Главная Планшеты Олимпус омд ем 10 марк 3 отзывы. OLYMPUS OM-D E-M10 Mark III – новый компаньон для путешествий. Отличный результат в любых условиях

Олимпус омд ем 10 марк 3 отзывы. OLYMPUS OM-D E-M10 Mark III – новый компаньон для путешествий. Отличный результат в любых условиях

Устройство соответствует стандарту Micro Four Thirds. Как и предшествующая модификация, новинка несёт на борту КМОП-сенсор (17,3 × 13 мм) с 16,1 млн эффективных пикселей. Сохранился также пятиосный стабилизатор изображения.

Вместе с тем процессор TruePic VII уступил место более производительному чипу TruePic VIII. Это позволило реализовать возможность записи видеоматериалов в формате 4К — 3840 × 2160 пикселей: скорость может составлять 30, 25 или 24 кадра в секунду.

Новинка наделена скоростным автофокусом (контрастный со 121 зоной фокусировки). В наличии электронный видоискатель со 100-процентным покрытием кадра и 3-дюймовый сенсорный дисплей с изменяемым углом наклона.

Диапазон выдержек простирается от 1/16000 до 60 с, светочувствительность — ISO 200-25600 (расширяется до ISO 100-25600). Фотоаппарат оборудован встроенной вспышкой, слотом SD/SDHC/SDXC, адаптером беспроводной связи Wi-Fi 802.11b/g/n, интерфейсами micro HDMI и USB.

Среди прочего можно упомянуть 15 творческих фильтров, включая новый арт-фильтр Bleach Bypass, девять параметров съёмки в режиме AP (например, коллаж в реальном времени и HDR), а также четыре режима видеосъёмки.

Покупатели смогут выбирать между чёрным и серебристо-чёрным вариантами цветового исполнения. Продажи начнутся в конце сентября. Цена составит $650 без оптики или $800 в комплекте с объективом M.Zuiko 14-42mm EZ Lens.

Итак, работа с камерой Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III в течение месяца и анализ полученных результатов позволяют сделать определённые выводы. Это очень хорошая камера для ежедневной съёмки и запечатления всех интересных моментов в путешествии. Особо отметим, что это справедливо для тех фотографов, кто придаёт важное значение комфорту, а значит - весу и размерам камеры и сменной оптики. Модель E-M10 Mark III выдаёт очень приличное качество снимков, особенно если немного разобраться в настройках и начать использовать умные функции, такие как ночная съёмка с рук или HDR. Если же освоить возможности камеры как следует и пользоваться ручными настройками в сочетании с высокоэффективной системой стабилизации, то можно получать качественные снимки даже в сложных условиях освещения. Конечно, тягаться с полнокадровыми многомегапиксельными фотоаппаратами в области качества этой малышке не под силу. Но она даст им фору по комфорту съёмки в путешествии налегке. Камера небольшая и лёгкая, особенно со штатным зум-объективом M.Zuiko Digital ED 14‑42mm 1:3.5‑5.6 EZ Pancake. В арсенале Olympus есть и немало других компактных и лёгких объективов, которые идеально подойдут к нашей модели. Напомню, что Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III - камера начального уровня по позиционированию в линейке. Поэтому она лишена некоторых профессиональных возможностей. Здесь отсутствуют интерфейсы для качественной аудиозаписи, применяется контрастная (а не гибридная) автофокусировка. При серийной съёмке с высокой скоростью фокусировка выполняется только по первому кадру. Но такие требования к камере с рекомендуемой стоимостью около 45 тысяч рублей (не забудем про курс рубля) предъявлять будет неправильно.

Слегка обновленная и по-прежнему замечательная. Olympus E-M10 Mark III станет незаменимым спутником в путешествиях для фотографов-любителей.

+ Плюсы

Премиальная отделка корпуса
Отличный
Эффективная система стабилизации изображения

— Минусы

16 мегапикселей — маловато на сегодняшний день

OM-D E-M10 Mark II воплощала в себе все, чем должна быть беззеркалка — небольшая, легкая и удобная в работе камера со множеством функций, снимающая великолепные снимки. Ее наследница, OM-D E-M10 Mark III, которая унаследовала все эти качества, наверняка будет не менее популярна у начинающих фотографов и любителей.

Цена и комплектация

Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III будет продаваться как без оптики, так и в комплекте с несколькими объективами — M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R и “блинчиком” M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6. Цена одной камеры составит 650 долларов США.

Характеристики

16-мегапиксельная матрица формата Micro Four Thirds
3-дюймовый поворотный сенсорный экран с переменным углом наклона и
разрешением 1 037 000 точек
Запись видео в формате 4К

В Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III используется та же 16-мегапиксельная матрица формата Micro Four Thirds, что и в E-M10 Mark II (а также и в оригинальной E-M10 Mark I). Но при этом новинка получила новейший процессор Olympus — TruePic VII, который использовался в E-M1 Mark II. По утверждению производителя, это поможет улучшить качество изображения при съемке в условиях слабого освещения.

E-M10 Mark III унаследовала от предшественницы и высокоэффективную встроенную пятиосевую систему стабилизации изображения, которая обеспечивает до 4 стопов компенсации при съемке как фото, так и видео.

Не изменился и электронный OLED-видоискатель с разрешением 2 360 000 точек, равно как и сенсорный 3-дюймовый экран на задней панели.

Зато новинка получила возможность снимать видео в формате 4К на скорости до 30 к/с, а также в формате Full HD, со скоростью 60 к/с.

Обновил производитель и режимы помощи при съемке. Режим iAuto стал просто Auto; в Olympus обещают, что он будет обеспечивать высокое качество снимков, без размытия. Появилось больше сценариев съемки, а также режим Advanced Photo (AP), где представлены такие продвинутые возможности как мультиэкспозиция, Live Composite для работы с длинной выдержкой и так далее. Таким образом, начинающему пользователю не надо будет углубляться в меню камеры, чтобы воспользоваться всеми этими функциями.

И, наконец, расширилась коллекция “художественных фильтров”. Теперь их 15, включая и новый фильтр Bleaching Bypass, который создает эффект слегка выцветших красок.

Конструкция и эргономика

Улучшенный дизайн и хват камеры
Корпус из магниевого сплава
Вес: 362 грамма

Конструкция и отделка линейки E-M10 всегда были на высоте, и Mark III — не исключение. Она приятно лежит в руке, производит впечатление серьезной и прочной камеры и воспринимается как куда более премиальный продукт, чем ее зеркальные конкуренты, такие как Canon EOS 800D.

Выступ на передней панели стал изогнутым и более крупным, чем у Mark II, благодаря чему хват стал более удобным и приятным. Причем на размерах камеры это не сказалось — она по-прежнему очень компактна.

Mark III сохранила приятный дизайн в стиле ретро, но с некоторыми доработками. Так, например, был обновлен внешний вид дисков, рифление стало мельче, а диск режимов — крупнее.

Кнопка спуска затвора по-прежнему находится в центре переднего диска — под указательный палец. С задним диском и диском режимов удобно работать большим пальцем. У диска режимов нет блокировки, но, как и в Mark II, при съемке его сложно повернуть случайно.

Автофокус

121 точка автофокуса
покрытие большей части кадра
режимы приоритет лица и обнаружения глаз

Система автофокуса впечатляла и в E-M10 Mark II, но в Mark III она, судя по всему, будет еще лучше. Число точек фокусировки выросло с 81 до 121, и это, вкупе с новейшим процессором, должно обеспечивать еще более быструю фокусировку, даже в условиях плохого освещения.

Производительность

Скорость съемки: 8,6 к/с
Механический затвор с выдержкой до 1/4000 с
Электронный затвор с выдержкой до 1/16000 с

Скорость съемки по сравнению с Mark II выросла совсем незначительно — с 8,5 до 8,6 к/с. Но, несмотря на номинальность этого улучшения, 8,6 кадров в секунду — это все равно больше, чем у Fujifilm X-T20 (8 к/с), и тем более чем у Canon EOS 800D (6 к/с) или у Nikon D5600 (5 к/с).

Качество изображения

Диапазон ISO: 100-25,600
Компенсация экспозиции: +/-3 / 1/3 ступеней EV
15 художественных фильтров

JPEG на ISO 400 выглядят очень неплохо. Есть некоторый намек на шум при 100% приближении, но ничего критичного. На низких и средних значениях сохраняется довольно много деталей. Шум неплохо контролируется до ISO 6400, когда в некоторых местах JPEG при 100% увеличении появляется некое ощущение нарисованности.

JPEG на ISO 400

JPEG на ISO 6400

Резюме

OM-D E-M10 Mark III не шагнула далеко вперед в сравнении с Mark II. Большинство характеристик не изменилось, но Olympus доработала и усовершенствовала одну из самых интересных беззеркальных камер. Было бы неплохо, если бы матрица получила большее разрешение, но, несмотря на это, OM-D E-M10 Mark III по-прежнему будет популярна у начинающих фотографов и любителей.

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 III is a 16MP Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera. It looks like a slightly prettier version of its predecessor and the main changes are to the user interface (UI) and menus, in an aim to make the camera more accessible to relative newcomers to photography.

From a hardware point of view, it"s a fairly minor update to the Mark II, with some small adjustments to the ergonomics and a new processor. But the UI changes do make some of its smarter features easier to get at.

Key Features:

16MP Four Thirds CMOS sensor with no AA Filter
5-axis image stabilization (4 stops of correction)
TruePic VIII processor
4K video with in-body and digital stabilization
8.6 fps continuous shooting (4.8 fps with continuous AF)
2.36M-dot electronic viewfinder
1.04M-dot tilting touchscreen
330 shot-per-charge battery life (CIPA standard)

Beyond the attempts to make the E-M10 III and its more specialized photographic modes easier to use, a more powerful processor brings 4K video shooting. Impressively, the camera is able to offer a combination of mechanical and digital stabilization in 4K mode (most cameras can only digitally stabilize 1080), giving uncannily smooth footage, even when moving the camera around.

Beyond this, the camera"s Auto mode has also been reworked so that it attempts to detect movement in the scene, to help it better select the right settings for shooting. Overall it"s a subtle update, but calling it the OM-D E-M10 II Mark II would be silly, even for Olympus.

Rivals and Peers

Although the E-M10 III is the entry level to the OM-D series, it"s a distinctly mid-level camera. Its profusion of direct controls make it a camera with plenty of space to grow into and, even with the work done to ease access to its full set of features, it still feels like a camera aimed at people who want to do a lot more than just point and shoot.

As such, it falls somewhere between Sony"s a5100 and a6000 models (offering the touch-screen ease-of-use of the former with the hands-on control of the latter). Its pricing also puts it squarely into competition with Canon"s EOS T7i (700D) and Nikon"s D5600. Panasonic"s GX85 is its closest Micro Four Thirds peer, and the only other 4K-capable camera in this class.

Anyone have probes with he actual camera such as the rubber grip coming odd? (twice w OMD MI, once w OMD MII - 12 mo old), battery pin malfunctions after second battery change in brand new OMDEM-5 MII, battery lever on battery door breaks loose after 4 years of use....shutter stops working entirely after 2 years .....have had Canon till 4 years ago and never had problems other than dust on sensor. Comments please....and who is reputable Oly repair site as Oly service in past has been quite slow
Thanks!!

Revived 12 40 pro today to find it is incompatible with camera ... lfn button is unusable .. spoke to olympus who said there may be upgrade in future .Ie firmware . Usable with mark ii according to reviews but why is this not mentioned when you buy lense .. function button is on lense so why sell as usable ..

Please help me. I have the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 and the Tamron 14-150mm f3,5-5.8 Di III lens for M43 and the Olympus OMD EM10 II camera body. The Olympus Camera Updater can"t handle these lenses. How can i upgrade the firmware of these lenses ?

Just got a new MKIII yesterday and gave my MKII to my son. I"m missing loads of important features which I don"t quite understand why these have been removed.

Remote flash trigger

The ability to save settings for each of the PASM modes

The inability to program the L-FN on lenses that have this button (the 12-50/12-40 cannot be fully utilised on this body)

Super Control Panel always on monitor, compose only on EVF

Different OS modes

Can"t Olympus offer a firmware upgrade and "restore" these features?

Trouble for me is I use higher-end models. I"m spoiled. I advise even total newcomers to buy high-end models if they"re really serious about getting into photography, even if high-end model feature sets bewilder them at present. This model is a stepping-stone. Let"s just get one that"s made wholly for experienced users, and grow into it.

I don"t know... I"ve owned high end cameras and lenses for many years (mostly Nikon and Olympus). I usually advise newcomers to avoid high end bodies and save some money to invest in quality lenses. A lot of photographers need little beyond manual controls and a good sensor, but in the end it depends on what you want to shoot.

Ha, really? I can"t imagine spending this kind of money in 2017 for a camera that doesn"t support USB charging. My Fuji X100S doesn"t support it, and for that reason it gets left behind all the time. I take trips a few times a year where my main source of power for my camera and phone is a USB battery pack and USB solar charger.

I could live with a USB powered battery charger... but it"d definitely be suboptimal.

I always have a backup battery, and the olympus charger is tiny. I have never wished that I could plug my E-M5 (or any of my Nikon bodies) to charge. In fact i broke the LCD on my P&S camera because it got knocked off the table while it was plugged in. I always throw a fresh battery into the camera while the empty battery is on the charger.

is 16mp really that lower than 20mp on flagship 4/3 bodies.
a quick maths tells its just 20% lower pixels-count on em-1 ii and gh5

also 50% higher than fullframe A7S, and just 33% lower than sony flagship A9
don"t understand what"s about all this negativity

Who really NEEDS to shoot 4K video? And, if you are among the select few who do need it, wouldn"t it stand to reason that you would also need a microphone jack? Even though headphone jacks are cheap, I understand why that might be reserved for more expensive models. I own the proprietary SEMA-1 microphone kit, but it can"t hold a candle to something like a RODE external mic.

Give me 1080p video with a mic and headphone jack over 4K video without them!

Also, the lack of ANY phase detect AF points is really disappointing because that would actually be extremely useful for people who might want to take photos of their fast-moving kids and pets.

With this camera, Olympus let their marketing people set the priorities instead of their photography and engineering people. Too bad.

Ability to crop in post, punch-in in post, zoom in post, apply additional image stabilization without sacrificing on (1080) resolution, better quality when downsizing from 4k to 1080p than what a native 1080p file will give you and so on. Plenty of reasons even if you don"t see the value in distributing in 4K. Besides, at least in my circle of friends, pretty much everyone has at least one 4K tv and would benefit anyways.

Cons: Autofocus not dependanble?
Question for Richard Butler and Carey Rose.
Could you please clarify ?
Is your complaint about C-AF+TR / C-AF or is it about the AF performance in general?
In my experience with the (now defunct) OLYMPUS EPM2, C-af was acceptable provided you used single focus piunt and careful handling. C-AF+TR was actually useable for slow mowing subjects, for instance at concerts.
With the EM1 mk1 and mk2 I often use C-AF+TR in good light conditions for static or slow moving subjects with good results.
All my Olympus M43 camera performs very good when using S-AF, this goes for accuracy and speed.
I suppose this is also true for the EM10 mk3 or am I wrong ?

I"ve amended it to say "not dependable for action shooting."

The AF section of the review includes more detail. Essentially, as you say, single AF is fast and accurate, C-AF is reasonably good if you specify the focus point but subject tracking isn"t dependable if you"re shooting a moving subject (unlike the E-M1s, the M10 III has PDAF/distance awareness).

It really isn"t metal on the Mark III - it"s the first E-M10 variant or indeed OM-D model of any type to have plastic covers. They are really good plastic covers though - the finish is excellent (the silver one looks convincingly like metal) and the feel is far superior to that which you usually get with plastic covers and arguably feels more solid than the anodized aluminium alloy covers of the E-M10 Mark II, which have a slightly "tinny" resonance. The brushed effect inserts on top are separate now and ARE metal (they were in one piece with the rest of the (metal) top plate on the Mark II. I am 100% sure of this - I have both models and am strongly myopic, so I can see the fine plastic moulding lines on the E-M10 Mark III"s covers. For the rest of the top of the camera, pop up the flash of this and the Mark II, and the earlier model"s separate metal cover is easy to discern, as is its absence on the Mark III.

No, really it isn’t. Sorry to disagree so flatly - I’m not basing this on what DPR said. Visually, it’s incredibly convincing unless you can focus your eyes close enough to see the moulding lines (finer than a human hair and absent on all other OM-D models). More reliably still, due to having an annoyingly cold house, a back-of-the-finger test is great for picking up the temperature differential on an unwarmed camera body between metallic parts and polycarbonate parts (the latter feeling noticeably less cold). It’s why the brushed metal “islands” (colder!) on the camera top are separate from the rest of the top cover, since those are metal or metal plated whilst the rest is beautifully painted polycarbonate (whereas it’s a single metal top cover part on the Mk II). Remember, it’s only the Mk III that I am saying has the polycarbonate covers. The same change applies to the Pen E-PL9 also.

(unknown member)

Ah so they changed it from the MK II to the MK III then okay. I have the MK II, and Oly said the same thing about the build, so they should amend their website.

DPR also in a video said the MK II was plastic, which was false, so I figured they just carried over the same misconception to the MK III.

Yes, that"s right. I"ve all three generations of the E-M10. The original is a painted metal like the E-M5 series (mixed reports of what the metal under the paintwork is - magnesium alloy as on the E-M5 models or aluminium alloy - but it feels similar to the E-M5 and E-M5 II). The E-M10 Mark II, as you know, is aluminium alloy (excuse the extra letter - I"m from the UK!!) and is anodized. The metal is pressed into shape rather than cast, and it consequently feels slightly hollower than the original. The Mark III is polycarbonate but incredibly well finished and disguised as metal - it actually is heavier and feels a little more solid than the Mark II - not that either are anything other than solid. The black version has paintwork exactly mimicking that on the black E-M5 Mark II, and the contours of the Mark III echo that model more closely than the Mark II did - to my eyes it"s very beautiful. Unfortunately it has been shorn of a lot of configuration options and features though.

I find the Mark III to be a disappointment for the same reason the review mentions. It is long past time for Olympus to pit OSPDAF in all of their cameras. There is no excuse for this. If anything Olympus is hurting themselves because their 4/3rds lenses need OSPDAF to function satisfactorily.
I am a big fan of the format, but I would highly recommend a Panasonic, Sony or Fuji over the Mark III because of the problems focusing.

I absolutely loved my EM10 back in the day: Fast focus, responsive touch screen, nice sharp compact Olympus lenses. I just wish Olympus adopted a bigger sensor, I never fell in love with m43rds image quality which always had a very flat less life like look to it.

Thom, I know it is subjective but I 100% disagree with you. I moved on to a Fuji XT10 with has the same 16 mp count albeit crop sensor and image quality is night and day, no comparison. Trust me I was in love with Olympus and wasn"t sure about moving to Fuji and figured Fuji was overhyped. I do miss certain things about Olympus, but the image quality of Fuji, and the optical quality of the lenses are superior. You could show me charts and graphs all day long that say the differences are negotiable but the proof is in the output. That doesn"t mean I don"t respect Olympus, I would buy the Pen F in a heartbeat just for fun, but the m43rds sensors just don"t seem to render things as attractively, not sure why.

if one has a sensitive eye and take nature/landscape pics like me
APS-C A6500 or even old NEX-5N just capture more color tone (like more different shade of green)
a full frame sensor in A7R II would capture even more color tone

hard to believe those that always claim MFT equal full frame
simply not true. not even equal APS-C
one can like MFT for 5 axis IS, lens selection or whatever. but saying IQ equal to large format sensor at same ISO is just wrong

(unknown member)

It is very easy to find out how identical (not equal) the IQ is.

1) Set a tripod on the scene with Arca Swiss head
2) Take three format bodies and mount Arca Swiss plate on all of them
3) Take a single prime lens that can be mounted on all bodies (ie. Canon to m4/3 and E mounts)
4) Measure the exposure with a Light Meter and average it to scene dynamic range
5) Take a single photo with all three cameras while focusing to exactly same point in the scene.
6) Import images and post process them as good as you can each individually.
7) Make a identical print subject sizes from all three formats, ie 30x20, 20x15 and 15x10.
8) Place the prints on the wall and stand at the same distance from them and observe them.

How much difference you will see in the details on area that is covered by every print?

The same can be done actually in "equivalence" manner (I have).
1) Use focal length that gives same framing
2) Do the prints for same size

At least up to 25-30" there is no IQ difference.

People always try to claim that all sensors are the same and it"s a complete load of BS. Nikon often produces better image quality from the same Sony sensors used in Sony cameras. Color, tones, pixel level detail, differ quite a bit between bodies. Each manufacturer has a signature look and that is why people sometimes gravitate towards them. Canon typically does fantastic with skin tones for example, regardless of whether you shoot raw or not, and people constantly complain on Nikon/Sony forums about how hard it is to match them. There is much more going on than raw sensor data.

Of course there is a difference. The question is, is the difference noticeable in the end for the majority of enthusiast/pro uses. If you set up the test mentioned above, I"d bet 999 out of 1000 wouldn"t be able to consistently choose which image was taken with the FF and which taken with 4/3. Obviously if making huge prints, more MP required

(unknown member)

jlabelle, question is WHEN the difference comes obvious, not that it is there always.

Ferrari is as fast as is a Volkswagen Beetle in normal roads... but on a paved race track in other hand..... and in other hand on crossroad track...

"Moving the mode dial from Auto to Art, I noticed the E-M10 III has another trick up its sleeve; you can now scroll through every Art filter on the camera along the bottom of the screen while your scene changes in real time."
That is what I noticed on the E-M1 Mk II as well (just for the sake of looking) although it isn"t with touch scrolling & done with the front dial instead. It is a better implementation for using Art Filters than previous models (that I know of).

(unknown member)

Cons: " 16MP starting to look a little dated"

Because we are all buying into the marketing bs? Nope, having exhibited 36 x 24 inch prints in a London exhibition, produced from a 16mp sensor, I can honestly say that 16mp is a perfectly usable res. Don"t buy into the marketing BS guys - 16 is plenty!

The competition has moved on and left this camera in the dust. If the choice was between an old dated 16 MP sensor and a new 24 MP sensor I would go with new and not buy an older sensor camera especially since this isn"t a cheap budget camera.

(unknown member)

Magnar, you do a lot of night photography, so I have an honest question for you. Which sensor would suit you better, a full-frame 16mp, or a M43 20mp?

The quote I used doesn"t say that the sensor is old or dated, but that the resolution is. That"s my point really.

@ quietrich: I would take the full frame sensor any day, no matter 12 Mp, 24 Mp (which I use), 50 Mp ... for low light photography/clean shadow/high ISO performance, what matters is the total light-gathering area of the sensor, not the pixel density. When pictures are scaled to the same size, noise level will be very much the same, no sensor Mp.

When I was going for a mirrorless system, I looked verry careful at 4/3, pas-c and FF. I wanted a lightweight and compact system, but also a capable system, so I ended up with a FF body and some pretty small lenses. ;-)

There is a difference with video though, for the 12 Mp vs higher Mp modern Sony sensors, but this doesn"t seem to come into play for still photographers, at least not at lower ISO settings than about 50 000 or so.

Then I can argue that FF is too big:)
That"s a choice. Do you want the cleanest pictures at ISO6400 and above? Then go to FF. Do you just want to take good pictures with a light package? Go to m4/3.
Choices, choices...
Plus, 20MP sensor will not suddenly make your picture better. I have the EM1 II and I don"t see huge difference compared to EM5 II. The main difference starts after ISO3200 but then if you need the ultimate high-ISO machine, you need to get a FF camera.

@ ozturert: When I went mirrorless, I took a deep look into 4/3, aps-c and full frame. My findings were that there is little to gain when it comes to weight, volume and price between the twice as large aps-c format and the 4/3 format when using lenses up to short to medium telephoto.

For medium to long telephoto the size adventage is there, but is very much lost if you buy two full aperture stop brighter 4/3 lenses to compensate for the small sensor! Such lenses are very expensive too.

I found that I could build a FF system for daily use that is not much larger og heavier than a 4/3 system, so that was my choise. I an live with some added weight at the long telephoto end.

Hi Magnar. Are you talking about 4/3 or m4/3? 4/3 lenses and bodies tend to be bigger and heavier than m4/3.
Again it is a choice. You"ll get better image quality with D810 and a 600mm lens but EM1 II and 300mm f4 is quite a bit smaller and lighter. Another good option is Nikon D500 and 300mm f4 VR and 1.4x teleconverter.
Choice:)

Always remember this is a gear site, where "more is always better."

At 16MP the four thirds sensor has the same pixel size as a full frame sensor with 64MP . And some folks think that pixels that are too small aren"t a good thing, as evidenced by the 12MP Sony A7S and 16MP Nikon Df.

@ ozturert: I don"t see a large difference between 4/3 and micro 4/3 lens size, but if compactness is the goal, sure smaller is better. ;-)

Some friends of me, professional/full time nature photographers, tried the new Olympus system with the 300 mm f:4, but decided to stay with their FF cameras due to image quality and noise level at higher ISO setting.

That said, another professional here use Olympus 4/3 a lot, especially for drone work, and he really like the system. He comes from Nikon.

@ Marty4650: Ideally, sensor area and pixel pitch should be measured against the intended use.

@ Jefftan: With today"s sensors, comparing sensors with the same light-gathering area (FF vs FF, aps-c vs aps-c, 4/3 vs 4/3, etc.), the noise level will be about the same when pictures are scaled to the same size, no matter pixel size/pixel pitch. A full frame 12 Mp and 36 Mp will show about the same level with noise for, say, a 110 cc/44 inch wide print.

Earlier, when micro lenses was not as effecient as on today"s sensors, larger pixels had an adventage noisewise.

For most casual photographer who display there shots on the web or print them off at 7x5, 16MP. I have about less than 1 percent printed at 8x10. The E10 is not a pro or even a pro-am camera. It"s very much a consumer camera/beginners camera. It majors on smaller size total size (lens+camera). I would be happier with 8-10MP with the bump in low-light and dynamic range improvements the bigger photo-sites would bring coupled with smaller file sizes. If you need bigger print m4/3->APS->35mm->MF->LF depending on the red you want.

Comparing it to the one year old Panasonic G85, the E-M10 III is only better with High-ISO performance, nowhere else. I don"t know if this makes up for the "gold award" vs "no award", but Olympus is definitely 1 to 1.5 years too late with this camera.
(I personally hope the E-M5 III will soon be announced.)

(unknown member)

You do know that Olympus released E-M10 at 2014?
This model is only a 3 years old. And this is now a third mark version of it to just keep it fresh on the market before upgrade comes.

And this is entry level from OM-D line, something that so many is totally missing.

The sensor performance and the resolution are more than enough for the target audience. Then added the stabilization, Olympus design and idea of the features in m4/3 body are that is making up to many other things.

Well taken great photos with 5-8Mpix 1/2.3" cameras years back have not gone worse or noisier. They are still great ones. It is now just easier and more enjoyable to get with the technological features like a stabilization or ILC.

E-M10 is, and will likely always stay as very capable body who seek a ILC over smartphones and bridge cameras.

But it ain"t a top model for low price.
It ain"t a ultra performer for every possible situation that is there.

I suspect this is because mirror vibration is the overwhelming source of vibration when not in mirror lock up. On a mirrorless the camera has to first close the shutter as well before the exposure starts if there is no EFC which a DSLR doesn"t have to to do as the shutter is already closed. In live view mode this isn"t the case but thats why efc kicks in by default. But if you"re talking mirrorless both Canon and Sony had it years before Oly so its not exactly an Oly selling point.

E-M10s were easy to recommend to beginner photographers getting their first ILCs. However, it is no longer as easy when there"s X-T20 available from Fuji for not that much more money. Sure, it does not have an IBIS, but it rips the entry-level OMD"s to shreds in pretty much every other aspect. Better build quality, better sensor, better handling, better menus, better EVF, better focusing... better overall shooting experience. Pretty much everything is better.

Olympus needs to further drop the price of E-M10 III to stay competitive. Otherwise, I don"t see a good reason to get one.

(unknown member)

The E-M10 mark III is 650 and the X-T20 900. Not that much more? Almost 40% more. The E-M10 mark III has nice features the Fuji lacks, and a few of the pro"s you mentioned are personal. Also the lenses for m4/3 are cheaper in general. The E-M10 mark III will easily outsell the Fuji, as always.

Well, price difference is not small. Menus is a personal choice, EVF"s are not different and Fuji"s primes are not stabilized. For instance I need to preserve at least 1/200s to use 90mm f2.0 and you need good light for that, otherwise you need to increase ISO. With EM10 III and 75mm f1.8, you can go as low as 1/10-1/20 and suddenly "big" sensor loses its advantages.
I think it is a personal choice, rather than technical.

Australian prices for body only E-M10 mark III is $989 & X-T20 $1129
A beginner is going to a buy a kit though.
OLYMPUS OM-D E-M10 MARK III SINGLE LENS KIT WITH 14-42MM EZ LENS $1199
FUJIFILM X-T20 SINGLE LENS KIT WITH XF18-55MM LENS $1,629.00

A bit of a difference!

Just so people know, I own and shoot Olympus, Fuji and Nikon cameras, so I am not bashing Olympus. I love Olympus. I even got a E-M1 II and it"s one of the best cameras I"ve ever owned. I don"t own M10 MK III, but I do own the MK II and most of the features of the 3rd revision stay the same. And having shot these cameras extensively, I can say the following:

1. X-T20 completely outclasses the E-M10. And even the E-M5. It"s not "preferential" or "subjective",it"s just better all around camera with the only exception being the stabilization that Fuji lacks.

2. X-trans hasn"t been a problem in years. And especially not for beginners. If anything, it is an advantage. I don"t really understand why do people still bring up X-trans as being problematic.

3. A difference of 200 euros for the Fuji kit is more than worth it. Sure, if it"s a deal breaker, then E-M10 III is a great choice. It"s just that X-T20 is much better choice for what it costs.

Melchiorum, of course it is subjective. If it wasn"t, everyone would buy XT20 and EM10II would not sell at all.
Liking XTrans is also preferential. I really don"t like it because of eating low level details. And yes I have tried 3 different commercial packages with similar results. If I have to deviate from my usual workflow for the sake of XTrans, then you lose me. Plus, I don"t like the Fuji"s colour signature. Even those hugely promoted "film modes" do not attract me. But then that"s just me and it"s a subjective opinion.

"I don"t own M10 MK III, but I do own the MK II and most of the features of the 3rd revision stay the same."

The EM10 III in fact has the processor from the EM1 II, so that"s a significant difference, even if the sensor remains the same.

"X-trans hasn"t been a problem in years. And especially not for beginners."

Assuming beginners only ever shoot jpeg, you have a point. However it makes learning to use raw a bit harder for the reasons explained below.

"X-trans hasn"t been a problem in years."

Well, "problem", no. But one does have to know what one is doing and be willing to try different raw extraction software depending on what one is trying to get out of the raw data.

I"ll never understand why both Olympus and Panasonic cripple auto-ISO in most of their cameras. The primitive auto-ISO is the main thing I dislike about my current m4/3 cameras and I"m not going to buy another one until they"ve sorted it out.

For me the main problem is that there"s no was of setting exposure compensation in manual mode + auto-ISO. That renders the mode pretty much useless in most of the situations where I"d want to use it.

Some other systems (e.g. Fuji) also allow separate control over minimum shutter speed, which can be useful in some circumstances. Most m4/3 cameras are really backward and primitive in comparison when it comes to auto-ISO handling.

(unknown member)

What still amazes me is that while on digital cameras ISO doesn"t change the exposure, people still expect to get Exposure Compensation to operate the non-Exposure value.

Same thing as wanting a Full-Manual mode to be a Semi-Manual.

@Tommi K1
Nitpicking about terminology doesn"t change the fact that this can be a really useful feature in a lot of different circumstances.

It"s something that"s available on most other current cameras, so its omission is a disadvantage for most of the m4/3 line-up (other than a few high-end models).

If the EM10 MkIII has a menu system more akin the E-M1 Mk2, I would expect it to have this.

It is actually quite useful in some scenarios. For example, when you do sports or BIF and want a minimum aperture & shutter speed. It isn"t having either a fully manual mode or a combination of S&A priority modes, but it is about giving options.

What is the point of this camera?

It needs better integration with mobile OS to make it a true stepping stone from a smartphone, but Olympus don"t provide it. The whole beginner thing comes across as marketing shtick. As it stands, a smartphone is a great deal easier and more convenient while a full-on camera model is a great deal more capable and, unlike this new model, is something a user can grow into.

Not at all, in my personal experience. I"ve had endless problem with codex compatibility, and have gone back to my OM5ii for important video projects because the G85 provides unpredictable results, and chokes up anytime I try to use 4K in WiFi mode.

"It needs better integration with mobile OS to make it a true stepping stone from a smartphone" what? the wifi capabilities of olympus are 2nd to none. OI share and the standalone http server are the easiest way to share, on pretty much any device. OI share has extensive viewfinder feature.

It"s about offering a better experience than that available on a 3" screen, about sorting images, landing them on social media, applying VSCO stuff and etc. Offering wifi is a basic start, no more. OI Share is a basic start, no more, and I use it a lot. It a very limited app. And wifi is not the only wireless way either. Imho, camera-makers need to embrace mobile OS and stop offering token solutions.

No one said an Olympus FF would replace any beloved m43 body. I am an M43 user but would seriously consider a future Oly FF since I currently also shoot Nikon and Sony FF. Some people"s slavish loyalty to certain sizes of silicon wafer baffle me.

(unknown member)

"Some people"s slavish loyalty to certain sizes of silicon wafer baffle me."

What"s up with the FF then?

No resolution benefits for most users
No noise benefits for most users
No color rendition benefits for most users
No DOF benefits for most users

Yet, some people has that loyalty to larger silicon wafer purely because the larger size and then claims things for it because of a pixel peeping and other theoretical advancements that most users can"t see in real world photography!

How many is shooting way past ISO 12 800?
How many is doing prints over 30" wide that requires single frame?
How many is shooting all the time subject only partially in focus?

How many FF user knows that they could pick with 100% certainty among 25-30" prints in blind test using ISO 200-6400 range when there are against each other competitors like A7rII, E-M1, A6500, D800, D7200, 5D Mk3 and 80D.

The uproar is adding to my bemusement. I use m43, apsc and ff bodies. I have no "loyalty" to MF or one inch sensor sizes LOL. I currently shoot Oly, Nikon, Sony and Pentax and I have literally owned all the consumer brands at one time or another. Yup , no "loyalty" to Hassy, PhaseOne, Mamiya, etc.

At Tommy K1, what you wrote could be written the same and replace FF with 4/3 and 4/3 with iPhone.
But you could agree (I hope) that there is a difference, isn"t it?
So at what given sensor size / lens aperture it stops to matter for you? It improves until 4/3 and then stops when getting better?

There is enlightening article on dPreview of a few weeks ago about equivalence that I strongly suggest you to read on this matter.

@multisystem: Fuji followed a bit your idea in proposing 2 parallel line of products, one aimed at the compact and most bang for the buck aps-systems, and the medium format aimed at another type of customers who need the resolution and rendering above all (at the expense of things like very low fps, etc).

FF market is saturated, but it is a bit behind in terms of innovation. I mean, Nikon users are just discovering in September 2017 that you can now focus using the touchscreen? Not that I find it crucial, I personally don"t even use it that much, but hello...it"s been in Panasonic cameras since 2011.

(unknown member)

You are trying to do foolish argument with that.

There is a standard for image quality and DOF evaluation. And that has been for decades a 8x10" print viewed from 12" distance by a person who has an average (20/20) eye sight. And that all is based to many other factors how humans eyes work and how humans minds works, empiric tests.

The DPR article is a circulated reasoning, and once you realise one thing: Photography ain"t about mathematics, it is about visuals arts. And when you can make something thats IQ looks identical on real world, but by math it is totally false/different.

There is a real world requirements when a quality of something is "good enough" and when it is "not good enough" and that line is little dynamic, but not much, but it is set.

And technology has got improved so much that what you knew about 5 years ago, can already easily be obsolete. A 2008 body doesn"t have 20011 sensor but likely 2000-2003. More tech crossing the line "good enough"

@Tommi K1; your "rant" about art versus math makes no sense. For instance, yes, movie are about art even with the best technique in the world, but technique is a VERY important aspect of filming movies and you are the only one that is trying to deny that.

@Tommi K1; You are saying that we reach "good enough" but what is good enough?

You said that for "most users":
- "no resolution benefits" : I can tell you that clean 36Mp image allowed me to crop significantly images, especially when I am travelling with the small and light 35mm, and still have good pictures that you cannot get with a 24Mp APS-C with mediocre lens.

- "No noise benefits" : when there is not a lot of light, images at even 1600 or 3200 ISO can look seriously crappy even on the A7R.

- "No DOF benefits" : there is because I only need to carry the f/4 70-200 and 24-70 and I save 1,5kg and a lot of money compared to the f/2,8 versions on APS-C.

People could use a Canon 85L f/1,2 (because the 1,4 is not good) on APS-C. But with FF, you can have a Sony 85mm f/1,8 which is 1,5kg lighter, 1500$ cheaper and give better result on FF with still this creamy bokeh.

Bigger sensor, in the long run, allow you to have lighter, cheaper kit and better IQ. Simply as that.

Does this use the EFC implementation of the E-M10 II and older bodies (physical curtain - delay - electronic first curtain) OR that of the E-M5 II, PEN-F, and E-M1 II? Might not make a practical difference in a lot of cases but it does have an impact on burst modes and stuff like the 75-300 ($300 something at their refurb outlet) is also equally impacted and not a pairing that"s unheard of.

Around a 1.5yrs ago, I almost opted for an E-M10 II instead of an E-M5 II (the tilt screen on the former was more appealing) but the EFC thing was one of the former"s turn offs, so I ended up just finding a good deal on the E-M5 II... Weather sealing and a few other things were also a factor mind you.

The E-M10 Mark II provide EFC, like the E-M10 version I, but also a full electronic shutter which is totally silent and vibration free with a speed up to 1/16000s. It looks like you did not read the manual carefully enough...
I own the E-M10 II and use the full electronic shutter by default.

It looks like YOU didn"t read my comment carefully enough, none of what you"re stating contradicts any of what I said, and I was inquiring about the specific nature of the electronic first curtain (EFC) shutter used. Perhaps read a bit more carefully before choosing the condescending route of telling people to RTFM.

To be clearer, in case you"re not fully versed in the subject, Olympus has two very different EFC implementations of EFC across their bodies depending on age and price. Most newer or pricier bodies (as alluded to above) have a straightforward EFC where you have an electronic curtain followed by a mechanical

The E-M10 II has the older EFC implementation (despite being a more recent body) where a physical curtain is still triggered (because it uses an older shutter design where they can"t get rid of it), followed by a short delay, followed by an electronic curtain which is the actual first curtain, and finally the second physical curtain.

That works fine in many situations, but not all (again as alluded to above), just like the entirely electronic shutter works in some situations but not all. A true/straightforward EFC has no major downside.

Wow it looks like ratings are "jumping the shark" with this one.

As I read this review I kept on having flashbacks to the canon 6D MK 2 review. Essentially it"s the same situation? Almost everything is improved but the IQ.

Dpreview slams the 6D MK II verbally and does not even give it a rating but with this camera it"s almost like they are apologizing for olympus"s lack of investment in the entry level market and giving it a pat on the back with an 80% rating even though it can"t AF reliably.

16mp "STARTING to look a LITTLE bit dated" starting.... little bit? lol.

Here"s dpreviews other some 80% ratings:

80% Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D / Kiss X9i Review (May 3, 2017)
80% Sony Alpha a6000 Review (Jun 3, 2014)
80% Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (Mar 20, 2014)
80% Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review (Mar 18, 2014)
80% Fujifilm X-E2 Review (Mar 5, 2014)
80% Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Review (Nov 17, 2012)
80% Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review (Apr 30, 2012)

This is the Dpreview Canon bias that they continually deny but somehow always shines through. They have a blind spot to it so Its not going to change. My advice is to still read the reviews as there"s still lots of good info there and look past the slant. That said the OM does have IS which is unheard of at this price point and is still a very capable cam (although the same could be said of the 6D I suppose).

(unknown member)

It can AF very reliably.... That haven"t been a problem never really.

An 16Mpix problem is only in the number "bigger is better" when you put products specs sheets side by side.

But start doing real work with 16Mpix and it ain"t going to stop you, unless you are using a 17mm while you would need a 45mm or 60mm.

Can somebody answer, why recent Olympus cameras are so horribly ugly? Where did the style and elegance of PEN P1 or P5 gone?
Did they ditch proper designers and employed Southamerican rainforest headhunters? Olympus cameras of the last 2-3 years look either like miniature shrunken boxy rangefinders from 1950s packed up to teeth with wheels and knobs, or shrunked DSLRs from early 1980s. All squeezed in, disproportionate, ugly, like those shrunken heads cooked by headhunting tribes in South America.
When will Olympus wake up from this hypnotic, delirious dream caused by the mangement who practise random aiming with curare arrows?

I like the design, with exception of the on/off switch, that should be accessable by the right hand. Good ergonomics for such a small body. But otherwise, the optical design was not the reason for buying the Mk II of this camera line for me.

@Triplet Perar:
I am not blind, and do find the whole olympus OMD line to be...VERY attractive, even if that would only refer to their aesthetics. Now, fwiw in my book that doesn´t only refer to aesthetics: I like them a lot as tools, too! ;-)

(own the EM-5 mk1 and the E-M1 mk1)

«Дорожные споры — последнее дело», поэтому о камере в дорогу я никогда не думаю. Она должна быть маленькой, неубиваемой, давать ряд явных преимуществ перед конкурентами и не тянуть рюкзак. В Казахстан, так уж получилось, с собой я взял на целый месяц Olympus OM-D E-M10 mark III — как оказалось, несмотря на размеры, крайне мощный инструмент, особенно, если разжиться тремя-четырьмя хорошими объективами, которые по месту и весу занимают столько же, сколько полнокадровый зум, а возможно, даже и меньше.

Качество и стиль

Олимпус при производстве своих камер изначально выбрал стиль ретро, а это значит сочетание качественных материалов и продуманных линий. Однако, здесь дизайн не является самоцелью, поскольку дизайнеры компании следуют своей религии совсем не однолинейно. Вся линейка OM-D отличается от более простой, Pen, как раз дизайном под зеркалку и имеет четко выраженный хват. Естественно, в компактной камере нельзя было сделать такой же хват, как в единице, поскольку корпус здесь почти в два раза меньше по объему. Тем не менее, дизайнеры не просто перемасштабировали большую камеру до маленькой, поскольку корпус стал меньше, а вот управляющие колесики - нет. Да, это привело к легкому дисбалансу размеров органов, но зато приоритеты расставлены правильно, поскольку первична именно управляемость, а не тупое следование эстетике стиля, ведь пальцы наши от маленькой камеры меньше не становятся. Естественно, хват здесь не такой уверенный, и держишь камеру тремя пальцами правой руки, но, благодаря выступу сзади, вполне уверенно. Впрочем, ради следования стилю здесь традиционным сделан тумблер включения слева, и длины моих пальцев правой руки не хватает, чтобы его переключить, но это фирменная фишка Олимпуса, поэтому свое мнение я бы отнес к вкусовщине, привыкнуть можно.

Компактность и удобство, функциональность и эргономика

Компактность - это основное преимущество системы микро-4/3, и здесь десятка значительно опережает и пятерку, и единицу. Если добавить сюда компактный объектив, камера поместится в кармане зимней куртки, но и летом ее легко носить, что путешественнику идеально подходит. С ней, действительно, можно ходить постоянно, было бы желание. Сегодня стандартом считается вообще мобильный телефон, которому камера в плане компактности, естественно, проигрывает, но далеко не так значительно, как современные зеркальные и беззеркальные полнокадровые камеры. А вот в плане качества и гибкости она будет, естественно, на высоте, тем более, с хорошими объективами, которые есть в системе. Ну, а в плане функцинала и удобства камера, наверное, вообще не уступает другим фотоаппаратам.

Прежде всего, организация пространства съемки через быстрое меню здесь сделана очень неплохо. Сюда вынесены основные настройки фото- и видеосъемки, но так же здесь вы выбираете режим фокусировки, настройки стабилизации изображения, что важно, когда вам нужно ее отключить, как это делается тумблером стабилизированного объектива, и еще ряд настроек. Управлять быстрым меню можно и колесами, и клавишами, и пальцами. Расположение кнопок на корпусе сведено к расширенному, но необходимому минимуму, это обязательные два колеса для управления, раздельные клавиши спуска, благодаря которым можно одновременно снимать и фото, и видео, включая их в любой последовательности, стандартный блок навигации, режимы съемки и доступа к быстрому меню. Остальное - на сенсорном экране, с которого в режиме видео, к примеру, может вполне комфортно управлять съемкой.

Функционал

В режиме фото мне традиционно нравятся цифровые функции Olympus, которых практически больше ни у кого и нет. Live comp давно стал крайне удобным инструментом для съемки, но я каждый раз для себя открываю дополнительные возможности его использования. Здесь есть довольно гибкие настройки для него, позволяющие выбрать базовую выдержку для первого кадра, на которую будет все накладываться. Раньше меня дико раздражало, что камера снимает пару секунд, а потом накладывает сверху только светлые зоны, создавая дорожки от фар автомобилей, но сейчас вы сами выбираете, сколько экспонировать первый кадр, а соответственно, можете регулировать отчасти и чувствительность, чтобы первый кадр шумел меньше. С помощью этой функции можно успешно размывать воду в пух, даже когда у вас попросту нет нейтрального фильтра, чтобы снимать на выдержках по нескольку минут, если на улице светло — экспозиция может длиться пару секунд, но эффект будет, как от сверхдлинной выдержки.

Стабилизатор

Самая сильная сторона Олимпуса — его стабилизатор изображения, который в продвинутой версии присутствует только в OM-D, в то время, как серия Pen имеет стабилизатор чуть проще. К тому же, на результат его работы хорошо влияет сам вес камеры, который здесь больше, а пены традиционно легче. Зная эту особенность, я совершенно обнаглел в путешествии и снимал на выдержках по паре секунд при чувствительности ISO 200-400 на фиксы 1.8, которые были у меня на тесте. Отсутствие необходимости таскать с собой штатив — это зачатую очень серьезное подспорье, равно как и малошумные картинки в результате.

Автофокус

Второй огромнейший плюс — эффективный и реально работающий следящий автофокус, над которым я издевался довольно много, но он неплохо цепляется даже за одинокую болтающуюся на ветру травинку, при этом не дыша линзами в видео, но довольно быстрый в режиме фото, чтобы перефокусироваться между кадрами в серии. Здесь она не такая быстрая, как в E-M1, но более, чем достаточная для съемки динамики путешественнику.

Видео

Видео мы давно уже не отделяем от фото, и то, что Олимпус подтянул свои возможности под современные стандарты, безусловно, радует. 4К/25 или 30р, в зависимости от вашего стандарта, да еще и с полноценным стабилизатором, безусловно сделают погоду многим. Я обратил внимание, что даже с выключенным стабилизатором камера срезает площадь картинки примерно на 5%, но не стал бы к этому придираться, поскольку сделано это для попиксельного считывания и хорошей резкости. Естественно, резкую картинку можно получить только с хорошими стеклами, зато она действительно будет выглядеть профессионально. Олимпус здесь делает ставку на съемку под свои нужды со стилизацией прямо в камере, хотя и для постобработки здесь место тоже есть. Цвет можно гибко настраивать в меню, можно накладывать любой из цифровых фильтров, присутствующих в камере, даже внешние эффекты смаза движения или старой пленки присутствуют. Дублировать их на этапе постобработки начинающему не очень просто. Плоский профиль дает возможности стандартного грейдинга изображения уже на этапе редактирования видео. Чего не хватает, так это порта под внешний микрофон, хотя компания давно дает возможность синхронизации по таймкоду со своими диктофонами, блогерам можно также использовать диктофон хоть в телефоне. Обычно принято говорить, что откидной экран не совместим с блогерскими интересами, но самого себя всегда можно снять с управлением с телефона, причем в таком случае все будет видно не на расстоянии в три метра, а с вытянутой руки, которая будет не только запускать и останавливать съемку, но и менять почти все ее параметры.

Заключение

В жизни важен баланс. Понятно, что идеальных камер нет, есть идеально подходящие под ваши интересы. Если вы профессионал-студийщик или видеограф с большим объемом работы, конечно, можно пытаться предъявлять к этой камере свои завышенные требования, но идеально она подойдет вам только в отпуске. Она не будет тянуть шею, не будет тащить домой и давить на совесть потраченным на нее бюджетом паровоза. Она позволит даже определенные слабости, вроде нежелания таскать повсюду штатив и гору железа, при этом отвечая практически всем потребностям путешественника, не желающего ограничивать себя убогим телефонным качеством, но стремящегося сделать картинку идеальной для данных условий, предоставляя вам как стандартные, так и дополнительные творческие возможности.

Фотографии в исходном качестве , сделанные на Olympus OM-D E-M10 mark III, можно скачать по .