I fixed the OM-3' akward proportions

The more I examined the OM-3 in direct comparison with the original film era OM-1 by Maitani the more I thought there was something wrong with the new interpretation. So I did a quick and dirty mock-up on my PC and found that the lack of simmetry and the strange bigger proportions were the reason.

The reason OM Digital Solutions designed the camera the way they did, is simple for me, because they haven't done anything new since they took over the camera business from Olympus. They took the existing circuit board of the OM-1 (which was completely redesigned before the JIP takeover) and build the OM-3 around it not spending money for new R&D.

My wish to OM Digital Solutions would be a successor as OM-3 Mark II or OM-5 Mark III wich revives the micro four thirds spirit in a hiqh quality metal body with >5Mio dot EVF and >2Mio dot LCD at 4:3 aspect ratio and a newly developed silicon.

So please OM DS, make Micro Four Thirds micro again! Put the latest and greatest tech in a small hiqh quality metal body and your company will thrive.


Much more pleasing proportions to my eyes.


Another version with a small hand grip.


Animated GIF for size comparison to the OM-3. (open in new window to see the animation)

But they'd have to redesign the circuit board and stuff. This would cost them money. Don't be ridiculous.

The manager at my local camera store (who shoots a G9 and Nikon professionally) told me that initial OM3 sales were far higher than he expected but then fell off a cliff. He saw this as a market he had not realised existed that is very enthusiastic but small. It may be bigger than the market for a double gripped MFT body but still not that large.

Interesting that initial EM1X sales were sort of OK but then the used market here was flooded with EM1Xs at very low prices once the OM1 launched. I guess that functionality matters at least as much as style for many of us. Makes a used EM1X very attractive if you want to shoot in the snow, but for me not much else.

The problem with small enthusiastic segments is they always over estimate how large the segment is. Manufacturers have to think about covering the cost of development and tooling, minimum order sizes for key parts etc. Ones with limited resources have to exploit and repackage those as much as possible, taking fewer risks.

I had not realised what a low mechanical shutter speed the OM3 has - makes my OM5.1 and eventually upgrading my OM1.1 to mk ii more appealing.

Andrew

julius_emanuel said:

The more I examined the OM-3 in direct comparison with the original film era OM-1 by Maitani the more I thought there was something wrong with the new interpretation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, where's the shutter speed ring around the lens mount, the ISO dial on the top plate and the removable hot shoe!



The original OM-1 design makes the new OM-3 design look lame!

julius_emanuel said:

So I did a quick and dirty mock-up on my PC and found that the lack of simmetry and the strange bigger proportions were the reason.

The reason OM Digital Solutions designed the camera the way they did, is simple for me, because they haven't done anything new since they took over the camera business from Olympus. They took the existing circuit board of the OM-1 (which was completely redesigned before the JIP takeover) and build the OM-3 around it not spending money for new R&D.

My wish to OM Digital Solutions would be a successor as OM-3 Mark II or OM-5 Mark III wich revives the micro four thirds spirit in a hiqh quality metal body with >5Mio dot EVF and >2Mio dot LCD at 4:3 aspect ratio and a newly developed silicon.

So please OM DS, make Micro Four Thirds micro again! Put the latest and greatest tech in a small hiqh quality metal body and your company will thrive.


Much more pleasing proportions to my eyes.


Another version with a small hand grip.


Animated GIF for size comparison to the OM-3. (open in new window to see the animation)

Click to expand...

The battery won't fit. The big battery + no grip is the only reason the OM-3 is so lop-sided to look at. Either fit a grip and mount the battery sideways or go back to a small battery, there's no easy option.

John Bean (UK) said:

The battery won't fit. The big battery + no grip is the only reason the OM-3 is so lop-sided to look at. Either fit a grip and mount the battery sideways or go back to a small battery, there's no easy option.

Click to expand...

Long, thin battery. No money for something revolutionary like that.

julius_emanuel said:

The more I examined the OM-3 in direct comparison with the original film era OM-1 by Maitani the more I thought there was something wrong with the new interpretation. So I did a quick and dirty mock-up on my PC and found that the lack of simmetry and the strange bigger proportions were the reason.

The reason OM Digital Solutions designed the camera the way they did, is simple for me, because they haven't done anything new since they took over the camera business from Olympus. They took the existing circuit board of the OM-1 (which was completely redesigned before the JIP takeover) and build the OM-3 around it not spending money for new R&D.

My wish to OM Digital Solutions would be a successor as OM-3 Mark II or OM-5 Mark III wich revives the micro four thirds spirit in a hiqh quality metal body with >5Mio dot EVF and >2Mio dot LCD at 4:3 aspect ratio and a newly developed silicon.

So please OM DS, make Micro Four Thirds micro again! Put the latest and greatest tech in a small hiqh quality metal body and your company will thrive.


Much more pleasing proportions to my eyes.

Click to expand...

This certainly looks more pleasing, but the position of the shutter release has been compromised. I agree that the asymmetry looks a little weird, but the larger dimension on the shutter release side leaves more room to grip and allows them to put the shutter release further away from the thumb grip, which is a more ergonomic position (for my hands at least).

Ultimately, these smaller dimensions that have to work around the constraints of the mirror hump come with their own compromises. You see this with the OM-5, where the shutter release is closer to the thumb grip/side of the camera, which I find uncomfortable. Ironically it makes it less comfortable to hold than the E-P7 which has a surprisingly ergonomic layout. Again, your hands may vary but the OM-3 is “perfect” as far as I’m concerned, so if that comes with it being a bit asymmetrical and “odd” looking I’m cool with that!



Needless to say, I haven’t had anyone tell me how odd looking my camera is while it in public. Maybe they’re too polite, but it’s just a lot of “Cool camera!” comments.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

WilyKit said:

John Bean (UK) said:

The battery won't fit. The big battery + no grip is the only reason the OM-3 is so lop-sided to look at. Either fit a grip and mount the battery sideways or go back to a small battery, there's no easy option.

Click to expand...

Long, thin battery. No money for something revolutionary like that.

Click to expand...

Exactly. No easy option.

--
John Bean [GMT+1]

Sam Bennett said:

julius_emanuel said:

The more I examined the OM-3 in direct comparison with the original film era OM-1 by Maitani the more I thought there was something wrong with the new interpretation. So I did a quick and dirty mock-up on my PC and found that the lack of simmetry and the strange bigger proportions were the reason.

The reason OM Digital Solutions designed the camera the way they did, is simple for me, because they haven't done anything new since they took over the camera business from Olympus. They took the existing circuit board of the OM-1 (which was completely redesigned before the JIP takeover) and build the OM-3 around it not spending money for new R&D.

My wish to OM Digital Solutions would be a successor as OM-3 Mark II or OM-5 Mark III wich revives the micro four thirds spirit in a hiqh quality metal body with >5Mio dot EVF and >2Mio dot LCD at 4:3 aspect ratio and a newly developed silicon.

So please OM DS, make Micro Four Thirds micro again! Put the latest and greatest tech in a small hiqh quality metal body and your company will thrive.


Much more pleasing proportions to my eyes.

Click to expand...

This certainly looks more pleasing, but the position of the shutter release has been compromised. I agree that the asymmetry looks a little weird, but the larger dimension on the shutter release side leaves more room to grip and allows them to put the shutter release further away from the thumb grip, which is a more ergonomic position (for my hands at least).

Ultimately, these smaller dimensions that have to work around the constraints of the mirror hump come with their own compromises. You see this with the OM-5, where the shutter release is closer to the thumb grip/side of the camera, which I find uncomfortable. Ironically it makes it less comfortable to hold than the E-P7 which has a surprisingly ergonomic layout. Again, your hands may vary but the OM-3 is “perfect” as far as I’m concerned, so if that comes with it being a bit asymmetrical and “odd” looking I’m cool with that!

Needless to say, I haven’t had anyone tell me how odd looking my camera is while it in public. Maybe they’re too polite, but it’s just a lot of “Cool camera!” comments.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Click to expand...

My own experience is similar - I like the ergonomics of the OM-3 a lot; when I hit a chance to use it on a photowalk, it helped me make up my mind getting one. Anecdotally, people seem to like the look of it.

To me, the OM3 looks nothing like the beautiful original OM1. I had an OM4ti which was a beautiful camera too.

John Bean (UK) said:

The battery won't fit. The big battery + no grip is the only reason the OM-3 is so lop-sided to look at. Either fit a grip and mount the battery sideways or go back to a small battery, there's no easy option.

Click to expand...

You could extend the OPs grip all the way to the bottom and mount the battery sideways. The grip would just cover the battery.

In all fairness....I don't own an OM3 although would like one to try. I do own my share of OM1's and OM2's from the film days. I do find the OM1 to be a beautiful camera (more so than the OM2 and 3 and 4). But frankly I am not seeing your awkward proportions as you speak to them in the OM3. Agreed that the lens is off-centered a bit but big deal? For instance...Some people like to hang their wall pictures perfectly spaced apart etc...while others like myself love my pictures on the wall just haphazardly up on the wall but still aesthetically appealing. .Also I can see you moved the creative dial on your new and improved version of the OM3 but again, why? It looked great to begin with. For me, I drool over the OM3.

Regarding your other suggestions such as reworking the circuit board etc... OM Systems most likely doesn't have a ton of income to burn and even if so, they like EVERY OTHER camera company, why reinvent the wheel when the wheel is working? Take what works and place into other bodies. So what? Many of those on this forum seem to think that every camera needs to be different. It ain't going to work that way in today's camera world. Perhaps years back but now, no way.

Below are the OM3 followed by the OM1. Pretty darn close....updated.





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

ahaslett said:

The manager at my local camera store (who shoots a G9 and Nikon professionally) told me that initial OM3 sales were far higher than he expected but then fell off a cliff. He saw this as a market he had not realised existed that is very enthusiastic but small. It may be bigger than the market for a double gripped MFT body but still not that large.

Interesting that initial EM1X sales were sort of OK but then the used market here was flooded with EM1Xs at very low prices once the OM1 launched. I guess that functionality matters at least as much as style for many of us. Makes a used EM1X very attractive if you want to shoot in the snow, but for me not much else.

The problem with small enthusiastic segments is they always over estimate how large the segment is. Manufacturers have to think about covering the cost of development and tooling, minimum order sizes for key parts etc. Ones with limited resources have to exploit and repackage those as much as possible, taking fewer risks.

I had not realised what a low mechanical shutter speed the OM3 has - makes my OM5.1 and eventually upgrading my OM1.1 to mk ii more appealing.

Andrew

Click to expand...

A discussion with my local camera store manager a few days ago also revealed that sales of the OM-3 have been strong (sells each one as soon as it comes in the door). But it's a small store so maybe it just hasn't reached the drop off point yet.

And I find it interesting that it wasn't until the issue of the OM-5 reduced mechanical shutter frame rate came up that any one even bothered to mention it about the OM-3. I hadn't even considered it until now. Must not be important to very many OM-3 buyers, myself included, or I suspect many OM-5 II buyers either.

When are you going to be selling modified OM-3's?

gary0319 said:

ahaslett said:

The manager at my local camera store (who shoots a G9 and Nikon professionally) told me that initial OM3 sales were far higher than he expected but then fell off a cliff. He saw this as a market he had not realised existed that is very enthusiastic but small. It may be bigger than the market for a double gripped MFT body but still not that large.

Interesting that initial EM1X sales were sort of OK but then the used market here was flooded with EM1Xs at very low prices once the OM1 launched. I guess that functionality matters at least as much as style for many of us. Makes a used EM1X very attractive if you want to shoot in the snow, but for me not much else.

The problem with small enthusiastic segments is they always over estimate how large the segment is. Manufacturers have to think about covering the cost of development and tooling, minimum order sizes for key parts etc. Ones with limited resources have to exploit and repackage those as much as possible, taking fewer risks.

I had not realised what a low mechanical shutter speed the OM3 has - makes my OM5.1 and eventually upgrading my OM1.1 to mk ii more appealing.

Andrew

Click to expand...

A discussion with my local camera store manager a few days ago also revealed that sales of the OM-3 have been strong (sells each one as soon as it comes in the door). But it's a small store so maybe it just hasn't reached the drop off point yet.

And I find it interesting that it wasn't until the issue of the OM-5 reduced mechanical shutter frame rate came up that any one even bothered to mention it about the OM-3. I hadn't even considered it until now. Must not be important to very many OM-3 buyers, myself included, or I suspect many OM-5 II buyers either.

Click to expand...

I am still looking for that perfect camera that fits everyone's needs.... Has anyone found that baby yet?

JNK 100 said:

To me, the OM3 looks nothing like the beautiful original OM1.

Click to expand...

Yeah, OMDS are just saying the OM-3 is based on the original OM-1 because it sounds good. If the OM-3 is based on the original OM-1, then every retro camera is based on the OM-1!

JNK 100 said:

I had an OM4ti which was a beautiful camera too.

Click to expand...

Jaime100 said:

gary0319 said:

ahaslett said:

The manager at my local camera store (who shoots a G9 and Nikon professionally) told me that initial OM3 sales were far higher than he expected but then fell off a cliff. He saw this as a market he had not realised existed that is very enthusiastic but small. It may be bigger than the market for a double gripped MFT body but still not that large.

Interesting that initial EM1X sales were sort of OK but then the used market here was flooded with EM1Xs at very low prices once the OM1 launched. I guess that functionality matters at least as much as style for many of us. Makes a used EM1X very attractive if you want to shoot in the snow, but for me not much else.

The problem with small enthusiastic segments is they always over estimate how large the segment is. Manufacturers have to think about covering the cost of development and tooling, minimum order sizes for key parts etc. Ones with limited resources have to exploit and repackage those as much as possible, taking fewer risks.

I had not realised what a low mechanical shutter speed the OM3 has - makes my OM5.1 and eventually upgrading my OM1.1 to mk ii more appealing.

Andrew

Click to expand...

A discussion with my local camera store manager a few days ago also revealed that sales of the OM-3 have been strong (sells each one as soon as it comes in the door). But it's a small store so maybe it just hasn't reached the drop off point yet.

And I find it interesting that it wasn't until the issue of the OM-5 reduced mechanical shutter frame rate came up that any one even bothered to mention it about the OM-3. I hadn't even considered it until now. Must not be important to very many OM-3 buyers, myself included, or I suspect many OM-5 II buyers either.

Click to expand...

I am still looking for that perfect camera that fits everyone's needs.... Has anyone found that baby yet?

Click to expand...

Since I suspect that everyone's thought of what is "perfect" is way different than mine, there is no reason to build it, IMO. I just buy and use what is available and don't grouse about what isn't.

Power and thermals. You cannot shrink the OM-3 like that with the BLX-1 battery. It would require a smaller battery. Then you sacrifice TruePic X, stacked sensor and high throughput speed. What you have effectively done is created the OM-5II. That the engineers were able to shrink the OM-1, the worlds smallest, lightest, stacked sensor MILC, into a beautiful body even smaller and lighter, with even better battery life is a remarkable feat.

Jaime100 said:

gary0319 said:

ahaslett said:

The manager at my local camera store (who shoots a G9 and Nikon professionally) told me that initial OM3 sales were far higher than he expected but then fell off a cliff. He saw this as a market he had not realised existed that is very enthusiastic but small. It may be bigger than the market for a double gripped MFT body but still not that large.

Interesting that initial EM1X sales were sort of OK but then the used market here was flooded with EM1Xs at very low prices once the OM1 launched. I guess that functionality matters at least as much as style for many of us. Makes a used EM1X very attractive if you want to shoot in the snow, but for me not much else.

The problem with small enthusiastic segments is they always over estimate how large the segment is. Manufacturers have to think about covering the cost of development and tooling, minimum order sizes for key parts etc. Ones with limited resources have to exploit and repackage those as much as possible, taking fewer risks.

I had not realised what a low mechanical shutter speed the OM3 has - makes my OM5.1 and eventually upgrading my OM1.1 to mk ii more appealing.

Andrew

Click to expand...

A discussion with my local camera store manager a few days ago also revealed that sales of the OM-3 have been strong (sells each one as soon as it comes in the door). But it's a small store so maybe it just hasn't reached the drop off point yet.

And I find it interesting that it wasn't until the issue of the OM-5 reduced mechanical shutter frame rate came up that any one even bothered to mention it about the OM-3. I hadn't even considered it until now. Must not be important to very many OM-3 buyers, myself included, or I suspect many OM-5 II buyers either.

Click to expand...

I am still looking for that perfect camera that fits everyone's needs.... Has anyone found that baby yet?

Click to expand...

I only have 3 MFT and 2 FE cameras in use, plus 2 Merrills that would only be used in unusual cases.

Now, about the perfect 3 lens kit...

A

The ergonomics of the OM-3 were very disappointing for my hands. Especially the asymmetrical, elongated shape that shifts the center of mass far from the grip to the left side to the lens mount. All the more annoying that the ART Dial presses into my fingers, as the position is very unfavorable placed.

In my opinion, the design should therefore have been a little more balanced. This would make more sense to me for the overall philosophy of the product line up:

OM-1 form follows function

OM-3 function follows form

OM-5 function equals form

OM-10 function follows value