leaf pattern is better from the Sony, but much of the detail is false.