Ur-Leica Tamron Camera Comparison
Leica 1600mm Soligor Exif data
A potelyt.com – Photography & Imaging Resources
ad
PW

Olympus E-M10 IV vs Ricoh GR III

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV and the Ricoh GR III are two digital cameras that were officially introduced, respectively, in August 2020 and February 2019. The E-M10 IV is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, while the GR III is a fixed lens compact. The cameras are based on a Four Thirds (E-M10 IV) and an APS-C (GR III) sensor. The Olympus has a resolution of 20.2 megapixels, whereas the Ricoh provides 24 MP.

Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.

Headline Specifications
Olympus E-M10 IV versus Ricoh GR III
Olympus E-M10 IV Ricoh GR III
Mirrorless system camera Fixed lens compact camera
Micro Four Thirds lenses 28mm f/2.8
20.2 MP, Four Thirds Sensor 24 MP, APS-C Sensor
4K/30p Video 1080/60p Video
ISO 200-25,600 ISO 100-102,400
Electronic viewfinder (2360k dots) Viewfinder optional
3.0 LCD, 1040k dots 3.0 LCD, 1037k dots
Tilting touchscreen Fixed touchscreen
15 shutter flaps per second 4 shutter flaps per second
In-body stabilizationIn-body stabilization
360 shots per battery charge200 shots per battery charge
122 x 84 x 49 mm, 383 g 109 x 62 x 33 mm, 257 g

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV and the Ricoh GR III? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.

Body comparison

An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Olympus E-M10 IV and the Ricoh GR III is provided in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three successive views from the front, the top, and the rear are shown. All size dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

The E-M10 IV can be obtained in two different colors (black, silver), while the GR III is only available in black.

Size Olympus E-M10 IV vs Ricoh GR III
Compare E-M10 IV versus GR III top
Comparison E-M10 IV or GR III rear

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Ricoh GR III is considerably smaller (34 percent) than the Olympus E-M10 IV. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the E-M10 IV nor the GR III are weather-sealed.

The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete and possibly misleading, as the GR III has a lens built in, whereas the E-M10 IV is an interchangeable lens camera that requires a separate lens. Attaching the latter will add extra weight and bulk to the setup. You can compare the optics available for the E-M10 IV and their specifications in the Micro Four Thirds Lens Catalog.

The battery packs of both cameras can be charged via USB, which can be very convenient when travelling.

The adjacent table lists the principal physical characteristics of the two cameras alongside a wider set of alternatives. In case you want to display and compare another camera duo, you can use the CAM-parator app to select your camera combination among a large number of options.

scroll hint
Body Specifications
    Camera
Model
Camera
Width
Camera
Height
Camera
Depth
Camera
Weight
Battery
Life
Weather
Sealing
Camera
Launch
Launch
Price (USD)
Street
Price
1.
 
Olympus E-M10 IV 122 mm 84 mm 49 mm 383 g 360 n Aug 2020 699 i
2.
 
Ricoh GR III 109 mm 62 mm 33 mm 257 g 200 n Feb 2019 899 i
3.
 
Canon G7 X Mark III 105 mm 61 mm 41 mm 304 g 235 n Jul 2019 749 i
4.
 
Fujifilm XF10 113 mm 64 mm 41 mm 279 g 330 n Jul 2018 499 i
5.
 
Olympus E-M5 III 125 mm 85 mm 50 mm 414 g 310 Y Oct 2019 1,199 i
6.
 
Olympus E-PL10 117 mm 68 mm 39 mm 380 g 350 n Oct 2019 599 i
7.
 
Olympus E-PL9 117 mm 68 mm 39 mm 380 g 350 n Feb 2018 599i
8.
 
Olympus E-M10 III 122 mm 84 mm 50 mm 410 g 330 n Aug 2017 649i
9.
 
Olympus E-PL8 115 mm 67 mm 38 mm 357 g 350 n Sep 2016 549i
10.
 
Olympus PEN-F 125 mm 72 mm 37 mm 427 g 330 n Jan 2016 1,199i
11.
 
Olympus E-M10 II 120 mm 83 mm 47 mm 390 g 320 n Aug 2015 649i
12.
 
Olympus E-M10 119 mm 82 mm 46 mm 396 g 320 n Jan 2014 699i
13.
 
Olympus E-PL7 115 mm 67 mm 38 mm 357 g 350 n Aug 2014 599i
14.
 
Panasonic G100 116 mm 83 mm 54 mm 352 g 270 n Jun 2020 649 i
15.
 
Panasonic ZS200 111 mm 65 mm 45 mm 340 g 370 n Feb 2018 799 i
16.
 
Ricoh GR II 117 mm 63 mm 35 mm 251 g 320 n Jun 2015 699 i
17.
 
Ricoh GR 117 mm 61 mm 35 mm 245 g 290 n Apr 2013 799i
Notes: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as add-on or interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.

The price is, of course, an important factor in any camera decision. The listed launch prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. Normally, street prices remain initially close to the MSRP, but after a couple of months, the first discounts appear. 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.

ad

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 generally have larger individual pixels that offer better low-light sensitivity, provide wider dynamic range, and have richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors are more costly to manufacture and tend to lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.

Of the two cameras under consideration, the Olympus E-M10 IV features a Four Thirds sensor and the Ricoh GR III an APS-C sensor. The sensor area in the GR III is 63 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 IV has a native 4:3 aspect ratio, while the one in the GR III offers a 3:2 aspect.

Olympus E-M10 IV and Ricoh GR III sensor measures

With 24MP, the GR III offers a higher resolution than the E-M10 IV (20.2MP), but the GR III nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 3.91μm versus 3.34μm for the E-M10 IV) due to its larger sensor. However, the E-M10 IV is a somewhat more recent model (by 1 year and 5 months) than the GR III, and its sensor might have benefitted from technological advances during this time that 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.

The resolution advantage of the Ricoh GR III implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the GR III for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 30 x 20 inches or 76.2 x 50.8 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 24 x 16 inches or 61 x 40.6 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 20 x 13.3 inches or 50.8 x 33.9 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-M10 IV are 25.9 x 19.4 inches or 65.8 x 49.4 cm for good quality, 20.7 x 15.6 inches or 52.7 x 39.5 cm for very good quality, and 17.3 x 13 inches or 43.9 x 32.9 cm for excellent quality prints.

The GR III has on-sensor phase detect pixels, which results in fast and reliable autofocus acquisition even during live view operation.

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV has a native sensitivity range from ISO 200 to ISO 25600, which can be extended to ISO 100-25600. The corresponding ISO settings for the Ricoh GR III are ISO 100 to ISO 102400 (no boost).

E-M10 IV versus GR III MP

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

scroll hint
Sensor Characteristics
    Camera
Model
Sensor
Class
Resolution
(MP)
Horiz.
Pixels
Vert.
Pixels
Video
Format
DXO
Portrait
DXO
Landscape
DXO
Sports
DXO
Overall
1.
 
Olympus E-M10 IV Four Thirds 20.2 5184 38884K/30p........
2.
 
Ricoh GR III APS-C 24.0 6000 40001080/60p........
3.
 
Canon G7 X Mark III 1-inch 20.0 5472 36484K/30p........
4.
 
Fujifilm XF10 APS-C 24.0 6000 40004K/15p........
5.
 
Olympus E-M5 III Four Thirds 20.2 5184 38884K/30p........
6.
 
Olympus E-PL10 Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34564K/30p........
7.
 
Olympus E-PL9 Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34564K/30p........
8.
 
Olympus E-M10 III Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34564K/30p........
9.
 
Olympus E-PL8 Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34561080/30p........
10.
 
Olympus PEN-F Four Thirds 20.2 5184 38881080/60p23.112.489474
11.
 
Olympus E-M10 II Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34561080/60p23.112.584273
12.
 
Olympus E-M10 Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34561080/30p22.812.388472
13.
 
Olympus E-PL7 Four Thirds 15.9 4608 34561080/30p22.712.487372
14.
 
Panasonic G100 Four Thirds 20.2 5184 38884K/30p........
15.
 
Panasonic ZS200 1-inch 20.0 5472 36484K/30p........
16.
 
Ricoh GR II APS-C 16.1 4928 32641080/30p23.613.7107880
17.
 
Ricoh GR APS-C 16.1 4928 32641080/30p23.613.597278

Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but also of capturing video footage. Both cameras under consideration are equipped with sensors that have a sufficiently high read-out speed for moving images, but the E-M10 IV provides a higher video resolution than the GR III. It can shoot video footage at 4K/30p, while the Ricoh is limited to 1080/60p.

ad

Feature comparison

Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. For example, the E-M10 IV has an electronic viewfinder (2360k dots), which can be very helpful when shooting in bright sunlight. In contrast, the GR III relies on live view and the rear LCD for framing. That said, the GR III can be equipped with an optional viewfinder – the GV-1. The table below summarizes some of the other core capabilities of the Olympus E-M10 IV and Ricoh GR III in connection with corresponding information for a sample of similar cameras.

scroll hint
Core Features
    Camera
Model
Viewfinder
(Type or
000 dots)
Control
Panel
(yes/no)
LCD
Size
(inch)
LCD
Resolution
(000 dots)
LCD
Attach-
ment
Touch
Screen
(yes/no)
Mech
Shutter
Speed
Shutter
Flaps
(1/sec)
Built-in
Flash
(yes/no)
Built-in
Image
Stab
1.
 
Olympus E-M10 IV2360 n 3.0 1040 tilting Y 1/4000s 15.0 Y Y
2.
 
Ricoh GR IIIoptional n 3.0 1037 fixed Y 1/4000s 4.0 n Y
3.
 
Canon G7 X Mark IIInone n 3.0 1040 tilting Y 1/2000s 30 Y Y
4.
 
Fujifilm XF10none n 3.0 1040 fixed Y 1/4000s 6.0 Y n
5.
 
Olympus E-M5 III2360 n 3.0 1040 swivel Y 1/8000s 10.0 n Y
6.
 
Olympus E-PL10none n 3.0 1040 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.6 Y Y
7.
 
Olympus E-PL9none n 3.0 1040 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.6 Y Y
8.
 
Olympus E-M10 III2360 n 3.0 1040 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.6 Y Y
9.
 
Olympus E-PL8optional n 3.0 1037 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.0 n Y
10.
 
Olympus PEN-F2360 n 3.0 1037 swivel Y 1/8000s 10.0 n Y
11.
 
Olympus E-M10 II2360 n 3.0 1040 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.0 Y Y
12.
 
Olympus E-M101440 n 3.0 1037 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.0 Y Y
13.
 
Olympus E-PL7optional n 3.0 1037 tilting Y 1/4000s 8.0 n Y
14.
 
Panasonic G1003680 n 3.0 1840 swivel Y 1/500s 10.0 Y n
15.
 
Panasonic ZS2002330 n 3.0 1240 fixed Y 1/2000s 10.0 Y Y
16.
 
Ricoh GR IIoptional n 3.0 1230 fixed n 1/4000s 4.0 Y n
17.
 
Ricoh GRoptional n 3.0 1230 fixed n 1/4000s 4.0 Y n

One difference between the cameras concerns the presence of an on-board flash. The E-M10 IV has one, while the GR III does not. While the built-in flash of the E-M10 IV is not very powerful, it can at times be useful as a fill-in light.

The E-M10 IV has an articulated LCD that can be turned to be front-facing. This characteristic will be appreciated by vloggers and photographers who are interested in snapping selfies. In contrast, the GR III does not have a selfie-screen.

The reported shutter speed information refers to the use of the mechanical shutter. Yet, some cameras only have an electronic shutter, while others have an electronic shutter in addition to a mechanical one. In fact, the E-M10 IV is one of those camera that have an additional electronic shutter, which makes completely silent shooting possible. However, this mode is less suitable for photographing moving objects (risk of rolling shutter) or shooting under artificial light sources (risk of flickering).

The Olympus E-M10 IV and the Ricoh GR III both have an intervalometer built-in. This enables the photographer to capture time lapse sequences, such as flower blooming, a sunset or moon rise, without purchasing an external camera trigger and related software.

Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the E-M10 IV and the GR III write their files to SDXC cards. The E-M10 IV supports UHS-II cards (Ultra High Speed data transfer of up to 312 MB/s), while the GR III can use UHS-I cards (up to 104 MB/s).

ad

Connectivity comparison

For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV and Ricoh GR III and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

scroll hint
Input-Output Connections
    Camera
Model
Hotshoe
Port
Internal
Microphone
Internal
Speaker
Microphone
Port
Headphone
Port
HDMI
Port
USB
Port
WiFi
Support
NFC
Support
Bluetooth
Support
1.
 
Olympus E-M10 IVYstereomono--micro2.0Y-Y
2.
 
Ricoh GR IIIYstereomono---3.0Y-Y
3.
 
Canon G7 X Mark III-stereomonoY-micro3.1Y-Y
4.
 
Fujifilm XF10-stereomonoY-micro2.0Y-Y
5.
 
Olympus E-M5 IIIYstereomonoY-micro2.0Y-Y
6.
 
Olympus E-PL10Ystereomono--micro2.0Y-Y
7.
 
Olympus E-PL9Ystereomono--micro2.0Y-Y
8.
 
Olympus E-M10 IIIYstereomono--micro2.0Y--
9.
 
Olympus E-PL8Ystereomono--micro2.0Y--
10.
 
Olympus PEN-FYstereomono--micro2.0Y--
11.
 
Olympus E-M10 IIYstereomono--micro2.0Y--
12.
 
Olympus E-M10Ystereomono--micro2.0Y--
13.
 
Olympus E-PL7Ystereomono--micro2.0Y--
14.
 
Panasonic G100YstereomonoYYmicro2.0Y-Y
15.
 
Panasonic ZS200-stereomono--micro2.0Y-Y
16.
 
Ricoh GR IIYstereomono--micro2.0YY-
17.
 
Ricoh GRYmonomono--micro2.0---

Both the E-M10 IV and the GR III are recent models that are part of the current product line-up. The GR III replaced the earlier Ricoh GR II, while the E-M10 IV followed on from the Olympus E-M10 III. Further information on the two cameras (e.g. user guides, manuals), as well as related accessories, can be found on the official Olympus and Ricoh websites.

ad

Review summary

So what conclusions can be drawn? Which of the two cameras – the Olympus E-M10 IV or the Ricoh GR III – has the upper hand? Is one clearly better than the other? A synthesis of the relative strong points of each of the models is listed below.

ilogo

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

  • Better video: Provides higher definition movie capture (4K/30p vs 1080/60p).
  • Easier framing: Has an electronic viewfinder for image composition and settings control.
  • More flexible LCD: Has a tilting screen for odd-angle shots in landscape orientation.
  • More selfie-friendly: Has an articulated screen that can be turned to be front-facing.
  • Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (15 vs 4 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
  • Less disturbing: Has an electronic shutter option for completely silent shooting.
  • More flexible: Accepts interchangeable lenses, so that lens characteristics can be altered.
  • Longer lasting: Can take more shots (360 versus 200) on a single battery charge.
  • Easier fill-in: Is equipped with a small onboard flash to brighten deep shadow areas.
  • Faster buffer clearing: Supports a more advanced SD data transfer standard (UHS-II vs UHS-I).
  • More modern: Is somewhat more recent (announced 1 year and 5 months after the GR III).

ilogo

Advantages of the Ricoh GR III:

  • More detail: Has more megapixels (24 vs 20.2MP), which boosts linear resolution by 11%.
  • Better image quality: Features bigger pixels on a larger sensor for higher quality imaging.
  • Richer colors: The pixel size advantage translates into images with better, more accurate colors.
  • More dynamic range: Larger pixels capture a wider spectrum of light and dark details.
  • Better low-light sensitivity: Larger pixels means good image quality even under poor lighting.
  • Better live-view autofocus: Features on-sensor phase-detection for more confident autofocus.
  • Ready to shoot: Has an integrated lens, whereas the E-M10 IV necessitates an extra lens.
  • More compact: Is smaller (109x62mm vs 122x84mm) and will fit more readily into a bag.
  • Less heavy: Has a lower weight even though it has a lens built in (unlike the E-M10 IV).
  • Faster data transfer: Supports a more advanced USB protocol (3.0 vs 2.0).
  • More heavily discounted: Has been on the market for longer (launched in February 2019).

If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the match-up finishes in a tie (11 points each). However, the relevance of individual strengths will vary across photographers, so that you might want to apply your own weighing scheme to the summary points when reflecting and deciding on a new camera. A professional wildlife photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a family photog, and a person interested in architecture has distinct needs from a sports shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.

E-M10 IV 11:11 GR III

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Olympus E-M10 IV and the Ricoh GR III place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera and Best Prime Lens Compact Camera listings whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

In any case, while the comparison of technical specifications can provide a useful overview of the capabilities of different cameras, it remains partial and cannot reveal, for example, the shooting experience and imaging performance when actually working with the E-M10 IV or the GR III. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased.

Expert reviews

This is where reviews by experts come in. The table below provides a synthesis of the camera assessments of some of the best known photo-gear review sites (amateurphotographer [AP], cameralabs [CL], dpreview [DPR], ephotozine [EPZ], photographyblog [PB]). As can be seen, the professional reviewers agree in many cases on the quality of different cameras, but sometimes their assessments diverge, reinforcing the earlier point that a camera decision is often a very personal choice.

scroll hint
Expert Camera Reviews
     Camera 
 Model 
 AP 
 score 
 CL 
 score 
 DPR 
 score 
 EPZ 
 score 
 PB 
 score 
Camera
Launch
Launch
Price (USD)
Street
Price
1.
 
Olympus E-M10 IV4.5/5....4.5/54.5/5 Aug 2020 699 i
2.
 
Ricoh GR III4/5..81/1004/5.. Feb 2019 899 i
3.
 
Canon G7 X Mark III..+ +81/1004/5.. Jul 2019 749 i
4.
 
Fujifilm XF10....75/1004/54.5/5 Jul 2018 499 i
5.
 
Olympus E-M5 III5/5+82/1004.5/54.5/5 Oct 2019 1,199 i
6.
 
Olympus E-PL10....77/100..4/5 Oct 2019 599 i
7.
 
Olympus E-PL9..+..4.5/54/5 Feb 2018 599i
8.
 
Olympus E-M10 III..+80/1004.5/54.5/5 Aug 2017 649i
9.
 
Olympus E-PL8......4.5/54/5 Sep 2016 549i
10.
 
Olympus PEN-F....82/1004.5/55/5 Jan 2016 1,199i
11.
 
Olympus E-M10 II4.5/5+ +80/1005/55/5 Aug 2015 649i
12.
 
Olympus E-M104/5..80/1005/55/5 Jan 2014 699i
13.
 
Olympus E-PL74/5+..5/54/5 Aug 2014 599i
14.
 
Panasonic G100......4/54/5 Jun 2020 649 i
15.
 
Panasonic ZS200..+ +81/1004.5/54.5/5 Feb 2018 799 i
16.
 
Ricoh GR II......4.5/54.5/5 Jun 2015 699 i
17.
 
Ricoh GR5/5..79/1004.5/54.5/5 Apr 2013 799i
Notes: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (..) not available.

The above review scores should be interpreted with care, though. The ratings were established in reference to similarly priced cameras that were available in the market at the time of the review. Thus, a score needs to be put into the context of the launch date and the launch price 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, kindly note that some of the listed sites have over time developped their review approaches and their reporting style.

Olympus E-M10 IV:
Check Amazon price
Ricoh GR III:
Check Amazon price

Other camera comparisons

Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? In case you are interested in seeing how other cameras pair up, just make your choice using the following search menu. Alternatively, you can follow any of the listed hyperlinks for comparisons that others found interesting.

~
    loader

    Specifications: Olympus E-M10 IV vs Ricoh GR III

    Below is a side-by-side comparison of the specs of the two cameras to facilitate a quick review of their differences and common features.

    Camera Specifications
    Camera Model Olympus E-M10 IV Ricoh GR III
    Camera Type Mirrorless system camera Fixed lens compact camera
    Camera Lens Micro Four Thirds lenses 28mm f/2.8
    Launch Date August 2020 February 2019
    Launch Price USD 699 USD 899
    Sensor Specs Olympus E-M10 IV Ricoh GR III
    Sensor Technology CMOS CMOS
    Sensor Format Four Thirds Sensor APS-C Sensor
    Sensor Size 17.3 x 13.0 mm 23.5 x 15.6 mm
    Sensor Area 224.9 mm2 366.6 mm2
    Sensor Diagonal 21.6 mm 28.2 mm
    Crop Factor 2.0x 1.5x
    Sensor Resolution 20.2 Megapixels 24 Megapixels
    Image Resolution 5184 x 3888 pixels 6000 x 4000 pixels
    Pixel Pitch 3.34 μm 3.91 μm
    Pixel Density 8.96 MP/cm2 6.55 MP/cm2
    Moiré control no AA filter no AA filter
    Movie Capability 4K/30p Video 1080/60p Video
    ISO Setting 200 - 25,600 ISO 100 - 102,400 ISO
    ISO Boost 100 - 25,600 ISO no Enhancement
    Image Processor TruePic VIII GR Engine VI
    Screen Specs Olympus E-M10 IV Ricoh GR III
    Viewfinder Type Electronic viewfinder Viewfinder optional
    Viewfinder Field of View 100%
    Viewfinder Magnification 0.62x
    Viewfinder Resolution 2360k dots
    LCD Framing Live View Live View
    Rear LCD Size 3.0inch 3.0inch
    LCD Resolution 1040k dots 1037k dots
    LCD Attachment Tilting screen Fixed screen
    Touch Input Touchscreen Touchscreen
    Shooting Specs Olympus E-M10 IV Ricoh GR III
    Focus System Contrast-detect AF On-Sensor Phase-detect
    Manual Focusing AidFocus Peakingno Peaking Feature
    Continuous Shooting 15 shutter flaps/s 4 shutter flaps/s
    Electronic Shutterup to 1/16000sno E-Shutter
    Time-Lapse PhotographyIntervalometer built-inIntervalometer built-in
    Image StabilizationIn-body stabilizationIn-body stabilization
    Fill Flash Build-in Flash no On-Board Flash
    Storage Medium SDXC cards SDXC cards
    Second Storage Option Single card slot Single card slot
    UHS card support UHS-II UHS-I
    Connectivity Specs Olympus E-M10 IV Ricoh GR III
    External Flash Hotshoe Hotshoe
    USB Connector USB 2.0 USB 3.0
    HDMI Port micro HDMI no HDMI
    Wifi Support Wifi built-in Wifi built-in
    Bluetooth Support Bluetooth built-in Bluetooth built-in
    Body Specs Olympus E-M10 IV Ricoh GR III
    Battery Type BLS-50 DB-110
    Battery Life (CIPA)360 shots per charge200 shots per charge
    In-Camera Charging USB charging USB charging
    Body Dimensions 122 x 84 x 49 mm
    (4.8 x 3.3 x 1.9 in)
    109 x 62 x 33 mm
    (4.3 x 2.4 x 1.3 in)
    Camera Weight 383 g (13.5 oz) 257 g (9.1 oz)

    Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.

    You are here Home  »  CAM-parator  »  Olympus E-M10 IV vs Ricoh GR III

    Thanks for your vote!

    You rated this page 4 out of 5.


    Rating

    Any additional comment or suggestion for improvement would be welcome.


    If you like it, make sure you share it:

    • Mention this page to your Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
    • Bookmark it in your browser for future reference by pressing "Crtl" + "D".
    • Create a hyperlink by copying the text below into your web-project or discussion forum entry.

    Once again, thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I appreciate it.