-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The OM-3: The Start of Something Special
- Thread starter Jerredz
- Start date
MyReality
Veteran Member
To me it is more about form factor and what you will be primarily shooting. Comparing the OM-1 II to the OM-3 is like comparing an elephant to a cheetah. If you are going to should action or wildlife the OM-1 would be great. If street or travel, take the OM-3.
The OM1 would be fine for street especially as the OM3 EVF is tiny and rather unpleasant to use
gary0319
Forum Pro
I have both the OM-1 II and the OM-3 and I can assure you, that since you don't look both at the same time, you would never notice the difference in actual use, at least I don't.
Regor250
Veteran Member
I might succumb too if it were as “inexpensive” in Canada. By the time it is all set and done, $3000CDN still feels a lot more to me than $2000USD, but I know that I’d love it for travel.I finally succumbed to the call, although I resisted for longer than usual.
My wife and I were on our way to a Zimbabwe sculpture exhibit at a local botanical garden. Our travel route took us right by our local camera shop (yes, we still have one) and so I stopped in to see if they had an OM-3 that I could fondle, and they did…… but now they don’t.. I had both my OM-1 II and OM-5 in the car, so the 12-45 F/4 came off the OM-5, a spare SD card, and a spare charged up OM-1 battery and…l off to the garden.
A few quick snaps and any thoughts on using either the OM-5 or the OM-1 for the day vanished. The Color and Monochrome creative profiles immediately brought back what I liked about my now long gone Pen F, and the way better performance and auto focus than the Pen F (and the OM-5) was wonderful…. and the finger gouging from the creative dial was also reminiscent of the Pen F, ugh.
BTW, What’s the beef about the EVF…… completely slipped my mind to check it out.
--
Roger
Last edited:
Pelleplutt
Active member
Where are those prices from? Thats way below list for OM-1, looks like a grey market price to me. Nothing wrong with that I buy grey market stuff myself, but it's an unfair comparison as you will never see a grey market price for a new camera model, and there are benefits to buy from an approved reseller.
Cafe Racer
Senior Member
I also tried the OM-3 and found the EVF to be noticeably small; I wasn't impressed. It's as if OMDS chose this EVF and magnification so they can offer an upgrade in a mark 2 version along with a joy stick. What was striking was how big the OM-3 is. That's the biggest retro camera to come out of the Olympus/OMDS m4/3 stable. So much for the m4/3 small mantra. Then there's the metal body, or is that a part metal body?
Full metal?
Despite the E-M5ii being considerably smaller than the OM-3 it's actually 7 grams heavier when each camera have their batteries removed. My G80 has more heft than the 410g OM-3, weighing in at 454g body only, without battery and memory card and it's part plastic. So it looks like they're 'cheaping out' with a part metal body (and probably thin mag. alloy) and making up for the lack of heft with a weighty battery, which may give the impression of a premium metal product, when it's just masquerading as that.
It reminds me of the old adage, if you settle for less you may get less than what you settled for!
If I had to choose between the two it would be the OM-1 and I don't use telephoto lenses.
Last edited:
Except the DPReview of the OM-3 didn't mention the Ferrari performance -
Here are some points to consider:
1. Good image quality (not great or excellent)
2. Expensive compared to its slower peers
3. Small, low-res EVF
4. No autofocus joystick
5. AF tracking isn't as accurate as best of its peers
Summary might indicate the performance is just average.
gary0319
Forum Pro
I understand some concerning themselves with this strange debate between the OM-3 and the OM-, mostly because of the similarities in price. But, IMO, is just goofiness….. like comparing a potato masher to a can opener because they are both kitchen utensils and about the same price. If one needs to use a big telephoto like a 100 to 400 for birding, even considering the OM-3 would be a waste of time and maybe even money if one were foolish enough to buy one for that. However, if one likes the specialty features that are unique to the OM-3 and performance that is second only to the OM-1 II, then there is no other m43 camera that compares.I also tried the OM-3 and found the EVF to be noticeably small; I wasn't impressed. It's as if OMDS chose this EVF and magnification so they can offer an upgrade in a mark 2 version along with a joy stick. What was striking was how big the OM-3 is. That's the biggest retro camera to come out of the Olympus/OMDS m4/3 stable. So much for the m4/3 small mantra. Then there's the metal body, or is that a part metal body?
Full metal?
Despite the E-M5ii being considerably smaller than the OM-3 it's actually 7 grams heavier when each camera have their batteries removed. My G80 has more heft than the 410g OM-3, weighing in at 454g body only, without battery and memory card and it's part plastic. So it looks like they're 'cheaping out' with a part metal body (and probably thin mag. alloy) and making up for the lack of heft with a weighty battery, which may give the impression of a premium metal product, when it's just masquerading as that.
It reminds me of the old adage, if you settle for less you may get less than what you settled for!
If I had to choose between the two it would be the OM-1 and I don't use telephoto lenses.
And…..since the price is so comparable, all the rest is just flutter around the edges most likely bantered about by folks that won’t buy either one.
Cafe Racer
Senior Member
False analogy. The OM-1 and OM-3 are both cameras designed to take photos and video hence are the same type of tools that serve the same purpose. That cannot be said for a potato masher and can opener.I understand some concerning themselves with this strange debate between the OM-3 and the OM-, mostly because of the similarities in price. But, IMO, is just goofiness….. like comparing a potato masher to a can opener because they are both kitchen utensilsI also tried the OM-3 and found the EVF to be noticeably small; I wasn't impressed. It's as if OMDS chose this EVF and magnification so they can offer an upgrade in a mark 2 version along with a joy stick. What was striking was how big the OM-3 is. That's the biggest retro camera to come out of the Olympus/OMDS m4/3 stable. So much for the m4/3 small mantra. Then there's the metal body, or is that a part metal body?
Full metal?
Despite the E-M5ii being considerably smaller than the OM-3 it's actually 7 grams heavier when each camera have their batteries removed. My G80 has more heft than the 410g OM-3, weighing in at 454g body only, without battery and memory card and it's part plastic. So it looks like they're 'cheaping out' with a part metal body (and probably thin mag. alloy) and making up for the lack of heft with a weighty battery, which may give the impression of a premium metal product, when it's just masquerading as that.
It reminds me of the old adage, if you settle for less you may get less than what you settled for!
If I had to choose between the two it would be the OM-1 and I don't use telephoto lenses.
Many people will buy a camera because they want it rather than need it, and they'll use it however they choose to.
Last edited:
Well, they are both cameras for taking pictures...I understand some concerning themselves with this strange debate between the OM-3 and the OM-, mostly because of the similarities in price. But, IMO, is just goofiness….. like comparing a potato masher to a can opener because they are both kitchen utensils and about the same price. If one needs to use a big telephoto like a 100 to 400 for birding, even considering the OM-3 would be a waste of time and maybe even money if one were foolish enough to buy one for that. However, if one likes the specialty features that are unique to the OM-3 and performance that is second only to the OM-1 II, then there is no other m43 camera that compares.I also tried the OM-3 and found the EVF to be noticeably small; I wasn't impressed. It's as if OMDS chose this EVF and magnification so they can offer an upgrade in a mark 2 version along with a joy stick. What was striking was how big the OM-3 is. That's the biggest retro camera to come out of the Olympus/OMDS m4/3 stable. So much for the m4/3 small mantra. Then there's the metal body, or is that a part metal body?
Full metal?
Despite the E-M5ii being considerably smaller than the OM-3 it's actually 7 grams heavier when each camera have their batteries removed. My G80 has more heft than the 410g OM-3, weighing in at 454g body only, without battery and memory card and it's part plastic. So it looks like they're 'cheaping out' with a part metal body (and probably thin mag. alloy) and making up for the lack of heft with a weighty battery, which may give the impression of a premium metal product, when it's just masquerading as that.
It reminds me of the old adage, if you settle for less you may get less than what you settled for!
If I had to choose between the two it would be the OM-1 and I don't use telephoto lenses.
And…..since the price is so comparable, all the rest is just flutter around the edges most likely bantered about by folks that won’t buy either one.
Which "specialty features " appeal and why put of interest?
They were grey market prices but if that's where you buy your stuff then that's the price.
I don't really think price comes into the decision for me though. You like what you like and nobody can tell you the OM3 is the wrong choice even if it does cost more from some retailers.
There will be a different experience, physically and emotionally when using the camera.
I like the style of Royal Enfield bikes. The way they look, sound and make you feel while riding. But a Honda 300 is faster and looks more modern.
Some people will get more pleasure from the retro look and size of the OM3. They'll love the creative dial.
Saying all this. I would prefer the OM1 because bird photography is my main genre. But I don't think there is a wrong choice
I don't really think price comes into the decision for me though. You like what you like and nobody can tell you the OM3 is the wrong choice even if it does cost more from some retailers.
There will be a different experience, physically and emotionally when using the camera.
I like the style of Royal Enfield bikes. The way they look, sound and make you feel while riding. But a Honda 300 is faster and looks more modern.
Some people will get more pleasure from the retro look and size of the OM3. They'll love the creative dial.
Saying all this. I would prefer the OM1 because bird photography is my main genre. But I don't think there is a wrong choice
ardohy
Well-known member
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 514
The people making straw men arguments against the OM-3 were never going to buy it to begin with. These are the same people that laud the value of their Kia over that overpriced Ferrari with terrible fuel economy and stiff seats.
MyReality
Veteran Member
Some of those people put 20 in. tires on the Kia, "because I Can", disregarding driving performance. They think that they are showing personal independence from the crowd.
Regor250
Veteran Member
Looking through the OM-3 manual, the bottom line is that it provides more controls on JPEGs than the OM-1. For ex. one can not turn off/control grain effect on B&W JPEGs, and Color Profiles aren't available either.
--
Roger
Last edited:
the bluesman
Senior Member
And the same people who listen to cheesy Pop songs in compressed MP3 format through bluetooth on a cheap audio system while us purists put the needle into the groove on a quality turntable though a nice quality sound system and sit down and listen
MyReality
Veteran Member
Some people move into the future, while others wait for "what goes around, comes around". I don't have a preference for either.
Before I moved to California, I had a garage sale. I had about 200 vinyl LP's and 6 pieces of audio gear(all midrange for that time). Two resellers came and bought some of the LP's and gear. The only LP's they wanted were ones from the psycodelic era with interesting looking jackets. I played some of those so often, I think I made the grooves deeper.
That's right and I'm in love again, I really am and I just can't get enough of this little Ripper at the moment, I just want to be with it all of the time.
The Son of the OM-1 that's what I call it and it has blown me away with everything about it, I bought my OM-3 a little present yesterday, a new 14-42mm pancake Lens in silver of course, I was delighted to be one of the first to get mine here but now as more and more get their pre orders the place has really come alive and I'm loving seeing all the happy punters here and bugger all of the naysayers, they are the ones missing out
The 14-42 EZ looks nice on the OM-3 but the 40-150 is looking pretty dejected
--
Mark
cba_melbourne
Veteran Member
The thing is, you will never hear one iota difference between a loud pop song in MP3 through bluetoth, or lossless FLAC through a $10k hifi system.
Where the latter shines, is with classical music that has a huge dynamic range from almost inaudible to very loud, from lowest organ pipe frequency to highest piccolo frequency.
the bluesman
Senior Member
Really? I can
Depends how revealing your sound system is and the DAC you are using with digital music, bit like our Cameras in a way, end of the day it's all about the Music and how it's processed or de noised,
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum