I have been offered a few bits of older Oly gear and testing has begun.
First up is an EM1 (mk1).
As an EM5 user (professionally even) the Em1 was a nostalgic revelation.
I bought into the M43 system on the release of the EM5 Mk1 and found the focus acquisition was fast enough to capture some sports, but the EM1 had phase detect AF, the holy grail of sports focussing systems, the system all SLR’s used. This was not a first for mirrorless (though close), but it was a first for M43.
I sold plenty of them, used them and was keen on one, but the cost and my contentment with the EM5’s saw me putting it off, then the Mk2 came out with improvements across the board and when I was more ready and I jumped. That camera and the one after have done nearly 2 million frames between them and are still ticking.
The EM1 in question has had a gentler life. Petite compared to the later cams, a single card slot and the EM5’s old battery (handy as the only other cam I use now that takes the 6 I have, is the Pen F) are interesting and it comes with an unused grip.
AF is fast in single shot mode, faster than the old EM5’s and close to as fast as the Mk2, but obviously slower than the EM1.2 or EM1x with tracking, but I knew that. Olympus raised the bar with the Mk2, one of the reasons I jumped and improvements since have been incremental.
It is worth remembering, the EM1 only predates the EM1x by 1 1/2 models, not a massively long time, even in early digital.
Image quality?
Basically the same as the EM5.1 which is plenty for most uses, solid and predictable. The first phase detect sensor was known to be noisier than the older, simpler sensor, another thing the Mk2 improved on, but there are signs of the good imager it is known to be.
I used the 45 f1.8 to test it, probably my most “known” property and a lens that actually pre-dates it.





My gut feeling on this one is the files are less smooth than the EM5.1’s, a little pushed and processed, likely in response to the phase detect pixel strain being compensated for, but that solid performance of the older cams is there and something I do like about these sensors is their robust handling of low/mixed light.
I noticed a few years ago that the EM5’s handled bad lighting very well compared to some newer cams. They may be a little noisier, but did not produce ugly or looking stressed files and a test with ON1 No Noise 2024 produced surprisingly clean and workable files at ISO 6400 and above.
A crop from above and yes, good enough for most (really any) real world uses.
Next, the lens that came with it is the 14-54 SLR lens and the adapter.
Glass was the strength of the Oly SLR range, spectacular glass. The lens was the first professional lens followed by the 12~35 f2 and the 12~60 2.8~3.5, both excellent, but the 14-54 was not a compromise and sold when new for $1000au, which was the later 2000’s, so not a “kit” lens, although this one is the older model, not the SWD version.
On the EM1x with adapter, the zoom mechanism makes a strange mechanical sound, but that is the adapter not the lens (see below). AF is solid and reliable, not going to blow minds, certainly not up to sports capture, but accurate.
Quality is good from these basically unprocessed files with a simpler early digicam vibe. I like the near-far Bokeh (last two files).







So, old camera with new lens, or old lens on newer camera?
In this test, a poorly controlled one I admit, but familiar territory for me, the older camera/new lens wins for sure.
Finally, the camera that originally came with the 14-54 and one that I lusted after for years, the E-3. Way out of my price range at the time, the camera that was the pinnacle of the E series, anointed to support such paragon lenses as the 90-250 f2.8, the E-3 is a solid and hefty beast only improved upon by the E-5 before the range was dropped in favour of the M43 platform.
Like an EM1x squashed down and deeper. It has proper battery latches etc, but I do have to consider the media. XD and CF cards, the CF being the only viable option and I do not have a reader (but the cam dropped the files down ok via a cable).
As expected, the view finder is tiny and dim, but quite clear. It is smooth and fast in operation, AF being surprisingly snappy and accurate for single shooting, the lens performing more happily here than on the EM1x with adapter and no weird sounds when zooming.
Image quality?
Focus was accurate, once I re-adapted to the SLR way of working, and the results are robust and clean at ISO 400-1600. You could produce professional quality results easily enough especially in controlled circumstances like a studio or good light street shooting. The second image is a crop with some highlight retrieval, as are the pair below.
The left crop as shot, the right one with applied sharpening (hard to pick actually). This performance reminds me of old arguments about visual and measurable quality, something that we moved past soon after, but is still a valid, especially as this quality matches most phones.
The EM1 is a working proposition for me another “shutter saver” like my pair of ailing EM10.2’s. I could see myself using this regularly as my second or third camera and the accurate low light focus would make it a good flash cam.
The lens on adapter would only have one viable application and that would be as a video standard lens, freeing up my Leica 12-60, except for the audible mechanical sounds it makes when zooming and poor AF, the first is not an issue on the native camera.
The E~3 with lens on is a curiosity. A decent working proposition, even professionally, but not something I will be throwing any real money at, but if it was mine, I would likely still be using it occasionally. Yes, a nearly 20 year old camera can take good enough images to fool most.
The local shop has the 50-200 and 12-60 SWD lens pair in their S/H window for $800au, again worth looking at maybe if the E~3 and/or adapter were mine already, but for the price of some of the M43 glass around and my deep arsenal, maybe not.