The OM-5ii is pretty nice, but...

MJ_Photo38 said:

Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

G1Houston said:

Mitchell Clark said:

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, but I suspect if they changed anything that could potentially address something that a fair number of people are concerned about, they would have... mentioned it.

Click to expand...

But if they specifically say that it has been changed to make it "stronger", they would essentially admit there was a design issue. Hopefully they have quietly fixed it without making a big deal about it. After all I have not heard of any other cameras run into an issue like this, as the bottom plate usually is the strongest part of the camera.

Click to expand...

They could just as easily dismiss complaints saying "You're not using it as designed".

I agree with Mitchell. If they felt it was widespread enough that they should fix it, they'd mention it.

Click to expand...

Or it wasn’t a widespread issue, other than on this forum.

Click to expand...

It was a widespread issue, because the problem lies in the mechanical design of the camera, which was flawed for a particular way of carrying a camera.

Click to expand...

If only a handful of people actually use this camera in that way, it's not a widespread issue. I get that it may be a "design flaw", but OMS isn't going to change it if they're not having to satisfy a bunch of warranty claims, repairs, etc. That they didn't change it tells me they're not getting as many complaints as the forums would imply they're getting.

Click to expand...

It's a widespread issue among people that use it that way (which is not that many). Meaning that if you want to carry it that way, you're SOL and would be better searching for another camera.

Click to expand...

You can try to redefine "widespread" if you want, but from OM Systems' perspective, it's not what they would consider "widespread".

I'm not trying to diminish things here - this is certainly one of the reasons I wouldn't get the OM-5 since I wear my cameras on a holster, which is certainly not how the camera manufacturers intend for these to be used. I'm just countering the idea that OMS would surreptitiously "fix" this issue. If they fixed it, they would crow about it. And if they didn't fix it, then they likely don't think it's widespread enough to bother with a redesign. And they have two other much more sturdy cameras to buy if you've got a problem with that.

Again, I personally think it's a mistake since they're trying to market this to the Outdoor Adventure market, but I see no reason to believe they're hiding anything here.

MJ_Photo38 said:

Allan Brown said:

plantdoc said:

Product segmentation. If I was looking for a smaller, light camera at a tolerable price and the primary use was not for fast action pics, the new M5 would be a good step up from the M10. If I needed the more advanced features, primarily subject tracking, and I did not care about a heavy boost in price, bulk and weight, I would then pick the OM1 or OM3. Like buying car, how many features, do you need and willing to pay for?

Greg

Click to expand...

The EM5 MkII is already a good step up from any of the EM10 models.

Click to expand...

Except maybe the E-M10 IV as it has the newer 20MP sensor. For everything else though (build, EVF, ergonomics, sensor, IBIS,...) I agree.

Click to expand...

I agree, the E-M10 IV I had was much better than the E-M5 II I had. In fact, I sold my E-M5 II in favor of the E-M10 II. Specs aside, I just liked the E-M10 II camera better.

gary0319 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

Allan Brown said:

plantdoc said:

Product segmentation. If I was looking for a smaller, light camera at a tolerable price and the primary use was not for fast action pics, the new M5 would be a good step up from the M10. If I needed the more advanced features, primarily subject tracking, and I did not care about a heavy boost in price, bulk and weight, I would then pick the OM1 or OM3. Like buying car, how many features, do you need and willing to pay for?

Greg

Click to expand...

The EM5 MkII is already a good step up from any of the EM10 models.

Click to expand...

Except maybe the E-M10 IV as it has the newer 20MP sensor. For everything else though (build, EVF, ergonomics, sensor, IBIS,...) I agree.

Click to expand...

I agree, the E-M10 IV I had was much better than the E-M5 II I had. In fact, I sold my E-M5 II in favor of the E-M10 II. Specs aside, I just liked the E-M10 II camera better.

Click to expand...

Why?

Allan

wh1tby said:

john isaacs said:

wh1tby said:

I notice the sand beige is available from stock but the silver and black are on back order at B & H. What was your impression of the sand beige?

Click to expand...

I liked the look, but didn’t care for it with silver lenses. I will be getting silver.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment. In photographs the black lenses looked OK with sand beige since they match the leatherette finish on the camera. I can imagine with silver it would look rather odd.... It is nice to consider something other than silver and black for the body color, but it is often the case that step out colors can age badly. Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts.

I suspect, if I go ahead, it will probably be the usual black which is a bit sad really but irrelevant to the photographs I will take....

Click to expand...

I think both silver and black lenses look great on the silver bodies (which are actually silver and black). But I don’t like silver lenses on aa all black body. I mostly use the silver lenses on my silver EM-5iii, and will get a silver OM-5ii to replace it.

Allan Brown said:

gary0319 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

Allan Brown said:

plantdoc said:

Product segmentation. If I was looking for a smaller, light camera at a tolerable price and the primary use was not for fast action pics, the new M5 would be a good step up from the M10. If I needed the more advanced features, primarily subject tracking, and I did not care about a heavy boost in price, bulk and weight, I would then pick the OM1 or OM3. Like buying car, how many features, do you need and willing to pay for?

Greg

Click to expand...

The EM5 MkII is already a good step up from any of the EM10 models.

Click to expand...

Except maybe the E-M10 IV as it has the newer 20MP sensor. For everything else though (build, EVF, ergonomics, sensor, IBIS,...) I agree.

Click to expand...

I agree, the E-M10 IV I had was much better than the E-M5 II I had. In fact, I sold my E-M5 II in favor of the E-M10 II. Specs aside, I just liked the E-M10 II camera better.

Click to expand...

Why?

Allan

Click to expand...

I had originally bought the E-M10 II when it was first introduced, having had an E-M1.1 before it. The E-M10 II had a recall for a faulty lens pin and I opted for a replacement rather than a repair. While waiting for the stock of the E-M10 II to refill, I was able to procure an E-M5 II for a good price and used it for a couple of months. After receiving the replacement E-M10 II I realized I liked it much better than he E-M5.2 and the 5.2 was gathering dust. There was no real technical reason for the decision, just one camera talked to me and the other was just..... just. after some years I did purchase an E-M5 III after gifting my 10.2 to a relative, but soon after repurchased anther 10, the E-M10 IV. Guess I just have a soft spot in my heart for the 10 series and may get a new one if OMDS decides to continue the model.

Sorry for the long dissertation.....

MJ_Photo38 said:

The issue of the E-M5iii/OM-5's tripod mount is that it's not connected to the steel inner structure of the camera, and it's only attached to a plastic plate.

The "proper" way of doing this is to either attach the tripod mount to the inner structure, at which point you can use a plastic bottom plate, or you can do without connecting it to the inner structure, at which case you need to have a bottom plate that's more resilient to vibrations, hits and constant forces being applied. Metal plates are very good at this, plasticy (polymer composites), not so much.

The problem with the OM-5's mount isn't the plastic plate or the lack of inner structure link... it's that it's both at the same time.


Proper way of doing it #1 : tripod mount on the inner structure, not the bottom plate (Nikon D600)




Proper way of doing it #2 : not connected to the inner structure in any way, but attached to a metal plate (or in this case a metal insert within the plate ; Nikon Z6II)

Click to expand...

The cracking and failure of the baseplate is a symptom rather than the cause. The underlying problem is that the tripod socket is not properly fastened to the chassis:


EM5iii - tripod socket appears to be moulded into the plastic chassis



Whereas, Olympus used to be able to a better job:


OM10IV - tripod socket inserted into a metal plate mounted to the plastic chassis

Even now, the new plate will not solve the problem if the interior connection to the chassis has not been reinforced. And marketing the new OM-5ii as a rugged, outdoor adventure camera is a risky strategy if OM System have not addressed a glaring inadequacy in the original design.

The 3 APS-C camera sizes are not very large either. I don't think Olympus can shrink their bodies them any more.

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

G1Houston said:

Mitchell Clark said:

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, but I suspect if they changed anything that could potentially address something that a fair number of people are concerned about, they would have... mentioned it.

Click to expand...

But if they specifically say that it has been changed to make it "stronger", they would essentially admit there was a design issue. Hopefully they have quietly fixed it without making a big deal about it. After all I have not heard of any other cameras run into an issue like this, as the bottom plate usually is the strongest part of the camera.

Click to expand...

They could just as easily dismiss complaints saying "You're not using it as designed".

I agree with Mitchell. If they felt it was widespread enough that they should fix it, they'd mention it.

Click to expand...

Or it wasn’t a widespread issue, other than on this forum.

Click to expand...

I mentioned it to a sales person at Yodobashi Camera and he was aware of the problem.

Promeneur said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

G1Houston said:

Mitchell Clark said:

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, but I suspect if they changed anything that could potentially address something that a fair number of people are concerned about, they would have... mentioned it.

Click to expand...

But if they specifically say that it has been changed to make it "stronger", they would essentially admit there was a design issue. Hopefully they have quietly fixed it without making a big deal about it. After all I have not heard of any other cameras run into an issue like this, as the bottom plate usually is the strongest part of the camera.

Click to expand...

They could just as easily dismiss complaints saying "You're not using it as designed".

I agree with Mitchell. If they felt it was widespread enough that they should fix it, they'd mention it.

Click to expand...

Or it wasn’t a widespread issue, other than on this forum.

Click to expand...

I mentioned it to a sales person at Yodobashi Camera and he was aware of the problem.

Click to expand...

I think this has been mentioned elsewhere, but if they admitted to an issue on the first version, then they have a liability issue. This would tend to force a recall and a fix to be provided. Since apparently only a small proportion of people had an issue, they can simply make the bottom plate stronger in the MkII and not have to issue a recall for the previous model. If the problem was widespread with a very large proportion of owners of the MkI having an issue with the bottom plate, then they would have had no alternative but to issue a recall and a fix.

It would be interesting for some one to do a strip down of the Mk I and Mk Ii and compare designs. Time will tell if the Mk Ii has this weakness, but my guess would be that if they were aware there was a weakness in the baseplate design where the tripod mount is located, they will have made some changes in the design without admitting that they have made such a change.

Out of interest has anyone here who has had the bottom fail successfully had the camera replaced under warranty?

Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

G1Houston said:

Mitchell Clark said:

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, but I suspect if they changed anything that could potentially address something that a fair number of people are concerned about, they would have... mentioned it.

Click to expand...

But if they specifically say that it has been changed to make it "stronger", they would essentially admit there was a design issue. Hopefully they have quietly fixed it without making a big deal about it. After all I have not heard of any other cameras run into an issue like this, as the bottom plate usually is the strongest part of the camera.

Click to expand...

They could just as easily dismiss complaints saying "You're not using it as designed".

I agree with Mitchell. If they felt it was widespread enough that they should fix it, they'd mention it.

Click to expand...

Or it wasn’t a widespread issue, other than on this forum.

Click to expand...

It was a widespread issue, because the problem lies in the mechanical design of the camera, which was flawed for a particular way of carrying a camera.

Click to expand...

If only a handful of people actually use this camera in that way, it's not a widespread issue. I get that it may be a "design flaw", but OMS isn't going to change it if they're not having to satisfy a bunch of warranty claims, repairs, etc. That they didn't change it tells me they're not getting as many complaints as the forums would imply they're getting.

Click to expand...

It's a widespread issue among people that use it that way (which is not that many). Meaning that if you want to carry it that way, you're SOL and would be better searching for another camera.

Click to expand...

You can try to redefine "widespread" if you want, but from OM Systems' perspective, it's not what they would consider "widespread".

Click to expand...

I'm not redefining it. That's the definition we use in the microelectronics industry.

Sam Bennett said:

I'm not trying to diminish things here - this is certainly one of the reasons I wouldn't get the OM-5 since I wear my cameras on a holster, which is certainly not how the camera manufacturers intend for these to be used. I'm just countering the idea that OMS would surreptitiously "fix" this issue. If they fixed it, they would crow about it. And if they didn't fix it, then they likely don't think it's widespread enough to bother with a redesign.

Click to expand...

That's very much what is happening here. It's a wide spread issue on these cameras that doesn't need fixing as far as OMDS is concerned.

Sam Bennett said:

And they have two other much more sturdy cameras to buy if you've got a problem with that.

Again, I personally think it's a mistake since they're trying to market this to the Outdoor Adventure market, but I see no reason to believe they're hiding anything here.

Click to expand...

I don't think that they are hiding anything either

gary0319 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

Allan Brown said:

plantdoc said:

Product segmentation. If I was looking for a smaller, light camera at a tolerable price and the primary use was not for fast action pics, the new M5 would be a good step up from the M10. If I needed the more advanced features, primarily subject tracking, and I did not care about a heavy boost in price, bulk and weight, I would then pick the OM1 or OM3. Like buying car, how many features, do you need and willing to pay for?

Greg

Click to expand...

The EM5 MkII is already a good step up from any of the EM10 models.

Click to expand...

Except maybe the E-M10 IV as it has the newer 20MP sensor. For everything else though (build, EVF, ergonomics, sensor, IBIS,...) I agree.

Click to expand...

I agree, the E-M10 IV I had was much better than the E-M5 II I had. In fact, I sold my E-M5 II in favor of the E-M10 II. Specs aside, I just liked the E-M10 II camera better.

Click to expand...

I have both an E-M10II and E-M5II (the M10II is my EDC) and I will say that I don't see much of a reason to prefer the M10 over the M5, besides maybe the flip screen design.

The M10 has less function buttons, worse IBIS, worse shutter, smaller EVF and isn't any smaller than the E-M5II.

I know I much prefer my M5II.

Personal preferences I guess.

wh1tby said:

Promeneur said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

G1Houston said:

Mitchell Clark said:

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, but I suspect if they changed anything that could potentially address something that a fair number of people are concerned about, they would have... mentioned it.

Click to expand...

But if they specifically say that it has been changed to make it "stronger", they would essentially admit there was a design issue. Hopefully they have quietly fixed it without making a big deal about it. After all I have not heard of any other cameras run into an issue like this, as the bottom plate usually is the strongest part of the camera.

Click to expand...

They could just as easily dismiss complaints saying "You're not using it as designed".

I agree with Mitchell. If they felt it was widespread enough that they should fix it, they'd mention it.

Click to expand...

Or it wasn’t a widespread issue, other than on this forum.

Click to expand...

I mentioned it to a sales person at Yodobashi Camera and he was aware of the problem.

Click to expand...

I think this has been mentioned elsewhere, but if they admitted to an issue on the first version, then they have a liability issue. This would tend to force a recall and a fix to be provided. Since apparently only a small proportion of people had an issue, they can simply make the bottom plate stronger in the MkII and not have to issue a recall for the previous model. If the problem was widespread with a very large proportion of owners of the MkI having an issue with the bottom plate, then they would have had no alternative but to issue a recall and a fix.

It would be interesting for some one to do a strip down of the Mk I and Mk Ii and compare designs. Time will tell if the Mk Ii has this weakness, but my guess would be that if they were aware there was a weakness in the baseplate design where the tripod mount is located, they will have made some changes in the design without admitting that they have made such a change.

Out of interest has anyone here who has had the bottom fail successfully had the camera replaced under warranty?

Click to expand...

I agree that if there was a recall in one legal jurisdication it would set a precedent for the entire market. Maybe not, ruinous, but a huge setback. It may have been decided to not make a major change as they have not received many cameras back for repair.

I wonder if a new stronger composite material could be used to produce the same bottom plate with the same or a slightly tweaked design as was pointed out, solving the problem? I don't know if that kind of change would have to be registered, either. Anyway, perception might have caused a small loss in sales with some potential buyers. I passed on the OM-5, but it didn't impact my decison to buy an OM-3, E-P7, or TG-7.

As a camera promoted for the outdoors, it ought to support the use of various clips, third party or not even if the percentage of people who carry a camera that way is very small.

wh1tby said:

I think this has been mentioned elsewhere, but if they admitted to an issue on the first version, then they have a liability issue.

Click to expand...

The only area where they may have a liability issue is if the camera fails when using an Olympus or Olympus endorsed accessory. They had an accessory, and it is no longer available on their website. I'm guessing if they had failures with the Olympus accessory then they may have provided a repair or replacement under warranty.

I don't think I have ever read in the manual for any camera or any other piece of photographic equipment where it states "warranty applies to third party accessories used with this product." Actually, is quite the opposite.

Customers making claims for damage caused by using third party accessories would most likely be advised to address their claim to the third party manufacturer.

wh1tby said:

Out of interest has anyone here who has had the bottom fail successfully had the camera replaced under warranty?

Click to expand...

There have been many incidents reported here, but very few outcomes documented. It would be interesting to know how those who have suffered such a failure have faired.

Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

G1Houston said:

Mitchell Clark said:

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, but I suspect if they changed anything that could potentially address something that a fair number of people are concerned about, they would have... mentioned it.

Click to expand...

But if they specifically say that it has been changed to make it "stronger", they would essentially admit there was a design issue. Hopefully they have quietly fixed it without making a big deal about it. After all I have not heard of any other cameras run into an issue like this, as the bottom plate usually is the strongest part of the camera.

Click to expand...

They could just as easily dismiss complaints saying "You're not using it as designed".

I agree with Mitchell. If they felt it was widespread enough that they should fix it, they'd mention it.

Click to expand...

Or it wasn’t a widespread issue, other than on this forum.

Click to expand...

It was a widespread issue, because the problem lies in the mechanical design of the camera, which was flawed for a particular way of carrying a camera.

Click to expand...

If only a handful of people actually use this camera in that way, it's not a widespread issue. I get that it may be a "design flaw", but OMS isn't going to change it if they're not having to satisfy a bunch of warranty claims, repairs, etc. That they didn't change it tells me they're not getting as many complaints as the forums would imply they're getting.

Click to expand...

And they should make a note in the manual not to carry the camera upside down, or sideways, or otherwise using the bottom tripod attachment. Has anyone asked OMS if carrying the camera using the tripod attachment an intended way of carry? For any of their cameras?

inlawbiker said:

The tone of the review is really fair. It’s basically the 3rd iteration of the same thing but it’s still a good value for some people.
the entry class cameras it’s up against has better modern subject detection which is really a glaring difference. Does the computational stuff make up for it? I don’t know, maybe.

Click to expand...

That's a good question. No it does not I think. On the other side, lack of weather sealing or proper IBIS would also be a thing I would expect in a €1300 body. And CP wouldn't hurt.

To bad there is no body in this price range that does have it all;

- compact and robust

- good weather sealing

- propper IBIS

- CP

- good subject detection and tracking

Seems there is no free lunch in camera land. Nut this OM-5 ticks 4/5 boxes. Most competitors get only 3/5.

Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

G1Houston said:

Mitchell Clark said:

I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, but I suspect if they changed anything that could potentially address something that a fair number of people are concerned about, they would have... mentioned it.

Click to expand...

But if they specifically say that it has been changed to make it "stronger", they would essentially admit there was a design issue. Hopefully they have quietly fixed it without making a big deal about it. After all I have not heard of any other cameras run into an issue like this, as the bottom plate usually is the strongest part of the camera.

Click to expand...

They could just as easily dismiss complaints saying "You're not using it as designed".

I agree with Mitchell. If they felt it was widespread enough that they should fix it, they'd mention it.

Click to expand...

Or it wasn’t a widespread issue, other than on this forum.

Click to expand...

It was a widespread issue, because the problem lies in the mechanical design of the camera, which was flawed for a particular way of carrying a camera.

Click to expand...

If only a handful of people actually use this camera in that way, it's not a widespread issue. I get that it may be a "design flaw", but OMS isn't going to change it if they're not having to satisfy a bunch of warranty claims, repairs, etc. That they didn't change it tells me they're not getting as many complaints as the forums would imply they're getting.

Click to expand...

Claims should go to Peak Design. They designed a thing that let people use their camera in a manner that it isn't made for. Also Nikon and Fuji had broken bottom plates with this Peak Design clip.


https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4382677

HicHic said:

On a serious note, it's absolutely insane that OM System is cr1ppling their cameras, given M43's sentiment and market share. I guess it makes it easier to always be able to "release a next model with slight improvements". Says a lot about how much R&D they're willing to spend on, or even capable of.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure I would call it that. They don't have a new sensor. They're not putting the current thing in the smaller body as it probably doesn't fit the size or power consumption. So what's left for them to do.

I think they planned poorly, but I think the OM-3 was the stop gap to have something "new" with a smaller footprint.

StevoPhilo said:

HicHic said:

On a serious note, it's absolutely insane that OM System is cr1ppling their cameras, given M43's sentiment and market share. I guess it makes it easier to always be able to "release a next model with slight improvements". Says a lot about how much R&D they're willing to spend on, or even capable of.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure I would call it that. They don't have a new sensor. They're not putting the current thing in the smaller body as it probably doesn't fit the size or power consumption. So what's left for them to do.

I think they planned poorly, but I think the OM-3 was the stop gap to have something "new" with a smaller footprint.

Click to expand...

They don't need to put a new sensor in order to make improvements. Look at the jump in performance from A7RIV to A7RV.

Same sensor, but people would happily pay much more for the A7RV. Why?

-Significantly improved IBIS.

-Added subject detection modes with much improved AF performance.

-Added bird eye AF.

-Upgraded processor and added dedicated AF AI chip.

-Improved video recording modes, can shoot 8K and 4K60.

-EVF upgraded from 5.76m dot to 9.44m dot.

-Hugely improved screen from tilt only to flip + tilt.

-SD-only card slot upgraded to support CFexpress for faster buffer clearing and video write speeds.

-Much improved new UI for menus.

And guess what? A7RIV to A7RV was only a 3 year gap - same as OM-5 to OM-5ii.

If OMDS actually spent some money on R&D, big strides could be made using the same sensor. In fact, this is even easier for the OM-5ii, because all of the R&D was already done, when they made the OM-1/OM-3 cameras. Sony actually had to spend much more on R&D to get those A7RV improvements, because there's no higher tier camera at that time for that tech to trickle down to. But for OM-5ii, that work has been done already - they just needed to put it in the camera. They're just choosing not to.

Thorgrem81 said:

inlawbiker said:

The tone of the review is really fair. It’s basically the 3rd iteration of the same thing but it’s still a good value for some people.
the entry class cameras it’s up against has better modern subject detection which is really a glaring difference. Does the computational stuff make up for it? I don’t know, maybe.

Click to expand...

That's a good question. No it does not I think. On the other side, lack of weather sealing or proper IBIS would also be a thing I would expect in a €1300 body. And CP wouldn't hurt.

To bad there is no body in this price range that does have it all;

- compact and robust - subjective, but maybe R10 and A-6700

- good weather sealing: X-S20

- propper IBIS : X-S20, A-6700

- CP

- good subject detection and tracking: X-S20(good), A-6700(great)

Seems there is no free lunch in camera land. Nut this OM-5 ticks 4/5 boxes. Most competitors get only 3/5.

Click to expand...

The DPR comparison chart puts it up against 3 APS-C camera: Canon R10, Fuji X-S20 and Sony A-6700 in about the same price range. For most people looking at that chart, size is going to rule if you are an M4/3 user already.

If I was going to do video with tracking, I would choose the A6700. But yes, there is not free lunch.

Thorgrem81 said:

inlawbiker said:

The tone of the review is really fair. It’s basically the 3rd iteration of the same thing but it’s still a good value for some people.
the entry class cameras it’s up against has better modern subject detection which is really a glaring difference. Does the computational stuff make up for it? I don’t know, maybe.

Click to expand...

That's a good question. No it does not I think. On the other side, lack of weather sealing or proper IBIS would also be a thing I would expect in a €1300 body. And CP wouldn't hurt.

To bad there is no body in this price range that does have it all;

- compact and robust

- good weather sealing

- propper IBIS

- CP

- good subject detection and tracking

Seems there is no free lunch in camera land. Nut this OM-5 ticks 4/5 boxes. Most competitors get only 3/5.

Click to expand...

Unless there is some hidden jump that OM is keeping as a surprise the subject detection and tracking looks to be the same as the OM-5 .Which is far from the best in class , compact and robust apart from the same plastic base plate folk have been complaining about since it turned up in the 2019 E-M5 III

Computational photography is just a way to make it easier to take such images and at least for near static subjects to compensate for the smaller sensor. I am not attempting to deny it's usefulness , I had great fun at first stacking macro shots in camera with my OM-1 and used it quite a lot. Eventually I reverted back to doing the work in post for more control and better options

I can stack images in post from any camera , I can increase effective resolution and DR and do the work in post. ND filters weigh nothing and do a better job and so on it . Many folk here complain about phones because all they do is CP and lament it not being "real" photography whilst taking advantage of every CP trick in the book and lamenting other cameras for not having them

The Nikon Z50 II lacks IBIS ( -also on the comparisons list ) but it is well built has good AF, from admittedly limited hands on time significantly better ergonomics. And has an APS sensor that is cleaner than any m43 alternative.

I think some folk here really believe that the whole camera market is obsessed with small and lightweight. If that was actually true m43 would have a much higher share of the ILC market instead of where it currently sit.

Maybe you have a handy old graph hidden behind a paywall to tell us how well OM is doing

It will be just like the OM-3 that was going to be the savior and sell like hot cakes story after a minute in the top 10 on B&H which all new releases manage to do it has been out side the top 100 for a few weeks. Even in Japan it hardly made it onto the charts

B&H

Bestselling mirrorless

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...meras/ci/16158/N/4288586281?sort=BEST_SELLERS

Top 50 selling ILC in Japan a market that used to be the strongest for m43 particularly Olympus . The only OM camera in the top 40 is the E-P7

https://www-bcnretail-com.translate..._sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp



. Though the lack of IBIS does limit choices there are Z mount lenses with VR covering from a m43 AOV equivalent of 9mm to 600mm . Not that I imagine many would be using the 800mm on the Z50 II

Given the lack of advances probably just as well the didn't compare it to the OM-5 , it does not make particularly flattering reading :-( for me the use of the newer menu is about the only thing that matters. If you can live with old menu ( I don't like it personally ). You can pick up a mint condition OM-5 with 99% of what this update offers for around £720 from a legit UK dealer that is £370 less than the OM-5 II body only.

The OM-5 II is on my maybe list as coming from the E-M5 III the new menu does appeal. But that is about it. Though already being in the Nikon Z fold the Z50 II despite the lack of IBIS has more appeal. I am very happy with my OM-1 and love my ever aging GX8 so I would not be leaving m43 but the Z50 II with 12-28mm - PZ F/3.5-5.6. Which does the same job as a m43 9- 21mm F2.7-4.2 would make for a nice combo for my uses

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post