Difference in IQ between M10 Mark II and the M5 Mark II

<p>Is there any image quality difference between the Olympus E-M10 Mark II and the M5 Mark II? From what I've read, the sensor is the same on both cameras, and there are only a few major differences (like the M5 having a shutter than go to 1/8000s, weather sealing, and a magenseum alloy body/frame, and 10fps vs 8fps burst for the M10--neither of which I care too much about as 8fps is fast enough for me). <br>

I am tempted to get the M10 Mark II as it's about $400 cheaper, and I don't really need the weather sealing or the 1/8000s shutter, but am concerned about the Image quality between the two? <br>

Can anyone comment on whether the IQ is identical (assuming the same lens is used and the same settings for a particular shot) or not?</p>

As far as I know there is no material difference in sensor performance or image quality. Just as important, the

E-M10 II IBIS system is very effective and it has a good EVF. It does not have the 40+mp hi res feature of the

E-M5II, and on occasion, with fast lenses outdoors, I find that I miss not having a shutter speed higher than

1/4000 (on my E-M5).

 

Here is a review of the E-M10II: https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2015/08/olympus-om-d-e-m10-mark-ii-

review.html

<p>There could very well be some sort of processing difference between the two. I know when I was using the E-M1 and original E-M5 in tandem, E-M5 files were much more "juiced up" in terms of punch and contrast, while E-M1 files have a more conservative look to them and need additional processing to duplicate the "look" of an E-M5 file.</p>

<p>I have no experience with either E-M10 model to know if the same difference apply between it and the E-M5 models. Of the three lines (E-M1, 5 and 10), the E-M10 would definitely be the most consumer-centric, where the E-M5 and E-M1 are more enthusiast/advanced of the three so it would not surprise me to hear there is some amount of difference in processing applied by Olympus to the JPEG's of an E-M10.</p>

<p>If that's the Out of camera JPEGs, that's fine if there is extra processing as I never use them (and usually have the camera just do RAW only). I was just curious if I was missing out on something. I do like my RAW files to be neutral though (no added processing ,except maybe a little noise reduction from in-camera processes). </p>