Why OM1 Style and not Pen F with the OM3

ahaslett said:

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

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

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.... 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.

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?

Click to expand...

hsphsp said:

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.

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

ahaslett said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

hsphsp said:

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.

Click to expand...

v07a said:

Jaime100 said:

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.... 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.

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?

Click to expand...

I think it depends in general of OM-1 internals size. One things is to take sensor/plate (motherboard?) etc and put in different body, connect viewfinder, display, dials etc. Other thing is to try to squeeze it to lot smaller size.

Also dont forget Zf.

Imho they did mix match from OM-1 and OM-5 (Eypiece? Dials? Button in middle of dial? Card slot cover?)

IMHO taking into account all the pro telezooms above 1kg weight will be quite uncomfortable comparing to OM-1. (In some videos its quite obvious that the camera is quite heavy for some woman to hold in one hand) I think the OM-3 sensor is quite overkill. I mean Ok. You have the readout speed ... So what? You have one memory card slot. You can not put long telelense where it would realy matter. Imho from looks its looks like prime lense camera and everything heavier than 0.5kg in front of that body will be very tricky to hold.

Litlle bit of conspiracy theory

Maybe the secret is that there are no more previous generation sensors? Like in OM-5, E-P7 and E-M10IV? Maybe OM have no choice but put OM-1 sensor/board in what they can? Maybe they put out this camera to win time to make board smaller like for OM-5 MKii/E-P8 (or maybe they will make something like OM-3 but in plastic and call it OM-5 MKii?)

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

Jaime100 said:

ahaslett said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

hsphsp said:

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.

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

hsphsp said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

v07a said:

Jaime100 said:

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.... 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.

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?

Click to expand...

I think it depends in general of OM-1 internals size. One things is to take sensor/plate (motherboard?) etc and put in different body, connect viewfinder, display, dials etc. Other thing is to try to squeeze it to lot smaller size.

Also dont forget Zf.

Imho they did mix match from OM-1 and OM-5 (Eypiece? Dials? Button in middle of dial? Card slot cover?)

IMHO taking into account all the pro telezooms above 1kg weight will be quite uncomfortable comparing to OM-1. (In some videos its quite obvious that the camera is quite heavy for some woman to hold in one hand) I think the OM-3 sensor is quite overkill. I mean Ok. You have the readout speed ... So what? You have one memory card slot. You can not put long telelense where it would realy matter. Imho from looks its looks like prime lense camera and everything heavier than 0.5kg in front of that body will be very tricky to hold.

Litlle bit of conspiracy theory

Maybe the secret is that there are no more previous generation sensors? Like in OM-5, E-P7 and E-M10IV? Maybe OM have no choice but put OM-1 sensor/board in what they can? Maybe they put out this camera to win time to make board smaller like for OM-5 MKii/E-P8 (or maybe they will make something like OM-3 but in plastic and call it OM-5 MKii?)

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

v07a said:

Jaime100 said:

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.... 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.

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?

Click to expand...

I think it depends in general of OM-1 internals size. One things is to take sensor/plate (motherboard?) etc and put in different body, connect viewfinder, display, dials etc. Other thing is to try to squeeze it to lot smaller size.

Also dont forget Zf.

Imho they did mix match from OM-1 and OM-5 (Eypiece? Dials? Button in middle of dial? Card slot cover?)

IMHO taking into account all the pro telezooms above 1kg weight will be quite uncomfortable comparing to OM-1. (In some videos its quite obvious that the camera is quite heavy for some woman to hold in one hand) I think the OM-3 sensor is quite overkill. I mean Ok. You have the readout speed ... So what? You have one memory card slot. You can not put long telelense where it would realy matter. Imho from looks its looks like prime lense camera and everything heavier than 0.5kg in front of that body will be very tricky to hold.

Litlle bit of conspiracy theory

Maybe the secret is that there are no more previous generation sensors? Like in OM-5, E-P7 and E-M10IV? Maybe OM have no choice but put OM-1 sensor/board in what they can? Maybe they put out this camera to win time to make board smaller like for OM-5 MKii/E-P8 (or maybe they will make something like OM-3 but in plastic and call it OM-5 MKii?)

Click to expand...

Did people use long tele lenses with the OM film cameras? If they did, presumably by using a tripod or the two-handed grip we used with film cameras. Easier with a modern style beef grip though.

I remember using a 500m photax preset lens with my Zenith E when I was 16 or 17...

On the other hand, I've had a X-E1 and a X-T100 gripless cameras. Pretty to look at but I didn't get on with holding them, even with a tiny kit zoom and half cases for extra support. I'm fine with my GX7 because the little rubber bump is well shaped and offers reasonable grip. I suspect if I had an OM1 it would live on a shelf...

Click to expand...

v07a said:

OM-3 is for city walks, amateurs, prime and small telezooms. How will you hold it if you mount 100-400 or 150-600 on it? It will be tricky to say at least.

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

ahaslett said:

Jaime100 said:

ahaslett said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

Are you sure on the weight? I have the OM5 and the OM3 being equal in weight....

I agree that the EM5 users....mark 11 or 111 will find this to be an upgrade. So, that begs...is the EM5 the camera that the OM3 is replacing?

Click to expand...

v07a said:

DavidMillier said:

v07a said:

Jaime100 said:

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.... 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.

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?

Click to expand...

I think it depends in general of OM-1 internals size. One things is to take sensor/plate (motherboard?) etc and put in different body, connect viewfinder, display, dials etc. Other thing is to try to squeeze it to lot smaller size.

Also dont forget Zf.

Imho they did mix match from OM-1 and OM-5 (Eypiece? Dials? Button in middle of dial? Card slot cover?)

IMHO taking into account all the pro telezooms above 1kg weight will be quite uncomfortable comparing to OM-1. (In some videos its quite obvious that the camera is quite heavy for some woman to hold in one hand) I think the OM-3 sensor is quite overkill. I mean Ok. You have the readout speed ... So what? You have one memory card slot. You can not put long telelense where it would realy matter. Imho from looks its looks like prime lense camera and everything heavier than 0.5kg in front of that body will be very tricky to hold.

Litlle bit of conspiracy theory

Maybe the secret is that there are no more previous generation sensors? Like in OM-5, E-P7 and E-M10IV? Maybe OM have no choice but put OM-1 sensor/board in what they can? Maybe they put out this camera to win time to make board smaller like for OM-5 MKii/E-P8 (or maybe they will make something like OM-3 but in plastic and call it OM-5 MKii?)

Click to expand...

Did people use long tele lenses with the OM film cameras? If they did, presumably by using a tripod or the two-handed grip we used with film cameras. Easier with a modern style beef grip though.

I remember using a 500m photax preset lens with my Zenith E when I was 16 or 17...

On the other hand, I've had a X-E1 and a X-T100 gripless cameras. Pretty to look at but I didn't get on with holding them, even with a tiny kit zoom and half cases for extra support. I'm fine with my GX7 because the little rubber bump is well shaped and offers reasonable grip. I suspect if I had an OM1 it would live on a shelf...

Click to expand...

Yes, when i was young i was also not very smart. But i doubt thats a thing to be proud of nowadays.

If you didn't notice then most modern cameras who claim to be profesional (or close to that) have grip, even sony brick abominations have some type of grip and all retro incarnations have no grip or very small grip (let be honest Zf is not profesional camera)

Existing or not existing of grip dont make camera profesional, it makes it "comfortable" to hold it longer then taking one occasional picture every 10minutes.

But again some people think that sleeping on wooden planks are comfortable. For them maybe, for me not so much. If you like to hold 0.5 kg brick with 2kg lense so be it. Ou.... 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.

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

ahaslett said:

hsphsp said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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) ?

Click to expand...

acfo said:

v07a said:

OM-3 is for city walks, amateurs, prime and small telezooms. How will you hold it if you mount 100-400 or 150-600 on it? It will be tricky to say at least.

Click to expand...

You hold the lens not the body, like in the days when men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Click to expand...