E-M1X anyone?
Yet, the tech that started out in that elephant sized E-M1 X was eventually made skinny enough to make the OM-3 possible….so who knows?
EM-1X and 150-400 were intended as co-travelers (2019 announcements) but the lens production lagged years behind the camera. Between that and covid the 1X was a bit of an orphan, ahead of its time but missing its primary partner.
I could be wrong but I think the EM1iii was released either right before or right after the Em1x was released, providing the same upgrades brought out in the EM1x, I don't think we had to wait for the OM-1 to bring us the new features of the EM1x in a smaller body.
M1iii came out a year later. It had a new processor, TruePic IX, providing enough power to add HHHR and Live ND. It couldn't handle subject detection, serviced by the M1X's twin TruePic VIIIs. TruePic X does the trick today in a much tidier package.
There was a camera shop near me in Menlo Park, Calif., that had one E-M1X. It was $3000 upon release. Three years later, it was still on the shelf, but now $1299. They told me they still couldn't sell it.
Actually that is a fantastic question: is it profitable? I’ll leave that up to OM System, I got into the weeks and off the OP original question to much already. My initial response was to a question the OP asked:The question is not, is it possible. The question is, is it profitable. The issue ain't the technology, but rather the market. Would you buy a $4000 Pen-Fii ?No, it just begged this question. The short answer to your question is: Yes. A new sensor doesn't take up extra size, better AF won't take up room, I doubt the IBIS assembly on an OM3 is much bigger than the one in the Pen-F. The Pen-F EVF has room work with given it's on the outside corner... so yeah, it seems totally possible.Wrong interpretation. I did not imply that it was or was not possible.I don't think that's the right question...
I think the right question is: how come others can put in bigger sensors, and great features in bodies similar in size to the old Pen-F and why can't we improve the Pen-F without increasing the size?
FFS, the A7RC is no bigger than an A6700 or my old NEX7. If others can miniaturize their cameras, OM System can too. That said, if OM System has to make the Pen-F Mk II as thick as an A6700 I don't think most would complain if we can get something that can match it and even outperform it in some areas for the same price. I'll welcome the extra 3mm of body thickness for that.
My example is showing that people are putting larger to much larger sensors and great features in bodies similar to Pen-F, size-wise.
--
Roger
It confirms my previous rough estimate of 2-3% market share for OM:I know meanwhile hard data from a very respected Japanese business publication where actual facts matter is ignored by the fanatics in their endless attempts to promote an agenda clear to everyoneThat French OM marketing guy surely knows how to spin facts around, kudos. Feels like listening to conversations in a used car sales yard.They have been profitable for years out from under Medical.There are no "hard earned profits to squander"
They are yet to become profitable at all
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/appar...tem-en-route-vers-la-renaissance-n218988.html
https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...3-details-100-400mm-and-future-lenses-pen-f-a
The major Japanese business guide published actual unit sales last October for the entire world output of the Japanese makers. OM shipped the least units of any main brand
Direct link to publication
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4492973346
A chart showing actual units shipped world wide by maker , posted for those of us who don’t speak Japanese
Yes, they indeed managed to greatly reduce losses (if the figures released are true, remember this is a privately owned company not traded in stock exchange, under no obligation to release any figures at all, and what they release voluntarily does not require to be true by any law. It could be just a marketing fabrication, and that would still be perfectly legal).
Hopefully they will establish a successful niche going forward .It is wishful thinking that m43 will ever be anything but a small niche player , but they don't need to be
I think the fanatics need some branding tips
If you like your E-M1 III, you will really like the OM1 II….save your pennies.Actually that is a fantastic question: is it profitable? I’ll leave that up to OM System, I got into the weeks and off the OP original question to much already. My initial response was to a question the OP asked:The question is not, is it possible. The question is, is it profitable. The issue ain't the technology, but rather the market. Would you buy a $4000 Pen-Fii ?No, it just begged this question. The short answer to your question is: Yes. A new sensor doesn't take up extra size, better AF won't take up room, I doubt the IBIS assembly on an OM3 is much bigger than the one in the Pen-F. The Pen-F EVF has room work with given it's on the outside corner... so yeah, it seems totally possible.Wrong interpretation. I did not imply that it was or was not possible.I don't think that's the right question...
I think the right question is: how come others can put in bigger sensors, and great features in bodies similar in size to the old Pen-F and why can't we improve the Pen-F without increasing the size?
FFS, the A7RC is no bigger than an A6700 or my old NEX7. If others can miniaturize their cameras, OM System can too. That said, if OM System has to make the Pen-F Mk II as thick as an A6700 I don't think most would complain if we can get something that can match it and even outperform it in some areas for the same price. I'll welcome the extra 3mm of body thickness for that.
My example is showing that people are putting larger to much larger sensors and great features in bodies similar to Pen-F, size-wise.
“What would you like to see in a new Pen F model?”
I could ask how much do the parts cost that I thought would be useful in a Mark II, but IF they make one, what they put in it is up to them and they likely already know how much any upgrade we all could ask for costs anyway. While I think my post was reasoned pretty well, it’s not my company nor am I an employee, and any further pushing of my opinion is completely irrelevant and won’t a difference what OM System thinks on the future state of this product. I’m just a Pen-F fan that would like to see OM System make the Pen-F great again and If they make one, that’s great; if not, my EM1.3 will serve me well for a few years until I find a really good deal on an OM1.2
My limb would say that any camera with a mount system is not really pocketable. Other cameras such that the Ricoh GR (type) with fixed (and/or) collapsing lenses are plagued with sensor dust that is impossible to access without a technical strip down. So I would easily be convinced that no digital camera should be pocketed.I’ll go out on a limb and make a general statement that any, ANY, ILC camera was never intended to be pocketable…..unless that pocket is also large enough to hold the second or third lens.I have trouble with the idea of stuffing a GM5 into a pocket even with a very small lens. Let alone something like a relatively huge (by comparison) Pen-F. Maybe colder climates = larger pockets? But even then do we walk lop-sided with the added weight of a little pocketed camera and lens combination? But I suppose we could always put a brick in a pocket on the other side to balance up ....I shoot with both. The hump is angled, smooth and does not "grab" at pocket openings. No more of a hassle than the rubber eye cup on the PEN-F "grabbing" at pocket seams or bag linings when sliding it in EVF side first.
Let's put it this way, there is nowhere I would stuff a PEN-F that does not also hold the OM3.
The OM3 is pressed back to back with the PEN-F.
Both cameras standing on end, back to back.
Side-by-side, face down.
Unfortunately the GM series was bedeviled by the idea that they could be pocketed. But then cameras that are small enough to fit even in large pockets are invariably second rate, poor performers, etc. Nothing beats a more sizeable lump of camera gear that just has to be carried in a bag where pocketing finally becomes no longer an option .... Of course such cameras lose street credibility when compared to others with larger sensors that also make the "need a bag" limit. Of course this will continue to prevail until some designer wonderkind dreams up a larger sensor camera that is GM body sized. Then of course the prevailing concept that cameras of pocketable size are sub-standard will again raise its head once more.
Looks like very small camera bodies will have a continuing line of pocket filling issues.
Recently I have been seriously tempted to just sell all my Photographic gear, lenses, bodies, the lot and just get one body and one lens. I have looked at the kind of shooting I do, and decide the best set up for me, even though it is extra weight, would be a second hand EM1X and a 12-100 ; one and done! ( aside from my vintage glass that is
)
Have to agree Tom. We get a little spoilt with the OM cameras being virtually free from sensor dust, given the superb sensor cleaning system in place. I remember vividly the constant battle with dust in my film years, and it has been an absolute blessing to have such a profoundly good sensor cleaning system in place with OM cameras... we often forget how good they are at the little things that matter.My limb would say that any camera with a mount system is not really pocketable. Other cameras such that the Ricoh GR (type) with fixed (and/or) collapsing lenses are plagued with sensor dust that is impossible to access without a technical strip down. So I would easily be convinced that no digital camera should be pocketed.I’ll go out on a limb and make a general statement that any, ANY, ILC camera was never intended to be pocketable…..unless that pocket is also large enough to hold the second or third lens.I have trouble with the idea of stuffing a GM5 into a pocket even with a very small lens. Let alone something like a relatively huge (by comparison) Pen-F. Maybe colder climates = larger pockets? But even then do we walk lop-sided with the added weight of a little pocketed camera and lens combination? But I suppose we could always put a brick in a pocket on the other side to balance up ....I shoot with both. The hump is angled, smooth and does not "grab" at pocket openings. No more of a hassle than the rubber eye cup on the PEN-F "grabbing" at pocket seams or bag linings when sliding it in EVF side first.
Let's put it this way, there is nowhere I would stuff a PEN-F that does not also hold the OM3.
The OM3 is pressed back to back with the PEN-F.
Both cameras standing on end, back to back.
Side-by-side, face down.
Unfortunately the GM series was bedeviled by the idea that they could be pocketed. But then cameras that are small enough to fit even in large pockets are invariably second rate, poor performers, etc. Nothing beats a more sizeable lump of camera gear that just has to be carried in a bag where pocketing finally becomes no longer an option .... Of course such cameras lose street credibility when compared to others with larger sensors that also make the "need a bag" limit. Of course this will continue to prevail until some designer wonderkind dreams up a larger sensor camera that is GM body sized. Then of course the prevailing concept that cameras of pocketable size are sub-standard will again raise its head once more.
Looks like very small camera bodies will have a continuing line of pocket filling issues.
Pocketing cameras should be restricted to those complete-sealed bodies like the mobile phone camera.
That's a reliefThe lenses Tom, they come off! :-DI have trouble with the idea of stuffing a GM5 into a pocket even with a very small lens. Let alone something like a relatively huge (by comparison) Pen-F. Maybe colder climates = larger pockets? But even then do we walk lop-sided with the added weight of a little pocketed camera and lens combination? But I suppose we could always put a brick in a pocket on the other side to balance up ....I shoot with both. The hump is angled, smooth and does not "grab" at pocket openings. No more of a hassle than the rubber eye cup on the PEN-F "grabbing" at pocket seams or bag linings when sliding it in EVF side first.
Let's put it this way, there is nowhere I would stuff a PEN-F that does not also hold the OM3.
The OM3 is pressed back to back with the PEN-F.
Both cameras standing on end, back to back.
Side-by-side, face down.
Unfortunately the GM series was bedeviled by the idea that they could be pocketed. But then cameras that are small enough to fit even in large pockets are invariably second rate, poor performers, etc. Nothing beats a more sizeable lump of camera gear that just has to be carried in a bag where pocketing finally becomes no longer an option .... Of course such cameras lose street credibility when compared to others with larger sensors that also make the "need a bag" limit. Of course this will continue to prevail until some designer wonderkind dreams up a larger sensor camera that is GM body sized. Then of course the prevailing concept that cameras of pocketable size are sub-standard will again raise its head once more.
Looks like very small camera bodies will have a continuing line of pocket filling issues.
. Not so useful for a quick snap though ....We are probably a little closer to the winter sun being roughly Florida or North Africa on a Northern Hemisphere map. It has been a colder winter than usual or else my age is making me feel it more. So I am more into puffer jacket with sleeves this year than simply the padded vest thing. But more than usually it is T-shirt and jeans attire and pocketing is not really a serious option for me. Even my GRD/GR cameras always lived in a belt pouch. I did stick my last GR in a pocket a couple of times when I simply ran out of hands and sure enough a dust bunny appeared on the sensor .... drats.
Long since a distant memory. All our children are grown up and married with families of their own.The need a bag limit is usually reached by lenses I want to carry, if not a second format like film camera with different mount lenses. Of course Leica makes this easy, you can slip the M7 (film) in one pocket and the M11 (digital) in the other then you are weight balanced with two formats that share lenses ;-)
Pant pockets are a no go for today's skinny cuts. I wear 32x34" and there is barely room for a phone and still be able to tie my shoe. If I stuck the 60/2.8 in a front pocket people would just think I was excited to see them
I sometimes cheat and slip an extra lens in the diaper bag when we are out all day. The elastic bottle holder pockets are perfect for lenses but I do feel bad when the baby gets thirsty and a 12-100/4 won't stop the cries like apple juice does. :-D
You know my fav pocketable is the TG7 and that seems pretty immune to dust, but it has a non extending zoom, as well as being waterproof so I assume that helps with dust as well.My limb would say that any camera with a mount system is not really pocketable. Other cameras such that the Ricoh GR (type) with fixed (and/or) collapsing lenses are plagued with sensor dust that is impossible to access without a technical strip down. So I would easily be convinced that no digital camera should be pocketed.I’ll go out on a limb and make a general statement that any, ANY, ILC camera was never intended to be pocketable…..unless that pocket is also large enough to hold the second or third lens.I have trouble with the idea of stuffing a GM5 into a pocket even with a very small lens. Let alone something like a relatively huge (by comparison) Pen-F. Maybe colder climates = larger pockets? But even then do we walk lop-sided with the added weight of a little pocketed camera and lens combination? But I suppose we could always put a brick in a pocket on the other side to balance up ....I shoot with both. The hump is angled, smooth and does not "grab" at pocket openings. No more of a hassle than the rubber eye cup on the PEN-F "grabbing" at pocket seams or bag linings when sliding it in EVF side first.
Let's put it this way, there is nowhere I would stuff a PEN-F that does not also hold the OM3.
The OM3 is pressed back to back with the PEN-F.
Both cameras standing on end, back to back.
Side-by-side, face down.
Unfortunately the GM series was bedeviled by the idea that they could be pocketed. But then cameras that are small enough to fit even in large pockets are invariably second rate, poor performers, etc. Nothing beats a more sizeable lump of camera gear that just has to be carried in a bag where pocketing finally becomes no longer an option .... Of course such cameras lose street credibility when compared to others with larger sensors that also make the "need a bag" limit. Of course this will continue to prevail until some designer wonderkind dreams up a larger sensor camera that is GM body sized. Then of course the prevailing concept that cameras of pocketable size are sub-standard will again raise its head once more.
Looks like very small camera bodies will have a continuing line of pocket filling issues.
Pocketing cameras should be restricted to those complete-sealed bodies like the mobile phone camera.
Shades of juggling two large lenses in a dslr lens-swap after rain and nowhere to lay your equipment down on wet ground.Have to agree Tom. We get a little spoilt with the OM cameras being virtually free from sensor dust, given the superb sensor cleaning system in place. I remember vividly the constant battle with dust in my film years, and it has been an absolute blessing to have such a profoundly good sensor cleaning system in place with OM cameras... we often forget how good they are at the little things that matter.My limb would say that any camera with a mount system is not really pocketable. Other cameras such that the Ricoh GR (type) with fixed (and/or) collapsing lenses are plagued with sensor dust that is impossible to access without a technical strip down. So I would easily be convinced that no digital camera should be pocketed.I’ll go out on a limb and make a general statement that any, ANY, ILC camera was never intended to be pocketable…..unless that pocket is also large enough to hold the second or third lens.I have trouble with the idea of stuffing a GM5 into a pocket even with a very small lens. Let alone something like a relatively huge (by comparison) Pen-F. Maybe colder climates = larger pockets? But even then do we walk lop-sided with the added weight of a little pocketed camera and lens combination? But I suppose we could always put a brick in a pocket on the other side to balance up ....I shoot with both. The hump is angled, smooth and does not "grab" at pocket openings. No more of a hassle than the rubber eye cup on the PEN-F "grabbing" at pocket seams or bag linings when sliding it in EVF side first.
Let's put it this way, there is nowhere I would stuff a PEN-F that does not also hold the OM3.
The OM3 is pressed back to back with the PEN-F.
Both cameras standing on end, back to back.
Side-by-side, face down.
Unfortunately the GM series was bedeviled by the idea that they could be pocketed. But then cameras that are small enough to fit even in large pockets are invariably second rate, poor performers, etc. Nothing beats a more sizeable lump of camera gear that just has to be carried in a bag where pocketing finally becomes no longer an option .... Of course such cameras lose street credibility when compared to others with larger sensors that also make the "need a bag" limit. Of course this will continue to prevail until some designer wonderkind dreams up a larger sensor camera that is GM body sized. Then of course the prevailing concept that cameras of pocketable size are sub-standard will again raise its head once more.
Looks like very small camera bodies will have a continuing line of pocket filling issues.
Pocketing cameras should be restricted to those complete-sealed bodies like the mobile phone camera.
-
Weather-sealing would be a MUST!
... limb? - no idea what I meant by that typo - maybe "inclination"?You know my fav pocketable is the TG7 and that seems pretty immune to dust, but it has a non extending zoom, as well as being waterproof so I assume that helps with dust as well.My limb would say that any camera with a mount system is not really pocketable. Other cameras such that the Ricoh GR (type) with fixed (and/or) collapsing lenses are plagued with sensor dust that is impossible to access without a technical strip down. So I would easily be convinced that no digital camera should be pocketed.I’ll go out on a limb and make a general statement that any, ANY, ILC camera was never intended to be pocketable…..unless that pocket is also large enough to hold the second or third lens.I have trouble with the idea of stuffing a GM5 into a pocket even with a very small lens. Let alone something like a relatively huge (by comparison) Pen-F. Maybe colder climates = larger pockets? But even then do we walk lop-sided with the added weight of a little pocketed camera and lens combination? But I suppose we could always put a brick in a pocket on the other side to balance up ....I shoot with both. The hump is angled, smooth and does not "grab" at pocket openings. No more of a hassle than the rubber eye cup on the PEN-F "grabbing" at pocket seams or bag linings when sliding it in EVF side first.
Let's put it this way, there is nowhere I would stuff a PEN-F that does not also hold the OM3.
The OM3 is pressed back to back with the PEN-F.
Both cameras standing on end, back to back.
Side-by-side, face down.
Unfortunately the GM series was bedeviled by the idea that they could be pocketed. But then cameras that are small enough to fit even in large pockets are invariably second rate, poor performers, etc. Nothing beats a more sizeable lump of camera gear that just has to be carried in a bag where pocketing finally becomes no longer an option .... Of course such cameras lose street credibility when compared to others with larger sensors that also make the "need a bag" limit. Of course this will continue to prevail until some designer wonderkind dreams up a larger sensor camera that is GM body sized. Then of course the prevailing concept that cameras of pocketable size are sub-standard will again raise its head once more.
Looks like very small camera bodies will have a continuing line of pocket filling issues.
Pocketing cameras should be restricted to those complete-sealed bodies like the mobile phone camera.
Owner of a dust "problem" free GRIIIx since October 2021! I use the JJC lens cap and carry it in my shirt jacket pocket about eight months of the year and on my belt in the leather pouch in summer which is getting increasingly hotter and longer. It's a perfect companion to my OM-3 which isn't that big either!My limb would say that any camera with a mount system is not really pocketable. Other cameras such that the Ricoh GR (type) with fixed (and/or) collapsing lenses are plagued with sensor dust that is impossible to access without a technical strip down. So I would easily be convinced that no digital camera should be pocketed.I’ll go out on a limb and make a general statement that any, ANY, ILC camera was never intended to be pocketable…..unless that pocket is also large enough to hold the second or third lens.I have trouble with the idea of stuffing a GM5 into a pocket even with a very small lens. Let alone something like a relatively huge (by comparison) Pen-F. Maybe colder climates = larger pockets? But even then do we walk lop-sided with the added weight of a little pocketed camera and lens combination? But I suppose we could always put a brick in a pocket on the other side to balance up ....I shoot with both. The hump is angled, smooth and does not "grab" at pocket openings. No more of a hassle than the rubber eye cup on the PEN-F "grabbing" at pocket seams or bag linings when sliding it in EVF side first.
Let's put it this way, there is nowhere I would stuff a PEN-F that does not also hold the OM3.
The OM3 is pressed back to back with the PEN-F.
Both cameras standing on end, back to back.
Side-by-side, face down.
Unfortunately the GM series was bedeviled by the idea that they could be pocketed. But then cameras that are small enough to fit even in large pockets are invariably second rate, poor performers, etc. Nothing beats a more sizeable lump of camera gear that just has to be carried in a bag where pocketing finally becomes no longer an option .... Of course such cameras lose street credibility when compared to others with larger sensors that also make the "need a bag" limit. Of course this will continue to prevail until some designer wonderkind dreams up a larger sensor camera that is GM body sized. Then of course the prevailing concept that cameras of pocketable size are sub-standard will again raise its head once more.
Looks like very small camera bodies will have a continuing line of pocket filling issues.
Pocketing cameras should be restricted to those complete-sealed bodies like the mobile phone camera.
The whole photographic landscape has changed since the digital Pen F was produced.
