The Pen-F film camera was a cult classic as I understand it, but its primary design value was portability. This form factor goal would have required much more engineering to achieve, going from OM-1 II internals, never mind the battery capacity challenge. With the digital Pen-F setting a very high bar for build, and also generally regarded to have experienced disappointing sales, I imagine OMDS decided to save this more ambitious project for down the line, perhaps funded from profits from products like the OM-3.
E-P# series was getting hammered by EM-5 and EM-1, with similar premium pricing and full feature sets, including [cough] finders, which Panny also provided on their GXs.
They had to completely redesign it and that became the Pen F, a kind of moonshot for them relaunching the premium rangefinderish range. Unique to it for awhile was the 20MP sensor plus the the creative dial.
It's a neat camera that did not sell in huge numbers and their reticence over a 9th anniversary revisit is completely understandable.
The new camera will do just fine. There will be no son of Pen F.
Rick
I think you are right. Those pining for the second coming of the Pen F will still be lamenting the fact at its 20th anniversary. I find it kind of ironic that there are similar dismissive posts about the OM-3 that were posted upon the announcement of the Pen F.
I am glad to see that the hew and cry over the EVF, which in my mind was nonsense since not one of these dismissive posters had even seen an OM-3 in the flesh, let alone looked through the EVF, has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together.
It was me who brought that up. It is not nonsensical at all:
- Rumors before release, predicted the OM3 will have "Pen-F quality"
- First reviews from Ambassadors seriously claimed the OM3 has "Pen-F build quality"
- So I expected no visible screws, as that is THE hallmark of Pen-F fit and finish quality. The feature was used by Olympus marketing to highlight the extra premium quality of the Pen-F, so it definitely was something important and of value to Olympus.
After seeing the first pics of the OM3 base-plate, I was shocked to see that many bright and protruding screws. With not even a pro-forma attempt to at least recess them, or make them in same color as the paint. OM3 is finished just like any other camera, that is just seen as a tool to do a job, like a hammer. I felt somewhat disillusioned.
Think about it for a moment. Retro cameras are NOT tools. They sacrifice a lot for the good retro looks. Retro cameras are prime candidates to become collectible cameras. But only if they are exceptionally well made and somehow somewhat special. Being collectible has tangible benefits. Instead of de-valuating at a rapid rate like any other digital camera nowdays that becomes obsolete in 3 years, collectible cameras appreciate in value if not used too much and worn.
I was considering getting one.... but I already have a lot of cameras that serve my needs, and would not use an OM3 much. For me it would have been a collector item, with rare use just for fun. But I do not think anymore it is collectable.
Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.
It matters a lot for retro cameras. For my Pen-F, I invested in a beautiful handmade saddlery leather UK made strap. The quality of the Pen-F deserves that.
You and others here can make fun of that. But I buy retro cameras not primarily to use as my main camera, but to simply look at and occasionally take out for fun a few times a year and make sure the battery is still charged and fine.
When I bought the Pen-F I did not even know it's specs, I had never looked them up. It was irrelevant: I bought it on impulse when seeing it in the store. What a beautiful and beautifully finished camera, feels all metal in hand, and it's an m43 so it fits my lenses? Take my money I want to take her home.
.
