Growing niche argument for a "real" OM-5 Mark II

[UrbaneHobbit]

By "real" I mean an OM-5 II that is basically the silicon and software guts of the OM-1, but in the smaller form factor and with some higher-performance features limited, presumably to accommodate the lower heat-dissipation of the smaller enclosure. (And, just to nip the other looming issue in the bud, imagine this camera has an all-titanium baseplate impervious to tripod socket tear-out.)

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

 

[bluevellet]

By "real" I mean an OM-5 II that is basically the silicon and software guts of the OM-1, but in the smaller form factor and with some higher-performance features limited, presumably to accommodate the lower heat-dissipation of the smaller enclosure. (And, just to nip the other looming issue in the bud, imagine this camera has an all-titanium baseplate impervious to tripod socket tear-out.)

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

Robin Wong says it sucks and he went back to an EM1 mark II as his main camera.

 

[EZGritz]

Wong's photography does not benefit from improvements in the OM-5 or OM-1.

 

[EZGritz]

It's likely to cost almost as much as the OM-1. Would you pay that much for it?

As a long-time owner of an EM5.3, I could not care less about a stronger base plate/tripod mount. It has never been a problem.

 

[Regor250]

By "real" I mean an OM-5 II that is basically the silicon and software guts of the OM-1, but in the smaller form factor and with some higher-performance features limited, presumably to accommodate the lower heat-dissipation of the smaller enclosure. (And, just to nip the other looming issue in the bud, imagine this camera has an all-titanium baseplate impervious to tripod socket tear-out.)

Not sure I see a niche requirement for a "high end" OM5. Feature wise, the OM5 is perfectly suited to its intended use as it is. All it needs really is an updated body, USB-C port and menu system.

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

OM5 for kids... really? I don't think OMDS needs to target kids and arguably the existing PEN series is more suited for them anyhow. An OM5ii could be made into the perfect travel/street camera however. An updated manually collapsible small pro quality 12-25mm zoom lens would be a nice addition for these purposes.

 

[bluevellet]

Wong's photography does not benefit from improvements in the OM-5 or OM-1.

 

[DLBlack]

Wong's photography does not benefit from improvements in the OM-5 or OM-1.

Wong argues OM-1 AF hinders his photography rather not seeing any benefit.

Wong didn't change his technique to take advantage of the OM-1. He continued to use S-AF and not C-AF with BBF. Maybe a future FW update will improve S-AF.

 

[LevAizik]

Wong's photography does not benefit from improvements in the OM-5 or OM-1.

The problem is that he claims that the AF in the OM-1 is worse compared to his old EM1 Mark II.

 

[EZGritz]

Exactly. He doesn't photograph sports of BIF. He doesn't pan or blur backgrounds with motion. He freezes motion with fast shutter speeds. The OM-1 is not the right camera for him. He doesn't need PDAF/Tracking or CAF. He can do just as well or better with an EM10.4. He doesn't need an OM5 or even any EM1.

--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y

 

[cwatson1982]

I would buy one but only if the build quality went back to E-M5 II levels. I bought an OM-5 and returned it after a day for that reason. I'll probably keep my E-M5 II forever at this rate. (also have GH6 and G9 before that).

I also wasn't really all that impressed with the HHHR using ultrawide lenses when I tested it, lots of artifacting regardless of settings. It sucks because I REALLY wanted to like it but it just didn't give me enough for my uses to be worth the cost.

 

[EZGritz]

Wong needs to stick with an EM10 model of his choice. Even the 16MP sensor worked great for him. It has everything he needs and he does great with them.

Wong is a street, candid, wedding, event, and portrait photographer who does some macro and some landscape photography. He can do everything he does with a basic accurate CDAF S-AF system. The advanced features of the AF system of the OM-1 are of no benefit to him. It seems to be getting in his way. The OM-1 is not the right camera for him, he is discovering. It doesn't mean the AF system is inferior to earlier models. It means it is not the right camera body for Wong.

--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y

 

[Matthew39]

They wouldn't want to cannabalise sales of the OM-1 with something cheaper that did the same thing. Maybe the OM-5 indicates that they want to spend as little as possible on design and development and at the same time maximise revenue while they can. We'll know better where this is going if they replace the EM10 with something that says "OM System" on the front.

 

[EZGritz]

That is a problem because it's nonsense from my experience. Thomas Eisel reports an issue. I have no issue with it at all.

--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y

 

[DLBlack]

There will be cost, power and heat issues with this camera. A Stacked BSI sensor is expensive along with the image processor to handle it. It will need more power. There might be heat issues to solve. So most likely it will need a larger body and will cost around $1,800.

Because of this logic I brought an OM-5 for my second camera. My OM-1 is my primary camera. So far after several months I love the OM-5 for my fun little camera. I think a few things could have been improved. These improve are an USB-C PD plug, new menu system and an AF joystick.

 

[ahaslett]

By "real" I mean an OM-5 II that is basically the silicon and software guts of the OM-1, but in the smaller form factor and with some higher-performance features limited, presumably to accommodate the lower heat-dissipation of the smaller enclosure. (And, just to nip the other looming issue in the bud, imagine this camera has an all-titanium baseplate impervious to tripod socket tear-out.)

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

Assuming that making a mini OM1 is a bit more expensive than an OM1 for the reasons you mention, why would someone wanting to use long tele lenses want a smaller body? Would they be willing to pay something like the OM1 launch price plus 15% for it?

Andrew

 

[EZGritz]

I don't think the difference between the OM-1 and the OM-5 is just firmware. Electronics are probably most of the difference of OMS's parts cost between the two cameras so the pricing delta would presumably not be much if the OM-5 had the OM-1s hardware.

There are plenty of cameras sold for sports and birding but with a small grip? If you wanted to do some of that with big lenses you could buy a grip for the OM-5 but it might cost $175 and close the price gap which may not be much with the same electronics hardware.

As an SLR-style camera the OM-5 could benefit from subject detection. It's the reason I used the OM-1 instead of the EM5.3 for a pet shoot. I needed to be certain the camera focused on the dog's eyes. Besides the OM-1 menu, that's probably all it needs. Could it be done with the OM-5 hardware? Is the sensor readout fast enough, the AF fast and accurate enough, the memory and image processor fast enough? Might be a hardware performance gap there that explains why it doesn't have subject detection and how it can be offered for $1,000 lower MSRP than the OM-1.

Highest performing current generation electrics components are expensive and may account for the difference in price and missing features and functions.

 

[john isaacs]

By "real" I mean an OM-5 II that is basically the silicon and software guts of the OM-1, but in the smaller form factor and with some higher-performance features limited, presumably to accommodate the lower heat-dissipation of the smaller enclosure. (And, just to nip the other looming issue in the bud, imagine this camera has an all-titanium baseplate impervious to tripod socket tear-out.)

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

I would have bought an OM5 and sold my E-M1.3 and E-M5.3 if:

(1) They had updated the menu system to match the OM1

(2) They had not short-changed Live ND by dropping ND32 (OM1 goes up to ND64)

(3) You could use external power (not just USB charging).

(4) They had actually fixed the tripod mount.

I would miss the extra function button on the E-M1.3, but my biggest issue was consitency in menus.

I hope the OM5 mark II addresses all of these. It would be nice if the fps got upped to E-M1.3 levels as well.

On the other hand, an OM1 mark II with fully electronic shutter (think Nikon Z8/Z9) would be in my hands almost immediately.

 

[ahaslett]

I don't think the difference between the OM-1 and the OM-5 is just firmware. Electronics are probably most of the difference of OMS's parts cost between the two cameras so the pricing delta would presumably not be much if the OM-5 had the OM-1s hardware.

There are plenty of cameras sold for sports and birding but with a small grip? If you wanted to do some of that with big lenses you could buy a grip for the OM-5 but it might cost $175 and close the price gap which may not be much with the same electronics hardware.

As an SLR-style camera the OM-5 could benefit from subject detection. It's the reason I used the OM-1 instead of the EM5.3 for a pet shoot. I needed to be certain the camera focused on the dog's eyes. Besides the OM-1 menu, that's probably all it needs. Could it be done with the OM-5 hardware? Is the sensor readout fast enough, the AF fast and accurate enough, the memory and image processor fast enough? Might be a hardware performance gap there that explains why it doesn't have subject detection and how it can be offered for $1,000 lower MSRP than the OM-1.

Highest performing current generation electrics components are expensive and may account for the difference in price and missing features and functions.

I was responding to OP identifying birding as a prime use case. If the OM5 had the OM1 hardware, it would be … an OM1. If what OP meant was the OM5 hardware with an OM1 sensor, then maybe.

When there were lots of threads about the OM5, there was a flavour in many posts that smaller must mean cheaper, and the OM5 should have had all the features of the OM1.

I’m sure a smaller OM1 can be engineered but it would need to carry its development costs, plus the costs of making it smaller. I can’t see why I’d want to buy a smaller body for the 300/4 or even the 40-150/2.8.

I could be interested in an EM5.3 or a cheaper OM5 for times when small lenses are the core of my kit.

As an illustration of weight and heat management challenges, the BLX-1 is 2280mAh. The BLS-50 is 1175mAh.

Andrew

 

[EZGritz]

I have the EM5.3 for smaller lenses. When I need something the OM-1 has and the EM5.3 does not I take the OM-1. I had a chance to pick up the OLY grip for the EM5.3 at a good price so I have it in case I need it.

 

[UrbaneHobbit]

EZ brings up some interesting points with the heat dissipation and power needs of the BSI sensor. If we went by Olympus’s recent pattern with the E-M5/OM-5 line, then we would observe that the E-M5 III was an E-M1 II with some nerfed features in a compact housing, and the OM-5 was an E-M1 III in the same housing, again with some reduced features. Presumably this scheme was a way to offer previous-generation pro features in a small-and-light form factor, while further amortizing R&D. All while creating a competitive mid-range product for those that did not need to be first-day buyers of the newest and best in the top-of-the-line.

To me it seems obvious that the OM-1 will be surpassed by OMDS in a year or two. (Some here say it has already been surpassed outside of OMDS!) So, the question becomes: will the reskin-to-midrange continue? Will we get an OM-5 II that is essentially an OM-1 in a smaller (and hopefully more robust) enclosure? From the many fans of the “5” over the years, it would seem like the marketing case would be there. And presumably the amortization would still hold. So can it be done, given the energy and heat needs of the guts of the OM-1? Perhaps there is opportunity in crisis: maybe a robust metal baseplate would dissipate heat better than plastic.

As for grip size and big lenses: kids have small hands, and my choice for taking them out for birding with Dad would be either the 40-150 R, or the 45-175. Small, light setups on a neck strap, out early in the morning looking for easy targets like seagulls and crows. We won’t often be sneaking up successfully on small birds, but I would be teaching the fundamentals of fieldcraft all the same. Having Bird AF would allow the kids to get keepers in S mode, increasing the odds of a successful outing. That is all I am saying!

Until we get the OM-5 II or something like it, for this task I have another camera that is something like the “5” – the light-weight and well-glassed Stylus 1. No bird AF, but easy enough for a kid to carry and use. I will put the 40-150 R on my OM-1, so we have the same FOV, and rely on Bird AF to improve my guiding skills rather than the kids’ keeper rate.