Why OM1 Style and not Pen F with the OM3

cba_melbourne said:

James Stirling said:

cba_melbourne said:

James Stirling said:

cba_melbourne said:

duncAnd said:

I suspect it's pretty straight forward. People (including me) held back from purchasing the pen-f because it was too expensive and lacked some of the features people wanted. The viewfinder was too small, the focus not good enough, etc.

Click to expand...

Consider that when the Pen-F came out, there was only one camera in all of m43 that had the superior PDAF focus: The EM1.1. The Pen-F AF was certainly good enough for it's time.

It was also the very first m43 camera that had a 20MP sensor. All others were still 16MP.

Click to expand...

The GX8 was the first m43 camera with a 20mp sensor it came out the previous year

Click to expand...

You are right, it was the first Olympus 20MP camera

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

What people held back from purchasing, was most and foremost the very high price for a small camera. And that those that wanted a larger PDAF wildlife camera, were waiting for the release of the EM1.2 which only came out 9 months later, but was already widely speculated about.

Click to expand...

I imagine the lack of weather resistance, no 4k video etc and the impaired handling inherent in a faux RF design didn't help either. Though RF designs have their fans there are plenty who put ergonomics first

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

To address the reasons it didn't sell too well, they needed to up the specs considerably.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I may add this here that I forgot to mention:

It is not true the Pen-F did not sell well. On this forum 549 say they have it, and 153 say they had it. Many Olympus camera since sold far less well. The EM5.3 and the OM5 added together, sold less units. And this is in a tech forum, where you would expect a retro camera that does not sell itself via tech specs, to show less ownership.

True is Olympus CEO said it did "not meet expectations". And what he meant is profitability,

Click to expand...

Given the very many unreliable claims and statements from Olympus camera division over the years I would not be inclined to assume what they meant . Profitability is of course the raison d'etre of all commercial ventures

cba_melbourne said:

it did not cover R&D and design cost. The pen-F sold well, and for this reason was never discounted by more than $200, very much unlike other models. But is that a surprise, if you consider it was an anniversary camera? Designed at a time m43 was growing, Olympus Imaging was not yet in a financial squeeze, it was intended as a marketing tool to enhance brand recognition and prestige - not to return big profits.

Click to expand...

When you look at the finances Olympus camera division was losing money throughout m43

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

How? It was designed in 2015, and released February 2016.

Back then, it was not possible to squeeze PDAF into such a small body. Today, 9 years later, yes it would be possible. But still nobody has done it, because it would require major R&D expenses.

Click to expand...

The even smaller Sony A6000 had a hybrid PDAF/CDAF it came out in 2014

Click to expand...

I did not realize that, thank you

Click to expand...

I don't know if it was any good I only recalled it from an old review . The Sony A6000 series held zero appeal

Click to expand...

Well, it does have that rangefinder style appeal that apparently is in high demand

Click to expand...

cba_melbourne said:

Sony has a 33% mirrorless camera market share. That is 9 times more than m43 across all brands together. And the A6000 was not their worst selling line, they still sell it new today after 11 years here in Australia, a bargain for A$555 body only. That does not sound like zero appeal to me, on the contrary. It's a different appeal, though.

Click to expand...

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

Higher-end specs are inconsistent with a small camera that people are unwilling to pay top dollar for.

Click to expand...

It depends how you interpret what higher specs are. Higher quality of design and build are specs too. Small size is a spec too. Those specs I think some people will absolutely pay for.

Click to expand...

Build certainly , design is more an opinion I personally never saw the aesthetic appeal of the PEN-F but what do I know I love my GX8 and some consider it hideous

cba_melbourne said:

But if you interpret specs as huge viewfinders and top fps, no those are not possible in a small camera as there is no room for it nor is there cooling capacity for it.

cba_melbourne said:

Hence the OM-3.

Having handled the OM-3, I think they were right. It's a lovely camera and amply fulfils the needs of a "carry around" camera. With good specs, people are going to be more willing to pay a good price for it.

I doubt there's an enormous market out there of people who care enough about the differences between a rangefinder and slr style of body. I certainly don't. Whether the viewfinder is on the edge or in the middle makes little difference to me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

UrbaneHobbit said:

As I do not use straps to carry my cameras, I am swayed by pocket ergonomics.

Click to expand...

James Stirling said:

UrbaneHobbit said:

As I do not use straps to carry my cameras, I am swayed by pocket ergonomics.

Click to expand...

You will need quite a large pocket if the OM-3 is under consideration My wife has an RX100 V which is genuinely pocketable and even with a small prime the OM-3 will need big pockets



If I did not favour straps , I would certainly favour grips

Click to expand...

Cafe Racer 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....

Click to expand...

I don't think the OM-3 has the same visual appeal of the original OM-1 film camera, it looks bland in comparison.


OM System OM-3 vs Olympus OM-1.

The OM-1 film camera body is shorter in height and has a distinctive but not unique pointed prism housing. The removable hot shoe when attached has the appearance of standing above the pointed prism housing. Then there's more controls around the front of the OM-1 body, which adds to the appearance, something the OM-3 lacks, which is why it appears to exhibit 'negative' space. The position of the OM-3 model name is also awkwardly placed unlike the OM-1, which has the model name placed on the top of the camera. I think it's a poor interpretation of the OM-1 design if that's what OMDS intended.

I think the OM-3 design has more in common with the Olympus OM-2 Spot Program, which wasn't offered in silver AFAIK.

Cafe Racer said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Pen F design was probably too complicated for OMDS designers! The digital Pen F design looked better than the original Pen F, which is a testament to the Olympus design team. If only the directors had been as talented as the designers!

Cafe Racer said:

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...

Click to expand...

James Stirling said:

bluevellet said:

They tried the Pen F style and it didn't work well enough for Olympus (now OMS), not enough to warrant a new model anyway.

Officially, OMs claims they couldn't make the PEN F style body weather-sealed. It sounds a bit dubious to me, but the OM3 is a big larger and weather-sealed so interpret that as you wish

Click to expand...

Not only can you make small ILC cameras weather resistant you can make them water proof

Click to expand...

James Stirling said:

bluevellet said:

They tried the Pen F style and it didn't work well enough for Olympus (now OMS), not enough to warrant a new model anyway.

Officially, OMs claims they couldn't make the PEN F style body weather-sealed. It sounds a bit dubious to me, but the OM3 is a big larger and weather-sealed so interpret that as you wish

Click to expand...

Not only can you make small ILC cameras weather resistant you can make them water proof

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...

Jaime100 said:

James Stirling said:

UrbaneHobbit said:

As I do not use straps to carry my cameras, I am swayed by pocket ergonomics.

Click to expand...

You will need quite a large pocket if the OM-3 is under consideration My wife has an RX100 V which is genuinely pocketable and even with a small prime the OM-3 will need big pockets



If I did not favour straps , I would certainly favour grips

Click to expand...

I don't want a Point and Shoot.... While they are nice to have like my Ricoh, they are just fun little cameras to carry around. I like the size but sometimes want a camera that has substance

Click to expand...

Photongraphy said:

Photongraphy said:

Photongraphy said:

Photongraphy said:

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...

Indeed I might buy it eventually. I just meant that all the jpeg capabilities have limited value to a RAW shooter.

Click to expand...

I understand. Maybe it's strength, being very capable on many territories, is also it's weakness; jack of all trades, master of none. There are potential users that will never use the jpeg capabilies, others will never need high fps, etc... so not many potential buyers will recognise it as the camera that was made for their specific usecase, although it probably does answer their needs.

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Skeeterbytes said:

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...

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

Click to expand...

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,

Click to expand...

Dpreview on the OM-3:

The X-T5 also has a substantially nicer viewfinder.

Bear in mind that the XT-5 is one of the OM-3's closest competitors.

Cons: Small, low-res EVF.

Nonsense? I guess Dpreview weren't being dismissive as they've actually seen the OM-3 in the flesh.

ahaslett said:

has been replaced by an equally nonsensical discussion of screws to hold the body together. Maybe we can soon move onto a more pressing debate about which color strap is more authentically retro.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[Therapist] Why don't you show me on the doll where OM-3 touched you?

Click to expand...

Have we forgotten Rule #1?

Some people just like build quality way beyond what most people want to pay for - see Pen F for details. Nothing wrong with that unless they think the rest of us must share that need.

I'm sure most people don't share my expensive taste in coffee.

A

Based on extensive market research, I can confirm a direct correlation between photography geekiness and expensive taste in coffee!

Click to expand...

Cafe Racer said:

duncAnd said:

I've handled the OM-3 in the flesh and the viewfinder was not something I would have remarked on. It's perfectly good and I didn't for one second think it was in any way not good enough.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not good enough and not competitive. OMDS could have used a 20mp sensor in the OM-3 like the one found in the entry level E-M10iv; it's good enough right?

Click to expand...

oneofone25 said:

I’m convinced that OM knew that probably 50% of those who post their desire for a PenF weekly somewhere online are also those who have voiced that they have left OM Systems unless they provide a PenF II. I also am convinced that if that new PenF did not have all the technology that OM offers I. The new OM 1 Mark 2 that most would not purchase. Many would not purchase if it wasn’t weather proof. Many would not purchase if it didn’t have the new 26MP sensor in Panasonic. Many would not purchase if it didn’t have global shutter. Many would not purchase because of FILL IN THE BLANK.

yes, the Pen F was an incredible camera, but it wasn’t successful enough to do a new one and try to fill the demands of those who mostly left Olympus behind. I say reward your current base and try to bring on new users with a retro camera that they’ve been waiting for. I think many who have hesitated to even get into the digital camera market may grab this new OM-3 because it reminds them of the 70s and 80s when they had their OM-1 or OM-2n. I think it was a smart move and we will know whether it was for sure within 6 months. I think they priced it high enough to get a nice profit on pre-sales and also high enough to be able to discount and still make a buck down the road.

they would not have come out with this camera if the company was failing and not doing well financially.

Click to expand...

duncAnd said:

Cafe Racer said:

duncAnd said:

I've handled the OM-3 in the flesh and the viewfinder was not something I would have remarked on. It's perfectly good and I didn't for one second think it was in any way not good enough.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not good enough and not competitive. OMDS could have used a 20mp sensor in the OM-3 like the one found in the entry level E-M10iv; it's good enough right?

Click to expand...

I believe the focus on specific spec items is a massive diversion.

Click to expand...

duncAnd said:

I've handled an OM-3 and viewfinder resolution was just not something that even occurred to me

Click to expand...

duncAnd said:

- and I currently shoot with an OM-1ii. I expected to think it was a downgrade, but I didn't.

Click to expand...

duncAnd said:

Cafe Racer said:

duncAnd said:

I've handled the OM-3 in the flesh and the viewfinder was not something I would have remarked on. It's perfectly good and I didn't for one second think it was in any way not good enough.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not good enough and not competitive. OMDS could have used a 20mp sensor in the OM-3 like the one found in the entry level E-M10iv; it's good enough right?

Click to expand...

I believe the focus on specific spec items is a massive diversion. I've handled an OM-3 and viewfinder resolution was just not something that even occurred to me - and I currently shoot with an OM-1ii. I expected to think it was a downgrade, but I didn't.

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

James Stirling said:

UrbaneHobbit said:

As I do not use straps to carry my cameras, I am swayed by pocket ergonomics.

Click to expand...

You will need quite a large pocket if the OM-3 is under consideration My wife has an RX100 V which is genuinely pocketable and even with a small prime the OM-3 will need big pockets



If I did not favour straps , I would certainly favour grips

Click to expand...

I don't want a Point and Shoot.... While they are nice to have like my Ricoh, they are just fun little cameras to carry around. I like the size but sometimes want a camera that has substance

Click to expand...

StevoPhilo said:

James Stirling said:

bluevellet said:

They tried the Pen F style and it didn't work well enough for Olympus (now OMS), not enough to warrant a new model anyway.

Officially, OMs claims they couldn't make the PEN F style body weather-sealed. It sounds a bit dubious to me, but the OM3 is a big larger and weather-sealed so interpret that as you wish

Click to expand...

Not only can you make small ILC cameras weather resistant you can make them water proof

Click to expand...

You're talking about the camera system that is actually dead. Yeah I wouldn't pull a move from their playbook.

Click to expand...

StevoPhilo said:

Notice how there aren't any dials or an EVF. Have fun changing settings with "gyro".

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

duncAnd said:

Cafe Racer said:

duncAnd said:

I've handled the OM-3 in the flesh and the viewfinder was not something I would have remarked on. It's perfectly good and I didn't for one second think it was in any way not good enough.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not good enough and not competitive. OMDS could have used a 20mp sensor in the OM-3 like the one found in the entry level E-M10iv; it's good enough right?

Click to expand...

I believe the focus on specific spec items is a massive diversion. I've handled an OM-3 and viewfinder resolution was just not something that even occurred to me - and I currently shoot with an OM-1ii. I expected to think it was a downgrade, but I didn't.

Click to expand...

Not sure I would call it a diversion.

(1) But I can see a limited number of diehard Pen F'ers to be negative who wouldn't settle for anything less than the rangefinder style....period. They don't want to face up to the fact that the rangefinder style isn't in the works now or in the future for OM Systems. They will nitpick the OM3 to death.

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

(2) I see the FF framer users who do not seem to be overly fond of anything less than FF regardless of any benefits. They will point out anything wrong with the OM3 and I don't think this is OM Systems intended audience, even though they will be vocal.

For Positives:

(3) I see many who shot the original OM1 film cameras to embrace the OM3.

(4) I see many young people who enjoy 'retro'....to embrace the OM3. They might not be able to afford but I think they like it.

(5) I see many OM System fans who now shoot any of the E Series, the OM5, the OM1 etc...to be on board.

(6) I see many people who have GAS to be on board.

(7) I see many people who call themselves street shooters to be on board.

(8) I see many people who enjoy wildlife photography to be on board.

More pluses than minus's...Remember this is a niche camera with a niche company.

Click to expand...

James Stirling said:

Jaime100 said:

James Stirling said:

UrbaneHobbit said:

As I do not use straps to carry my cameras, I am swayed by pocket ergonomics.

Click to expand...

You will need quite a large pocket if the OM-3 is under consideration My wife has an RX100 V which is genuinely pocketable and even with a small prime the OM-3 will need big pockets



If I did not favour straps , I would certainly favour grips

Click to expand...

I don't want a Point and Shoot.... While they are nice to have like my Ricoh, they are just fun little cameras to carry around. I like the size but sometimes want a camera that has substance

Click to expand...

I was replying to UrbaneHobbit pointing out that if you are looking for pocket sized gear the OM-3 is not it

Click to expand...