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

Impulses said:

EZGritz said:

I don't care that much about the 55g and I use a half case on it anyway, more for looks, a comfortable grip but also to protect the body from dings and scratches and it does support the base plate not that it's something that matters to me. It's strong enough for my purposes and I have three other bodies if I need a stronger baseplate. I don't even use a tripod once a year. With HHHR, I'm not sure I'll ever use a tripod again. It would have to be for something special I haven't seen in years. I'm not interested in carrying the camera on a shoulder strap. I use a wrist strap and have a bag over my shoulder for anything else.

The Em5.3/OM-5 is just OK with me as they are.

Click to expand...

That's great, do realize a chunk of the market won't see it that way tho, they'll see it as a flawed product, cause it is.

Click to expand...

I hardly use the socket on my OM1 and would never use one on an OM5 style body. Having one that fails is bad design. Better not to have one at all. Makes it seem like an after thought, as though the design team added one late in design development.

Not that it matters to me, given how I would use an OM5.

Andrew

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you. I worked BizDev in large multi-national corporations, one of them a Japanese tech company. The parent company always wanted an acquisition to return cash sometimes on the order of 8% of the value of the funds invested to make the acquisition work because almost all large corporations borrow money to make acquisitions with the exception of some tech companies that are so rich and profitable they are looking for way to invest their cash.

In the case of private equity many are investing investor's money over periods of 5 or more years and looking to make the acquisition profitable to spin it off for a capital gain. Some we might conclude are evil, seek to cut costs, load the company up with debt, take their profit out of the company treasury, and leave a limping company to eventually fail and shut down. They will sometimes make asset sales to return cash to the parent. It's a nasty business and tough on the people who lose their jobs and some shareholders who lose their money. It's part of capitalism's survival of the fittest that adds value by rewarding success but it does create some zombie companies and it hurts a lot of people who are on the wrong side of the events.

In the case of JIT, I don't know their plans or how they make their money. I just mean to say anyway I see it, to hold and profit on return on investment on an operational basis, or spin-off later it will be better for them if OMS eventually makes money. From what I can see at a distance I'm encouraged as the camera business is better than it was when the world was shut down from COVID but not before cell phones decimated lower-cost, high-volume cameras and lens sales. Camera companies have fewer unit sales to spread fixed costs. They have to sell more expensive, higher capability gear on average than they ever did and OMS is doing this successfully it appears. It's all speculation of course. I'm an outsider.

From what I can see OMS has an exciting product line, more exciting than in many years. Some photographers are migrating to it or adding it. Some of the products are capable enough for some types of professional photography where they never were or were marginal. They are areas where photographers tend to buy high-priced gear so the product strategy seems to be aligned with market needs and looks to have more potential for generating profit. I would bet the average product sale is as high or higher than it ever was though I'm in no position to say how profitable they are. It looks like an improving situation to me.

There's an idea. Leave off the tripod socket. Won't stop the complaining. Will stop the broken camera bases.


Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman

Nonsense. SAF on the OM-1 works great. It has never failed me. The people who say it has, reported that it's rare and only in extreme situations. The camera is absolutely over the top capable and competitive with any camera in its class for most photography use cases in every way except resolution and many that are 50% or more, more expensive.

You can find the 1% of the time where a product fails and declare the product inferior but for general use, it's a specious argument and this argument is.

EZGritz said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you. I worked BizDev in large multi-national corporations, one of them a Japanese tech company. The parent company always wanted an acquisition to return cash sometimes on the order of 8% of the value of the funds invested to make the acquisition work because almost all large corporations borrow money to make acquisitions with the exception of some tech companies that are so rich and profitable they are looking for way to invest their cash.

In the case of private equity many are investing investor's money over periods of 5 or more years and looking to make the acquisition profitable to spin it off for a capital gain. Some we might conclude are evil, seek to cut costs, load the company up with debt, take their profit out of the company treasury, and leave a limping company to eventually fail and shut down. They will sometimes make asset sales to return cash to the parent. It's a nasty business and tough on the people who lose their jobs and some shareholders who lose their money. It's part of capitalism's survival of the fittest that adds value by rewarding success but it does create some zombie companies and it hurts a lot of people who are on the wrong side of the events.

In the case of JIT, I don't know their plans or how they make their money. I just mean to say anyway I see it, to hold and profit on return on investment on an operational basis, or spin-off later it will be better for them if OMS eventually makes money. From what I can see at a distance I'm encouraged as the camera business is better than it was when the world was shut down from COVID but not before cell phones decimated lower-cost, high-volume cameras and lens sales. Camera companies have fewer unit sales to spread fixed costs. They have to sell more expensive, higher capability gear on average than they ever did and OMS is doing this successfully it appears. It's all speculation of course. I'm an outsider.

From what I can see OMS has an exciting product line, more exciting than in many years. Some photographers are migrating to it or adding it. Some of the products are capable enough for some types of professional photography where they never were or were marginal. They are areas where photographers tend to buy high-priced gear so the product strategy seems to be aligned with market needs and looks to have more potential for generating profit. I would bet the average product sale is as high or higher than it ever was though I'm in no position to say how profitable they are. It looks like an improving situation to me.

Click to expand...

It looks like an improving situation to me too, at least a stable one. I’m guessing a smart company would want to own a couple of niches rather than have a confused strategy.

The OM5 seemed like a holding move. One wonders what an OM5ii might look like and where it would fit compared to small APSC and FF bodies.

Any strategy for bodies needs to be based in the existing lens line up, particularly to bring new owners into MFT who want Pro lenses. Interesting to see the resistance in the FE forum to the idea that an OM5 plus the f4 zooms is arguably better than an A7C if you want a small kit. Some people don’t understand equivalence!

What the OM1 needs is a firmware upgrade and soon. Having almost every Sony body beat it on CAF-Tr and EyeAF doesn’t look good. It’s weird that you can nail a squirrel or car driver from further away than a person walking towards you.

Maybe 2023-24 is a lens release year, with bodies to follow in 2024-25. Hopefully better lenses than the 20/1.4. I just bought a Sigma 35/2 discounted for less than a used 20/1.4. Panasonic discontinuing lenses leaves some space.

I’m sure everyone will say they knew what OMDS were up to after the fact, but they are giving very few clues. A trade sale to Sony would be an interesting exit strategy.

Andrew

ahaslett said:

Impulses said:

EZGritz said:

I don't care that much about the 55g and I use a half case on it anyway, more for looks, a comfortable grip but also to protect the body from dings and scratches and it does support the base plate not that it's something that matters to me. It's strong enough for my purposes and I have three other bodies if I need a stronger baseplate. I don't even use a tripod once a year. With HHHR, I'm not sure I'll ever use a tripod again. It would have to be for something special I haven't seen in years. I'm not interested in carrying the camera on a shoulder strap. I use a wrist strap and have a bag over my shoulder for anything else.

The Em5.3/OM-5 is just OK with me as they are.

Click to expand...

That's great, do realize a chunk of the market won't see it that way tho, they'll see it as a flawed product, cause it is.

Click to expand...

I hardly use the socket on my OM1 and would never use one on an OM5 style body. Having one that fails is bad design. Better not to have one at all. Makes it seem like an after thought, as though the design team added one late in design development.

Not that it matters to me, given how I would use an OM5.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Tripod socket? I use it routinely on OM5 + 12-40mkII on a gimbal for crowd work (street protest - events). The gimbal gets the camera higher overhead and allows me to point down comfortably. No signs of damage after 10 months of use. I gave up on PD clips however having experienced detachment issues with other cameras I have owned.

I think OM-5 may have been necessary to make the name change. The EM5.3 probably looked too long in the tooth so a modest spec boost may have seemed worthwhile if it was low-cost. I can't see the numbers to know. An OM-1 capable OM-5 makes no sense if it could actually be done with heat issues, hardware, etc. Not at $1,200. Just cannibalizes OM-1 sales when the body is doing well and loses $1,000 per lost OM-1 sale.

What will they do with the EM-10 line? Most people don't do motorsports or birding but a lot photograph some sort of sports. I can make a case for saying subject ID and tracking is not needed but it would help some people and specs sell even if they aren't necessary - cuz they might someday need it. Can they ad PDAF and make it work reasonably well and keep the MSRP where it is? How much would it cannibalize OM-5 and OM-1 sales are questions I would ask.

How do camera companies keep customers buying when the least expensive, lowest spec camera can do everything? It begs the question of the future of the camera business.

The EM1.2 was disappointing for me until FW 3.0. I didn't care about the resolution increase. 16MP was enough. I wanted PDAF to work. In the early versions of the FW it didn't. It takes a while. The OM-1 is working well enough for me but I'd like to see it top shelf for the benefit of the model and the brand.

SONY would probably not be interested because they would likely kill it and fight it out in the ASP-C space. OMS is probably worth more to them as a customer for sensors and other semiconductors. If they don't want to keep it going they would have to buy it for less than ZERO because they would have shutdown costs to offset even if they needed the facilities. OMS might be better for them as a customer for sensors and semiconductors. That way it presumably contributes to Sony's bottom line and its JIT's problem to keep OMS going, sell it or absorb the shutdown costs. If OMS runs into hard times and shuts down, SONY will pick up some of the business with their ASP-C products. It might be better than owning OMS.

I don't know who would want to pick up OMS. A company with no small sensor product line? Who would that be? With mass market distribution and high-capacity manufacturing capability or excess manufacturing capacity. Can't think of anybody.

Maybe Panasonic would think it was worthwhile. Maybe they didn't think so when JIT stepped up and they were busy getting their FF business up and running. They had their hands full. After that? OMS may have some products and tech Panasonic probably wishes it had. They can do some cost-saving consolidation when they get rid of the duplicate facilities and personnel. Hard to say. I might look at it if I were doing BizDev at Panasonic.

Who else? A Chinese company that played with the idea of entry. Samsung decides to get back in the game, give it another try?

Sigma. No, conflict with their customers.

I'm going to guess Panasonic though rationalizing the product lines could be difficult and an internal battle. They need to keep some of OMS's engineers. If they can put the volume through the same personnel and facilities maybe. It can make financial sense. If it means more revenue, same overhead. That's usually what makes the consolidation numbers work. PMS? I think that one is taken.

The more I think about it. Panasonic. Classic consolidation strategy. More revenue with a similar cost structure. Rationalize product lines to avoid confusion, and make better use of R&D.

Technology acquisition in lens expertise and portfolio and PDAF/Subject detection. It will take a while to integrate but could pay off.

Too busy to consider it while they were building out FF products and business but I bet they thought about it.

I bet OLY and Panny thought about the impact on their business if the other guy went away, or they were one company.

EZGritz said:

Nonsense. SAF on the OM-1 works great. It has never failed me. The people who say it has, reported that it's rare and only in extreme situations.

Click to expand...

I didn't say a thing about S-AF and I'm not even aware of those reports (tho I do remember a thread about an obvious bug with the 75/1.8)... I think you misinterpreted my point based on forum chatter.

EZGritz said:

The camera is absolutely over the top capable and competitive with any camera in its class for most photography use cases in every way except resolution and many that are 50% or more, more expensive.

Click to expand...

I didn't knock the OM-1 either, I'm just saying there's no reason a lot of the things it brings to the table should be exclusive to a $2K body and not available on cheaper/smaller bodies, no need to defend it tho.

EZGritz said:

You can find the 1% of the time where a product fails and declare the product inferior but for general use, it's a specious argument and this argument is.

Click to expand...

Again, I think you've gone on the defensive based on M4/3 forum chatter that I've not even participated in. I think the OM-1 is awesome, not for me but I can see why it's easily one of the most appealing flagship/$2K bodies for action (even if that's a niche within itself).

EZGritz said:

There's an idea. Leave off the tripod socket. Won't stop the complaining. Will stop the broken camera bases.

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

Click to expand...

I'm sure that'll really please everyone that wants to use high res mode, or Live ND, or Live Composite, you know some of Oly's classic features that are still unmatched elsewhere. Never mind anyone that wants to shoot panoramas, macros, etc etc.

I must have responded to the wrong post.

Sorry

EZGritz,

I am sorry if I seemed combative. Not intended.

I am also sorry, but I am not able to read your lengthy response above

I'm not offended. Too much time spend on this thread anyway.

I used a tripod twice in more than ten years. Tripods are going away and OLY/OMS has been driving it beginning with IBIS that with them dates back to the compact days.

The OM-5 can do most of your wish list without a tripod. If no, there are other cameras that can. You can't make a camera that pleases everyone and you can't sell it for $1,200 MSRP and cannibalize the sale of your $2,200 MSRP camera - if it can be done.

The OM-1 guts or something that can do what you want may not be possible to package into the OM-5 body because of heat/space/price. Maybe it needs another hardware generation. By that time the OM-1 might be an OM-2 and you will want that in the OM-5II.

There are no perfect do-everything cameras at $1,200. They all compromise.

I would consider upgrading to the OM-5 now if it had the new menu system and if I didn't have an OM-1. If no, I'm happy with the EM5.3.

See these customer reviews. It has PDAF, Live ND and HHHR. The overall performance seems to be better. Not the best but reasonable for $1,200. No other camera in this price range from S, C, F or N has Live ND and HHHR.

Great Camera: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Mini Review: Birthday Present: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

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

UrbaneHobbit said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have both the OM-1 and the OM-5. I use them for entirely different purposes. The OM-1, as promoted by OMDS, is primarily a wildlife and action camera... and that's the case for which I use it. Fast, robust, big enough to match well with large/long lenses. My OM-5 is my street and travel camera and it never gets used with big lenses or for shooting BiFs. But....... it is great with the HHHR for night street shots, Focus stacking for botanical gardens, has in-camera defish for my 8mm FE for landscapes/vistas........ and has great Scene and Advanced Photo modes that my OM-1 is lacking. Plus it all fits into a tiny bag that goes on an airplane in my personal bag.

I'm pretty pleased with these two cams for everything I do (and most folks are as well, I suspect). I fail to see what would be gained by dropping the innards of the OM-1 into the OM-5 body, considering the target market for the OM-5. I assume that the size would have to be increased if only to accommodate the much larger OM-1 battery and the price would be considerably higher, as well.

You are making me want to replace the EM5.3 with the OM-5 but I can use the OM-1 and our uses for the OM-5 are different. (So far)

EZGritz said:

I used a tripod twice in more than ten years. Tripods are going away and OLY/OMS has been driving it beginning with IBIS that with them dates back to the compact days.

The OM-5 can do most of your wish list without a tripod. If no, there are other cameras that can. You can't make a camera that pleases everyone and you can't sell it for $1,200 MSRP and cannibalize the sale of your $2,200 MSRP camera - if it can be done.

The OM-1 guts or something that can do what you want may not be possible to package into the OM-5 body because of heat/space/price. Maybe it needs another hardware generation. By that time the OM-1 might be an OM-2 and you will want that in the OM-5II.

There are no perfect do-everything cameras at $1,200. They all compromise.

I would consider upgrading to the OM-5 now if it had the new menu system and if I didn't have an OM-1. If no, I'm happy with the EM5.3.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a lot of rationalizations tbh, and those probably won't help OM, but I really do hope they find a way to thrive, even if it's at the cost of forsaking midrange bodies for years.

EZGritz said:

See these customer reviews. It has PDAF, Live ND and HHHR. The overall performance seems to be better. Not the best but reasonable for $1,200. No other camera in this price range from S, C, F or N has Live ND and HHHR.

Great Camera: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Mini Review: Birthday Present: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're aware but I own an E-M5 III, the OM-5 is just not a significant step over it after 3.5 years, at all. I don't expect every successive model to tempt me to upgrade (even the A7R V didn't manage that over the Mk IV), but the OM-5 is doing less than most.

Things like Live Comp and class leading IBIS are indeed still some of Oly's coups, that's basically why I've kept my E-M5 III even tho I'm barely touching it these days. When I need to do long exposures or film handled I'd still reach for it over my other bodies.

Live ND is neat, I'm less impressed with HHHR tbh. You do have a point about the price point tho, to an extent, $1K +/- a couple hundred used to be a big volume seller price point and I suspect it just isn't anymore, at all, and M4/3 isn't the only system where bodies around that level have kinda lingered on the vine.

EZGritz said:

I must have responded to the wrong post.

Sorry

Click to expand...

No worries!

UrbaneHobbit said:

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.

Click to expand...

They can't make an OM-1 clone for half the price, or nobody would buy the OM-1. That would be financial suicide. There has to be enough difference between the models to make a significant number of people prefer to opt for the more expensive model.

Getting more people into the hobby is just as likely to help your competitor as you. There's barely any brand loyalty anymore. Most people are content to make do with their phone anyway.

EZGritz said:

You are making me want to replace the EM5.3 with the OM-5 but I can use the OM-1 and our uses for the OM-5 are different. (So far)

Click to expand...

Whatever works for your use case(s). The nice thing about the OM line up is that the different series are designed for, and have features for, particular use cases. My E-M10IV would be a poor choice for birds in flight, but makes a great camera to catch those end of day fishing trip sunsets. Sure you can get those with the OM-1 but you have to work for it…. Just set the E-M10 IV to the Sunset Scene Mode and get a nice SOOC image that has been adjusted in-camera for the sunset.