Olympus E-M10 II versus Fujifilm X-E3

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II and the Fujifilm X-E3 are two digital cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in August 2015 and September 2017. Both the E-M10 II and the X-E3 are mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that are based on a Four Thirds (E-M10 II) and an APS-C sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 15.9 megapixel, whereas the Fujifilm provides 24 MP.

Body comparison

The side-by-side display below illustrates the physical size and weight of the Olympus E-M10 II and the Fujifilm X-E3. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All width, height and depth dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter. You can also toggle the display to switch to a percentage comparison if you prefer that the measures are being expressed in relative terms (in this case, the camera on the left side – the E-M10 II – represents the basis for the calculations across all the size and weight measures).

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Fujifilm X-E3 is notably smaller (10 percent) than the Olympus E-M10 II. Moreover, the X-E3 is markedly lighter (14 percent) than the E-M10 II. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the E-M10 II nor the X-E3 are weather-sealed.

The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete since they do not consider the interchangeable lenses that both of these cameras require. A larger imaging sensor will tend to go along with bigger and heavier lenses, although exceptions exist. You can find an overview of optics for the two cameras in the Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog (E-M10 II) and the Fujinon X Lens Catalog (X-E3). Mirrorless cameras, such as the two under consideration, have the additional advantage of having a short flange to focal plane distance, which makes it possible to mount many lenses from other systems onto the camera via adapters.

Concerning battery life, the E-M10 II gets 320 shots out of its BLS-50 battery, while the X-E3 can take 350 images on a single charge of its NP-W126S power pack.

The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, just select a new right or left comparator from among the camera models in the table. Alternatively, you can also move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible comparisons there.

The listed prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The E-M10 II was launched at a somewhat lower price (by 11 percent) than the X-E3, which makes it more attractive for photographers on a tight budget. Usually, retail prices stay at first close to the launch price, but after several months, discounts become available. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.

Sensor comparison

The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors of image quality. A large sensor will tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color depth than smaller pixel-units in a sensor of the same technological generation. Further, a large sensor camera will give the photographer additional creative options when using shallow depth-of-field to isolate a subject from its background. On the downside, larger sensors are more costly to manufacture and tent to lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.

Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus E-M10 II features a Four Thirds sensor and the Fujifilm X-E3 an APS-C sensor. The sensor area in the X-E3 is 64 percent bigger. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 2.0 and 1.5. The sensor in the E-M10 II has a native 4:3 aspect ratio, while the one in the X-E3 offers a 3:2 aspect.

With 24MP, the X-E3 offers a higher resolution than the E-M10 II (15.9MP), but the X-E3 nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 3.92μm versus 3.76μm for the E-M10 II) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the X-E3 is a much more recent model (by 2 years) than the E-M10 II, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixel-units. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that neither of the two cameras has an anti-alias filter installed, so they are able to capture all the detail the sensor resolves.

Since 2007, DXO Mark has published sensor performance measurements that have been derived using a consistent methodology. This service assesses and scores the color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors, and also publishes an overall camera score. The adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.

Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but also of capturing video footage. Both cameras under consideration have a sensor with sufficiently fast read-out times for moving pictures, but the X-E3 provides a better video resolution than the E-M10 II. It can shoot movie footage at 4K/30p, while the Olympus is limited to 1080/60p.

Feature comparison

Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. The E-M10 II and the X-E3 are similar in the sense that both feature an electronic viewfinder, which is helpful when framing images in bright sunlight. Moreover, their viewfinders offer an identical resolution of 2360k dots. The following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Olympus E-M10 II, the Fujifilm X-E3, and comparable cameras. If needed, the dpreview camera hub, for example, contains further detail on the cameras' specs.

The X-E3 is a current model that online retailers, such as amazon, will have in stock. In contrast, the E-M10 II has been discontinued (but it can be found pre-owned on ebay). As a replacement in the same line of cameras, the E-M10 II was succeeded by the Olympus E-M10 III.

Summary

So what conclusions can be drawn? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus E-M10 II or the Fujifilm X-E3 – has the upper hand? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.

Reasons to prefer the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II:

• More flexible LCD: Has a tilting screen for odd-angle shots in landscape orientation.
• Easier fill-in: Is equipped with a small onboard flash to brighten deep shadow areas.
• Sharper images: Has hand-shake reducing image stabilization build-in.
• More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced segment (11 percent cheaper at launch).
• More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in August 2015).

Arguments in favor of the Fujifilm X-E3:

• More detail: Has more megapixels (24 vs 15.9MP), which boosts linear resolution by 25%.
• Better image quality: Is equipped with a larger and more technologically advanced sensor.
• Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (4K/30p vs 1080/60p).
• Less heavy: Has a lower weight (by 53g or 14 percent) and is thus easier to take along.
• More modern: Reflects 2 years of technical progress since the E-M10 II launch.

If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the match-up finishes in a tie (5 points each). However, the pertinence of the various camera strengths will differ across photographers, so that you might want to weigh individual camera traits according to their importance for your own imaging needs.

In any case, while the comparison of the spec-sheets of cameras can offer a general idea of their imaging potential, it remains incomplete and does no justice, for example, to the way the E-M10 II or the X-E3 handle or perform in practice. User reviews that are available, for instance, at amazon can sometimes shed light on these issues, but such feedback is all too often partial, inconsistent, and inaccurate. This is why expert reviews are important. The adjacent table relays the overall verdicts of several of the most popular camera review sites. The full reviews are available, respectively, at cameralabs.com, dpreview.com, ephotozine.com, imaging-resource.com, and photographyblog.com.

The above review scores should be interpreted with care, though. The assessments were made in relation to similar cameras of the same technological generation. A score, therefore, has to be seen in close connection to the price and market introduction time of the camera, and comparing ratings of very distinct cameras or ones that are far apart in terms of their release date have little meaning. Also, please note that some of the review sites have changed their methodology and reporting over time.

Other comparisons

In case you would like to check on the differences and similarities of other camera models, just make your choice using the following search menu. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored. If the camera you are interested in is not available, please contact me, and I will try to add information on that model to the database.