Why OM1 Style and not Pen F with the OM3

[radix1]

I’m going to invoke Occam’s Razor here and assume that the slimmer retro SLR-style body of the OM-3 was a) most easily engineered around the internals of the OM-1 line, itself a professional modern SLR style body, and b) the most obvious tie-in to the most famous and emotionally-resonant product line from the Olympus film days: the analog OM-1/2/3/4 SLRs.

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

version of OM-3, take your time OM System,

cheers

 

[v07a]

> But why the 100-400 mkI have removable foot and replaceable with something like "ring" so the bolts would not dig in hands. .... Strange, strange if only tripod should be used.

Emilie Talpin has a wooden grip fitted to the foot of her 150-400 that makes it more comfortable to hold.

Mark

Yes. There such a thing. But the foot have some weight (around 100gr) so without it its little bit lighter.

Honestly 100-400 and everything above is already in spot where better to use tripod than handheld. I mean its quite problematic to hold the lense/camera for more than few minutes. And if for very long time its start to feel like gym then photography.

 

[gary0319]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

 

[v07a]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

You can look thrue EVF of OM-5 (sensor and eyepiece same) and see how it will look on OM-3. Also i doubt the EVF is there to use it all the time. It is more to use it where there is need for it.

 

[gary0319]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

You can look thrue EVF of OM-5 (sensor and eyepiece same) and see how it will look on OM-3. Also i doubt the EVF is there to use it all the time. It is more to use it where there is need for it.

I have an OM-5 and I’ve never found it to be a hinderance to using the camera for either framing the shot, focusing, reviewing the image or changing settings via the SCP or the menus. So why all the derisive comments about the OM-3 EVF ? Or is it just that Johnnies bike is better than mine?

 

[Guy Parsons]

As I understand it, and strictly speaking, the market has only been tested with a relatively small number of potential buyers. The next two years will show whether the test correlates with actual sales.

Without knowing the camera market in detail, however, I wonder why OM Systems made a competitor to the OM1 - this is what it looks like to me. Why not make a rangefinder camera (a'la Pen F) that wouldn't compete with the OM1 (or OM5). A rangefinder camera might have brought new customers to OM Systems.

We are both a test market of one. I explained why they probably decided not to make a camera for either of us.

Maybe also there are still people at OM who got burned by the business failure of the Pen F, although I doubt that would have been enough to overcome a strong positive market response to a new Pen F concept.

I’d use at least 200 sized sample for concept testing, ideally more, and in a nested multi-stage process of increasing sample size.

Andrew

So why did the Pen F fail? What turned that camera into the Edsel of the Olympic line? My understanding was it was too difficult, too cumbersome to operate. While it had all the perks one would think could be needed to truly create,...something about it didn't sit well with the Olympus market. Was it the rangefinder body? Would it have been a winner if it was an OM1 Film body (Like the OM3 is now) ?

My unproven theory is that they lost some potential Pen-F sales because of that vlogger-centric FAS screen. If they had used the Oly familiar tilt screen then they may have just met sales expectations. Price and not so good AF performance also dampened their sales.

But hey, it seems that from now on it will be 1960's retro style with a hump in the middle (or close to it) and the awkward FAS screen. No more brick shape ever, maybe.

Three guesses why I stayed with E-P5 and never "updated".

 

[cba_melbourne]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together.

It was me who brought that up. It is not nonsensical at all:

- Rumors before release, predicted the OM3 will have "Pen-F quality"

- First reviews from Ambassadors seriously claimed the OM3 has "Pen-F build quality"

- So I expected no visible screws, as that is THE hallmark of Pen-F fit and finish quality. The feature was used by Olympus marketing to highlight the extra premium quality of the Pen-F, so it definitely was something important and of value to Olympus.

After seeing the first pics of the OM3 base-plate, I was shocked to see that many bright and protruding screws. With not even a pro-forma attempt to at least recess them, or make them in same color as the paint. OM3 is finished just like any other camera, that is just seen as a tool to do a job, like a hammer. I felt somewhat disillusioned.

Think about it for a moment. Retro cameras are NOT tools. They sacrifice a lot for the good retro looks. Retro cameras are prime candidates to become collectible cameras. But only if they are exceptionally well made and somehow somewhat special. Being collectible has tangible benefits. Instead of de-valuating at a rapid rate like any other digital camera nowdays that becomes obsolete in 3 years, collectible cameras appreciate in value if not used too much and worn.

I was considering getting one.... but I already have a lot of cameras that serve my needs, and would not use an OM3 much. For me it would have been a collector item, with rare use just for fun. But I do not think anymore it is collectable.

Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

It matters a lot for retro cameras. For my Pen-F, I invested in a beautiful handmade saddlery leather UK made strap. The quality of the Pen-F deserves that.

You and others here can make fun of that. But I buy retro cameras not primarily to use as my main camera, but to simply look at and occasionally take out for fun a few times a year and make sure the battery is still charged and fine.

When I bought the Pen-F I did not even know it's specs, I had never looked them up. It was irrelevant: I bought it on impulse when seeing it in the store. What a beautiful and beautifully finished camera, feels all metal in hand, and it's an m43 so it fits my lenses? Take my money I want to take her home.

 

[Cafe Racer]

With the advent of the OM3, which obviously has taken it's visual appeal to match the original appeal of the OM1 film camera of the 1970's....

I don't think the OM-3 has the same visual appeal of the original OM-1 film camera, it looks bland in comparison.

OM System OM-3 vs Olympus OM-1.

The OM-1 film camera body is shorter in height and has a distinctive but not unique pointed prism housing. The removable hot shoe when attached has the appearance of standing above the pointed prism housing. Then there's more controls around the front of the OM-1 body, which adds to the appearance, something the OM-3 lacks, which is why it appears to exhibit 'negative' space. The position of the OM-3 model name is also awkwardly placed unlike the OM-1, which has the model name placed on the top of the camera. I think it's a poor interpretation of the OM-1 design if that's what OMDS intended.

I think the OM-3 design has more in common with the Olympus OM-2 Spot Program, which wasn't offered in silver AFAIK.

it would be interesting to wonder why OM Systems took the OM1 film style instead of the Pen F (either the modern 2016 version or the 1960's version) to base the OM3 on.

The Pen F design was probably too complicated for OMDS designers! The digital Pen F design looked better than the original Pen F, which is a testament to the Olympus design team. If only the directors had been as talented as the designers!

If I was OM Systems and needing to make a big hit..... they had to do some pretty serious marketing pre-strategy prior to R&D of the camera. That strategy spoke to the OM1 film style which is retro and yes, has the retro hump.

Is the hump the only reason why the Pen Fer's are so against the OM3? For the creative dial, the inners etc...while some might complain could have been more, it is a huge update over the Pen F. The existing camera also leaves room for growth.

So back to why the OM1 film and not the Pen F Format. Perhaps because the Pen F is a rangefinder looking camera and because of the success that Fuji X100 has had, OM Systems thought they needed to deviate from that rangefinder style and hit upon the old SLR OM1 film style. The 'retro' market is only so large.

Remember....small market companies here, both are. So could both really compete with rangefinder bodies? Luckily OM Systems had two great bodies to choose from and both had nice pedigrees with that retro look. OM Systems opted for the biggest bang for their new camera, thus not competing directly with the X100. And, OM Systems already had maintained much the body style of the OM1 Film with their E5 Series, the E10 series, the OM5 and OM1's.... Why change what is working.

Thoughts?

--
jim lehmann https://jimlehmann.squarespace.com

 

[Bobapingu]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

A couple of hours ago, I had the pleasure holding and looking through the EVF of the OM-3. I was looking hard to see the problem. It looked perfectly fine to me. Bummer, totally forgot to look at the tripod socket and base. Also got to hold the Mighty White. It was not nearly as long as I thought it would be and incredibly light. I'd be happy to hand hold it. It's only 400g heavier than my 300/4 which is just a cup and half of water weight more, but 5X too much more dollars.

 

[Photongraphy]

They tested different concepts with the target Japanese consumers and chose the one they thought would regain their home market share.

They tested maybe a couple in other markets and priced in each regional market to match consumer expectations of the cost of an affordable luxury or fashion camera.

They hope that existing OM owners, who are not their target market, would still find the camera attractive enough.

The market has spoken.

Andrew

The Market spoke for sure. But I am not sure that existing OM users are not part of that target audience. Why not? Smaller, more retro...an upgrade over the E series etc... And yes, the Japanese market and hoping to regain their share. I wonder how far down in their share in that market they went? Olympus name though is huge in Japan

Sure existing users are a part of the target but not the focus.

OM lost a lot of market share in Japan with the transition away from Olympus. The figures have been posted here more than once.

If you look at existing Olympus/OM owners:

1) This isn’t a Pen F, so the admittedly small number of Pen F enthusiasts aren’t going for it.

2) It’s a jpeg focussed camera, so not that exciting to RAW shooters who want to maximise the IQ of their final images.

I agree with most, but the 'jpg extra's' doesn't make it less capable shooting RAW.

Indeed I might buy it eventually. I just meant that all the jpeg capabilities have limited value to a RAW shooter.

I understand. Maybe it's strength, being very capable on many territories, is also it's weakness; jack of all trades, master of none. There are potential users that will never use the jpeg capabilies, others will never need high fps, etc... so not many potential buyers will recognise it as the camera that was made for their specific usecase, although it probably does answer their needs.

3) It’s a lot heavier than an OM5 and (apart from the jpeg functions) is like a gripless OM1.

OK, in some parts of the world, it’s a cheaper OM1 mk ii, and it provides subject detection in a smaller body than any other MFT body.

Finally, it’s a fun camera that’s smallish, powerful and weatherproof with a selection of matching primes and zooms, and five different strap colours.

That last part can attract existing and new owners both, and existing owners waiting to upgrade an EM5 mk ii will have lenses as well. In fact EM5 mk ii owners who take an increase in weight in return for more battery life and a big jump in functionality are the most obvious existing owner target. They can already own an OM1, especially if it’s a mk i not mk ii.

I have an OM5 and OM1 mk i. Is it an upgrade to my OM5, an OM1 mk ii without a grip, a similar size to my A7CR that can use MFT lenses?

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Navin Johnson]

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

Boy am I glad someone finally mentioned the elephant in the room - the OM-3 strap. I don’t know why anyone would buy this camera when, clearly, full frame straps are better.

 

[duncAnd]

I suspect it's pretty straight forward. People (including me) held back from purchasing the pen-f because it was too expensive and lacked some of the features people wanted. The viewfinder was too small, the focus not good enough, etc. To address the reasons it didn't sell too well, they needed to up the specs considerably. Higher-end specs are inconsistent with a small camera that people are unwilling to pay top dollar for. Hence the OM-3.

Having handled the OM-3, I think they were right. It's a lovely camera and amply fulfils the needs of a "carry around" camera. With good specs, people are going to be more willing to pay a good price for it.

I doubt there's an enormous market out there of people who care enough about the differences between a rangefinder and slr style of body. I certainly don't. Whether the viewfinder is on the edge or in the middle makes little difference to me.

 

[Cafe Racer]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF,

Dpreview on the OM-3:

The X-T5 also has a substantially nicer viewfinder.

Bear in mind that the XT-5 is one of the OM-3's closest competitors.

Cons: Small, low-res EVF.

Nonsense? I guess Dpreview weren't being dismissive as they've actually seen the OM-3 in the flesh.

has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

 

[duncAnd]

I've handled the OM-3 in the flesh and the viewfinder was not something I would have remarked on. It's perfectly good and I didn't for one second think it was in any way not good enough.

 

[bluevellet]

They tried the Pen F style and it didn't work well enough for Olympus (now OMS), not enough to warrant a new model anyway.

Officially, OMs claims they couldn't make the PEN F style body weather-sealed. It sounds a bit dubious to me, but the OM3 is a big larger and weather-sealed so interpret that as you wish

 

[Cafe Racer]

I've handled the OM-3 in the flesh and the viewfinder was not something I would have remarked on. It's perfectly good and I didn't for one second think it was in any way not good enough.

There's a difference between not good enough and not competitive. OMDS could have used a 20mp sensor in the OM-3 like the one found in the entry level E-M10iv; it's good enough right?

 

[Skeeterbytes]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF,

Dpreview on the OM-3:

The X-T5 also has a substantially nicer viewfinder.

Bear in mind that the XT-5 is one of the OM-3's closest competitors.

Cons: Small, low-res EVF.

Nonsense? I guess Dpreview weren't being dismissive as they've actually seen the OM-3 in the flesh.

has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

[Therapist] Why don't you show me on the doll where OM-3 touched you?

 

[Skeeterbytes]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together.

It was me who brought that up. It is not nonsensical at all:

- Rumors before release, predicted the OM3 will have "Pen-F quality"

- First reviews from Ambassadors seriously claimed the OM3 has "Pen-F build quality"

- So I expected no visible screws, as that is THE hallmark of Pen-F fit and finish quality. The feature was used by Olympus marketing to highlight the extra premium quality of the Pen-F, so it definitely was something important and of value to Olympus.

After seeing the first pics of the OM3 base-plate, I was shocked to see that many bright and protruding screws. With not even a pro-forma attempt to at least recess them, or make them in same color as the paint. OM3 is finished just like any other camera, that is just seen as a tool to do a job, like a hammer. I felt somewhat disillusioned.

Think about it for a moment. Retro cameras are NOT tools. They sacrifice a lot for the good retro looks. Retro cameras are prime candidates to become collectible cameras. But only if they are exceptionally well made and somehow somewhat special. Being collectible has tangible benefits. Instead of de-valuating at a rapid rate like any other digital camera nowdays that becomes obsolete in 3 years, collectible cameras appreciate in value if not used too much and worn.

I was considering getting one.... but I already have a lot of cameras that serve my needs, and would not use an OM3 much. For me it would have been a collector item, with rare use just for fun. But I do not think anymore it is collectable.

Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

It matters a lot for retro cameras. For my Pen-F, I invested in a beautiful handmade saddlery leather UK made strap. The quality of the Pen-F deserves that.

You and others here can make fun of that. But I buy retro cameras not primarily to use as my main camera, but to simply look at and occasionally take out for fun a few times a year and make sure the battery is still charged and fine.

When I bought the Pen-F I did not even know it's specs, I had never looked them up. It was irrelevant: I bought it on impulse when seeing it in the store. What a beautiful and beautifully finished camera, feels all metal in hand, and it's an m43 so it fits my lenses? Take my money I want to take her home.

Half a dozen lookie-Lous were with me at the counter handling and cooing over the OM-3 and I can report zero flipped it over to count screwheads. There is no there, there.

Same goes for the FAS, which is de rigeuer on a 2025 camera that will be used for video and selfies.

Rick

 

[ahaslett]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF,

Dpreview on the OM-3:

The X-T5 also has a substantially nicer viewfinder.

Bear in mind that the XT-5 is one of the OM-3's closest competitors.

Cons: Small, low-res EVF.

Nonsense? I guess Dpreview weren't being dismissive as they've actually seen the OM-3 in the flesh.

has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

[Therapist] Why don't you show me on the doll where OM-3 touched you?

Have we forgotten Rule #1?

Some people just like build quality way beyond what most people want to pay for - see Pen F for details. Nothing wrong with that unless they think the rest of us must share that need.

I'm sure most people don't share my expensive taste in coffee.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Skeeterbytes]

The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.

E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.

They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.

It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.

The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.

Rick

I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.

I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF,

Dpreview on the OM-3:

The X-T5 also has a substantially nicer viewfinder.

Bear in mind that the XT-5 is one of the OM-3's closest competitors.

Cons: Small, low-res EVF.

Nonsense? I guess Dpreview weren't being dismissive as they've actually seen the OM-3 in the flesh.

has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

[Therapist] Why don't you show me on the doll where OM-3 touched you?

Have we forgotten Rule #1?

Some people just like build quality way beyond what most people want to pay for - see Pen F for details. Nothing wrong with that unless they think the rest of us must share that need.

I'm sure most people don't share my expensive taste in coffee.

A

Somebody who has not bothered to handle the camera is unqualified to opine on its build quality. Peer at specs and pictures all you want, they do not tell the story.

That it factually is the Pen F replacement in the lineup is not a discussion point. Whither Pens? remains an open question for those markets they are still sold.