Why OM1 Style and not Pen F with the OM3

Jaime100 said:

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...

I can speak to the lack of grip since I shoot my OM1 and OM2 Film cameras all the time and they have no grip. I also shoot an old Leica M6 ....all of those cameras are a lot heavier in material as well as the add on of the lens. I have no issue with no grip.....no issue.

I doubt seriously if there will be an issue with the OM3. Having a grip is a bit over weighted when you consider the size of the camera. We are not talking a FF frame here....no heavy lens. If you are going to shoot with a long lens, get the OM1....if you are doing Street etc...than going with the gripless OM3 is no different than shooting with my OM1 film.

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

Click to expand...

v07a said:

Jaime100 said:

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...

I can speak to the lack of grip since I shoot my OM1 and OM2 Film cameras all the time and they have no grip. I also shoot an old Leica M6 ....all of those cameras are a lot heavier in material as well as the add on of the lens. I have no issue with no grip.....no issue.

I doubt seriously if there will be an issue with the OM3. Having a grip is a bit over weighted when you consider the size of the camera. We are not talking a FF frame here....no heavy lens. If you are going to shoot with a long lens, get the OM1....if you are doing Street etc...than going with the gripless OM3 is no different than shooting with my OM1 film.

Click to expand...

Thats whats im saying. That OM-3 are better for street and with primes or small telezooms, than big/heavy telezoom.

Also on film you dont do profesional shoots like one roll in 5min? So you see no grip camera are city/walkaround camera.

Also its more resemble OM-5 (not in good way, as there was small grip and external grip if someone decided to invest in big lense) then OM-1

Click to expand...

Mark P Thornton said:

Personally my upgrade choices from my GX9 are the OM-5 and OM-3 as Panasonic currently have nothing to offer that fits my size constraints and moving system is too expensive. Leaning towards the OM-3.

Mark

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

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...

I can speak to the lack of grip since I shoot my OM1 and OM2 Film cameras all the time and they have no grip. I also shoot an old Leica M6 ....

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

all of those cameras are a lot heavier in material as well as the add on of the lens. I have no issue with no grip.....no issue.

I doubt seriously if there will be an issue with the OM3. Having a grip is a bit over weighted when you consider the size of the camera. We are not talking a FF frame here....no heavy lens.

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

If you are going to shoot with a long lens, get the OM1....if you are doing Street etc...than going with the gripless OM3 is no different than shooting with my OM1 film.

Click to expand...

Mark P Thornton said:

All the larger bodies OM-1, G9, GH-x Gx are out because their size and depth of the grip would make them an uncomfortable fit in my cycle bar bag, or require a reduction in the lenses that could be carried. Currently I can fit the GX9, 12-35 of of 35-100 f2.8 or 100-300, and a small prime - usually the 9mm f1.8. Oh, the 9mm body cap is also in there somewhere ;-) The GX9 is carried fitted to one of the larger zooms .

Even so the more central position of the lens on the OM-3 may make it difficult. The lens mount on the GX9 is quite close to the left edge. My bag has three divisions left to right with the zooms in the two outer slots. The GX9 body then fits with the grip side towards the middle. I guess the OM-3 + mounted lens would have to go in the central slot, shuffling the unmounted lenses around.

The EM-10, G100 are not upgrades.

Mark

Click to expand...

Mark P Thornton said:

> The longest lens for Leica M is a small by FF standards 135mm lens, and the handling of Leica RF cameras is woeful

Not quite right. There is or used to be the visoflex reflex adapter that mounted on M series bodies and allowed longer lenses -- 200mm at least. I remember my father had one in the 70s.

Mark

Click to expand...

Mark P Thornton said:

> I was referring to this decade And adapting third non-native lenses is not the same ,

The *Leica* visoflex wasn't a third party item nor the longer lenses that went with it. I see that there is more modern Visoflex 2.

Mark

Click to expand...

Visoflex 2

Thanks to its generously sized OLED display with a resolution of 3.7 megapixels, the Visoflex 2 electronic viewfinder delivers a large, sharp viewfinder image w

leicastoremanchester.com

DavidMillier said:

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...

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...

UrbaneHobbit said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

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

Click to expand...

Photongraphy 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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Photongraphy said:

Photongraphy said:

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...

Click to expand...