I fixed the OM-3' akward proportions

I don't own an OM-3, but the OM-3 body appears to closely match the size and layout of the OM-2 film camera.

I took my vernier calipers to my OM-2 SP (Spot Program), and the W/H/D dimensions seem to match the OM-D OM-3 to within about a millimeter.

The offset of the lens mount also seems similar.

I think OM-D, in seeking to contain an OM1ii-like camera in a smaller body, decided to copy a classic layout.

Those that want a more modern take on the look can probably go with the OM-5ii.

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

julius_emanuel said:

gary0319 said:

No to mention that the OP elminated the top rear-dial altogether. There's no free lunch, something has to give.

Click to expand...

It is a quick mockup and not an accurate representation..

Olympus proved with the E-M5 and E-M10 with all its succesors, that you can make a small body with excellent ergonomics for the size with 2 top dials. So OM DS should give us a hiqh quality body in a small form factor as the E-M5II was for example.

OM-3 is premium priced fullframe sized body which makes no sense to me in the micro four thirds eco system (an A7CII is smaller, a Sigma BF similar sized for example). Micro Four Thirds needs to be micro again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the earlier generation Olympus m4/3rds cameras are the ones I like the most. The compact, premium, stylish retro cameras are the reason I bought into m4/3rds. Metal bodies with a size related reasuring heft that commucated a solid, quality product.

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

gary0319 said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So, maybe that metal frame is where all the internal components or subassemblies are mounted, and the shell is just that the shell. Another marketing boggyman?

Click to expand...

And where then does the rear panel and your other rear subassemblies attach?

Those magnesium shell camera bodies are known as monocoque chassis, mening "single shell" in French.

Monocoque is an aircraft or vehicle structure in which the chassis is integral with the body. Also known as "structural skin" or "unibody".

An excellent example is the Olympus Em1:


EM1.2 monocoque chassis

Notice how it is enclosed on all sides to create the strongest possible and yet lightweight camera body . The non-structural rear panel and handgrip attach to the outside of the structural shell.

Now of course you can leave the rear and a side off and replace by a weaker plastic. And attach your rear panel etc to that. But it is not anymore that much strong and monocoque anymore, is it? It's much more like a convertible with cloth roof, no?

OM marketing told all their ambassadors it's an all metal camera chassis. They all repeated it in chorus, all over the internet. And yet, you desperately search for imaginary bogeymans. Men, your bogeymans ARE the OM marketing department team itself.

When exactly did OM change the specification sheet to:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Because last time I looked up OM3 specifications, I could bet it said something slightly different than today. It said something like magnesium shell and aluminium top and bottom plates. They duped everybody.

Here the OM3 specifications on today's Australian OM page, looks like those Construction materials are changing on the fly, eh? And there is no revision history for the specifications, with dates and what was changed and why. Metal just magically turns to plastic, and nobody notices. Of course not, once you are done with your evaluation and placed your pre-order, nobody checks the specs page anymore for changes:

JakeJY said:

James Stirling said:

AURA PA said:

challenger12 said:

AURA PA said:

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.

Click to expand...

Interestingly Sony manage to get all the necessary stuff, along with a full frame sensor and an equally powerful battery, into the a7CR. In fact, it’s smaller than the OM-5.

Click to expand...

They didn't though, did they. They fit an older, very slow sensor in the A7CR (among other compromises). The smallest stacked sensor MILC Sony sells is 24MP, $4500 and weighs 678g. It lacks the burst speed and AI detection modes the OM-3 offers, and the DR in E-shutter isn't great for FF.

The A7CR is NOT smaller than the OM-5, because, you know, math.

OM-5: 531k cu mm

A7CR: 555k cu mm

Zfc: 558k cu mm

OM-3: 569k cu mm

X-T5: 757k cu mm

Click to expand...

Funny I see a couple of other "accounts" like to compare with cu mm. The poor grip on the OM-5 and especially the no grip OM-3 help out if you want to use that metric . The bonus plastic components in the OM-5 also help keep the weight down

Click to expand...

Volume accounts for chunkiness which most comparisons miss (they tend to look at the front only). It's not just the grip either, the A7C as a whole is thicker even if you ignore the grip part.

Click to expand...

JakeJY said:

That chunkiness matters if you intend to slip the camera into a jacket pocket (I know because I did a ton of comparisons before settling on the GX85).

Click to expand...

If I wanted small enough to fit in a jacket pocket , presumably you mean suit jacket ? as a lot of outdoor jackets have rather large pockets. I would go with the RX100 V even with the smallest zoom in m43 , it will be larger and heavier and sacrifice any DOF /total light gathering advantage will having a narrower focal range. You can of course put a small prime on the GX85 which would give you back the DOF/total light advantage with no zoom. Though it is still larger and heavier





Though , lets face it for the vast majority of folk who would want a pocket sized camera they will just use their phone , which is already with them





--
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

James Stirling said:

JakeJY said:

That chunkiness matters if you intend to slip the camera into a jacket pocket (I know because I did a ton of comparisons before settling on the GX85).

Click to expand...

If I wanted small enough to fit in a jacket pocket , presumably you mean suit jacket ? as a lot of outdoor jackets have rather large pockets. I would go with the RX100 V even with the smallest zoom in m43 , it will be larger and heavier and sacrifice any DOF /total light gathering advantage will having a narrower focal range. You can of course put a small prime on the GX85 which would give you back the DOF/total light advantage with no zoom. Though it is still larger and heavier



Though , lets face it for the vast majority of folk who would want a pocket sized camera they will just use their phone , which is already with them

Click to expand...

Both my suit jacket and everyday windbreaker jacket. I was looking for something I can shove into a pocket as a replacement to my Nikon point and shoot.

The GX85 with the 12-32mm fit that. And I got it for only $300 due to a price error (although the correct sale price of $500 was not bad either):

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59860870

The RX100 V I believe was about $800 at the time, and overall is far less capable and flexible (with an ILC I was able to kit it out with the 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 and a flash to replace my DSLR too for the occasions carry a camera bag). Actually at the time, I wasn't even looking for an ILC, I was attracted to the Nikon DL line (which was cancelled).

In my search, I was also interested in the Nikon 1 J5. I compared the size of a ton of different mirrorless and pancake lens combos. The GM1/GM5/GX850 ended up as the top candidate. I only stepped up to the GX85 because it was such a great value, with far more features, and I measured that it was still going to fit in my jacket pockets with the lens attached.

As for using the phone, I do use that too whenever possible, but the ILC still beats it when the photos actually matter.

cba_melbourne said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

julius_emanuel said:

cba_melbourne said:

No to mention that the OP elminated the top rear-dial altogether. There's no free lunch, something has to give.

Click to expand...

It is a quick mockup and not an accurate representation..

Olympus proved with the E-M5 and E-M10 with all its succesors, that you can make a small body with excellent ergonomics for the size with 2 top dials. So OM DS should give us a hiqh quality body in a small form factor as the E-M5II was for example.

OM-3 is premium priced fullframe sized body which makes no sense to me in the micro four thirds eco system (an A7CII is smaller, a Sigma BF similar sized for example). Micro Four Thirds needs to be micro again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the earlier generation Olympus m4/3rds cameras are the ones I like the most. The compact, premium, stylish retro cameras are the reason I bought into m4/3rds. Metal bodies with a size related reasuring heft that commucated a solid, quality product.

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

cba_melbourne said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So, maybe that metal frame is where all the internal components or subassemblies are mounted, and the shell is just that the shell. Another marketing boggyman?

Click to expand...

And where then does the rear panel and your other rear subassemblies attach?

Those magnesium shell camera bodies are known as monocoque chassis, mening "single shell" in French.

Monocoque is an aircraft or vehicle structure in which the chassis is integral with the body. Also known as "structural skin" or "unibody".

An excellent example is the Olympus Em1:


EM1.2 monocoque chassis

Notice how it is enclosed on all sides to create the strongest possible and yet lightweight camera body . The non-structural rear panel and handgrip attach to the outside of the structural shell.

Now of course you can leave the rear and a side off and replace by a weaker plastic. And attach your rear panel etc to that. But it is not anymore that much strong and monocoque anymore, is it? It's much more like a convertible with cloth roof, no?

OM marketing told all their ambassadors it's an all metal camera chassis. They all repeated it in chorus, all over the internet.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what OMDS ambassadors said, but there were people on this forum who were saying the OM-3 has a metal body without inserting the word 'part'.

cba_melbourne said:

And yet, you desperately search for imaginary bogeymans. Men, your bogeymans ARE the OM marketing department team itself.

When exactly did OM change the specification sheet to:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Because last time I looked up OM3 specifications, I could bet it said something slightly different than today. It said something like magnesium shell and aluminium top and bottom plates. They duped everybody.

Here the OM3 specifications on today's Australian OM page, looks like those Construction materials are changing on the fly, eh? And there is no revision history for the specifications, with dates and what was changed and why. Metal just magically turns to plastic, and nobody notices. Of course not, once you are done with your evaluation and placed your pre-order, nobody checks the specs page anymore for changes:

Click to expand...

[No message]

cba_melbourne said:

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

Click to expand...

I doubt the official statement that the OM-5 Mark II has a magnesium chassis, because in a repair video by Kolari (infrared specialist) of an OM-5 Mark I you can only see a black main frame made entirely of at most short fiber reinforced plastic. I do not think that OM Digital Solutions has completely reworked the internal construction, as such a functionally integrated part made of plastic cannot be made 1:1 from metal.

If they mean the small metal part of the sensor stabilization unit, it's pure marketing. Above all, it would also be wrong, as steel and not magnesium has to be used to hold the magnets.

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

julius_emanuel said:

cba_melbourne said:

No to mention that the OP elminated the top rear-dial altogether. There's no free lunch, something has to give.

Click to expand...

It is a quick mockup and not an accurate representation..

Olympus proved with the E-M5 and E-M10 with all its succesors, that you can make a small body with excellent ergonomics for the size with 2 top dials. So OM DS should give us a hiqh quality body in a small form factor as the E-M5II was for example.

OM-3 is premium priced fullframe sized body which makes no sense to me in the micro four thirds eco system (an A7CII is smaller, a Sigma BF similar sized for example). Micro Four Thirds needs to be micro again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the earlier generation Olympus m4/3rds cameras are the ones I like the most. The compact, premium, stylish retro cameras are the reason I bought into m4/3rds. Metal bodies with a size related reasuring heft that commucated a solid, quality product.

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

cba_melbourne said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

gary0319 said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back? If you look closely at the others, they aren't one piece, there are screws holding the back piece. It makes zero sense for it to be one piece, because how would you be able to install the circuit board in that case?

Edit: found example of E-M1, it is not one piece even though a lot of demos show them as such:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

JakeJY said:

JakeJY said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

JakeJY said:

JakeJY said:

JakeJY said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

JakeJY said:

JakeJY said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

JakeJY said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal front, top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

JakeJY said:

If you look closely at the others, they aren't one piece, there are screws holding the back piece. It makes zero sense for it to be one piece, because how would you be able to install the circuit board in that case?

Edit: found example of E-M1, it is not one piece even though a lot of demos show them as such:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/10/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-1/

Click to expand...

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

Cafe Racer said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

Click to expand...

I also don’t recall anywhere there being a claim to the OM-3 having a full metal body. Actually, my OM-3 is heavy enough as it is.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

If you look closely at the others, they aren't one piece, there are screws holding the back piece. It makes zero sense for it to be one piece, because how would you be able to install the circuit board in that case?

Edit: found example of E-M1, it is not one piece even though a lot of demos show them as such:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/10/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-1/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

gary0319 said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

Click to expand...

I also don’t recall anywhere there being a claim to the OM-3 having a full metal body.

Click to expand...

I believe it likely started with 43rumors where they described the OM-3 as having, Professional quality – compact form: Lightweight metal body.

gary0319 said:

Actually, my OM-3 is heavy enough as it is.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

If you look closely at the others, they aren't one piece, there are screws holding the back piece. It makes zero sense for it to be one piece, because how would you be able to install the circuit board in that case?

Edit: found example of E-M1, it is not one piece even though a lot of demos show them as such:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/10/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-1/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

Cafe Racer said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

Click to expand...

I also don’t recall anywhere there being a claim to the OM-3 having a full metal body.

Click to expand...

I believe it likely started with 43rumors where they described the OM-3 as having, Professional quality – compact form: Lightweight metal body.

Cafe Racer said:

Actually, my OM-3 is heavy enough as it is.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

If you look closely at the others, they aren't one piece, there are screws holding the back piece. It makes zero sense for it to be one piece, because how would you be able to install the circuit board in that case?

Edit: found example of E-M1, it is not one piece even though a lot of demos show them as such:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/10/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-1/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In their zeal to be “first to publish” M43 Rumors seems to be responsible for a lot of misinformation. Then after it gets spun around the sites like this one, the manufacturer is blamed for misleading marketing. Marketing is justifiably suspect enough without any help from M43 and others.

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

gary0319 said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

Click to expand...

I also don’t recall anywhere there being a claim to the OM-3 having a full metal body.

Click to expand...

I believe it likely started with 43rumors where they described the OM-3 as having, Professional quality – compact form: Lightweight metal body.

gary0319 said:

Actually, my OM-3 is heavy enough as it is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In their zeal to be “first to publish” M43 Rumors seems to be responsible for a lot of misinformation.

Click to expand...

Hang on, this is what the OM System website says:

"....featuring a metal body and weather-sealing to truly untether yourself from everyday life and embrace new adventures."

gary0319 said:

Then after it gets spun around the sites like this one, the manufacturer is blamed for misleading marketing.

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Marketing is justifiably suspect enough without any help from M43 and others.

Click to expand...

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

Cafe Racer said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

Click to expand...

I also don’t recall anywhere there being a claim to the OM-3 having a full metal body.

Click to expand...

I believe it likely started with 43rumors where they described the OM-3 as having, Professional quality – compact form: Lightweight metal body.

Cafe Racer said:

Actually, my OM-3 is heavy enough as it is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In their zeal to be “first to publish” M43 Rumors seems to be responsible for a lot of misinformation.

Click to expand...

Hang on, this is what the OM System website says:

"....featuring a metal body and weather-sealing to truly untether yourself from everyday life and embrace new adventures."

Cafe Racer said:

Then after it gets spun around the sites like this one, the manufacturer is blamed for misleading marketing.

Marketing is justifiably suspect enough without any help from M43 and others.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As I said, marketing is justifiably suspect.

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

gary0319 said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

Click to expand...

I also don’t recall anywhere there being a claim to the OM-3 having a full metal body.

Click to expand...

I believe it likely started with 43rumors where they described the OM-3 as having, Professional quality – compact form: Lightweight metal body.

gary0319 said:

Actually, my OM-3 is heavy enough as it is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In their zeal to be “first to publish” M43 Rumors seems to be responsible for a lot of misinformation.

Click to expand...

Hang on, this is what the OM System website says:

"....featuring a metal body and weather-sealing to truly untether yourself from everyday life and embrace new adventures."

gary0319 said:

Then after it gets spun around the sites like this one, the manufacturer is blamed for misleading marketing.

Marketing is justifiably suspect enough without any help from M43 and others.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As I said, marketing is justifiably suspect.

Click to expand...

Could it be that Thomas Eisl gave the most accurate description?

[URL='https://youtu.be/jXwEPC6KYNY?si=ynrVytUU9_QcXs-L']3[/URL] Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

gary0319 said:

Cafe Racer said:

JakeJY said:

gary0319 said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.

Click to expand...

How did you find that out?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to.

Click to expand...

You say backless. Do you mean that the backplate is not metal?

Click to expand...

It's not a full chassis with cut outs like the E-1 shown below. There's no back or left side as can be seen in the pictures. I got the pictures of the 'bare bones' OM-3 from Japanese site dc.watch.impress.

Click to expand...

That is a good observation. I would never have thought one could design such a nice expensive chassis, then finish off the back and left with plastic. But you could be right.

The OM website says now under technical specifications:

Construction: Magnesium alloy frame in a glass-reinforced polycarbonate outer shell

Which is indeed not how one would describe an all-metal camera.

This weird description could translate, like the rear and left side are made in their usual PC-GF10 plastic.

And in this case, all the reviews that claimed it is an all metal camera must have been mislead by OM marketing. Hmmmm

https://explore.omsystem.com/au/en/om-5-mark-ii :

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

If so, I just wonder where you found that information. Because everywhere I look they all speak about an all-metal construction.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

Premium. Olympus E-1.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

Cafe Racer said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just noticed that the specs you inserted are for the OM-5 II not the OM-3, that kind of confused me as I was responding to the pics of the OM-3 and made the assumption the specs related to the pictures. Nice to see that there is some non-plastic parts to the OM-5 II, though.

Click to expand...

I was confused also, this is what it still says for O-M3:

Type

Body material

Magnesium alloy body

https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/om-3

Also in the copy: "The OM-3 weighs less than 500 grams while maintaining an IP53-rated, full-metal body."

Are we sure there isn't a mag alloy back piece that is screwed into the back?

Click to expand...

Reviewer Thomas Eisl (everyone's favourite!) says the OM-3 metal top and bottom plates are combined with a polymer rear. The pictures from dc.watch.impress of the backless sub structure of the OM-3 seems to tie in with this. Dpreview describes the OM-3 as having metal bottom and top plates in their overview. I saw no mention of a full metal body construction.

Click to expand...

I also don’t recall anywhere there being a claim to the OM-3 having a full metal body.

Click to expand...

I believe it likely started with 43rumors where they described the OM-3 as having, Professional quality – compact form: Lightweight metal body.

Cafe Racer said:

Actually, my OM-3 is heavy enough as it is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In their zeal to be “first to publish” M43 Rumors seems to be responsible for a lot of misinformation.

Click to expand...

Hang on, this is what the OM System website says:

"....featuring a metal body and weather-sealing to truly untether yourself from everyday life and embrace new adventures."

Cafe Racer said:

Then after it gets spun around the sites like this one, the manufacturer is blamed for misleading marketing.

Marketing is justifiably suspect enough without any help from M43 and others.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As I said, marketing is justifiably suspect.

Click to expand...

Could it be that Thomas Eisl gave the most accurate description?

Click to expand...

Thomas Eisl OM-3

I hadn’t seen this Eisl review before. But, at about 3:30 + in he alludes too the OM-3 body as having a metal mainframe, with a metal top and baseplate, and a polymer back…. or something like that. Seems about right.

WilyKit said:

Yes, whenever it's suggested that they should have made the slightest investment in research and development, the response is that everything would become unaffordable.

Click to expand...

A large reason Olympus ended up selling its camera division was due to over investment in R&D - a very healthy R&D folio was inherited in the transfer to OMS.
Like a lot of R&D it can take years to become commercially viable and hit the market. And like a lot of companies, they milk their current R&D as much as possible.

You are also not correct in the assumption that the OM-5 is just a recycled EM5-3. It was the same body that accommodates the the processor, sensor and updated gyroscope of the EM-1-3. The EM1.3 was released 3 years earlier before they put the majority of it in an OM5.

That there was zero R&D in the development OM-3 is also a false assumption. It would actually require a considerable amount of R&D to make that body IP53-rated from scratch.

Beside the OM-1.2 Name a body for the price that has the complete feature set of the OM-3 ? which cameras have pre-capture in RAW? A stacked sensor? IBIS Gyroscopes that provide HHHR, Live ND, Live composite modes?

And consider the R&D that provided all those features. Who released these first features first? Which company employs them to the full extent on a camera body at this price point? And who inherited the R&D folio from that same company?

The fact that OMS is using providing the features in another camera 3 years after the release of the OM-1.

If you look at other manufacturers they essentially recycle many parts. The Z50ii uses a variant sensor of the D500, the R10 a variant of the 77D sensor found in multiple M series bodies, the R7 a variant of the M6ii.

Do you think baseless assumptions and ill informed speculation is in anyway useful?

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

julius_emanuel said:

Cafe Racer said:

No to mention that the OP elminated the top rear-dial altogether. There's no free lunch, something has to give.

Click to expand...

It is a quick mockup and not an accurate representation..

Olympus proved with the E-M5 and E-M10 with all its succesors, that you can make a small body with excellent ergonomics for the size with 2 top dials. So OM DS should give us a hiqh quality body in a small form factor as the E-M5II was for example.

OM-3 is premium priced fullframe sized body which makes no sense to me in the micro four thirds eco system (an A7CII is smaller, a Sigma BF similar sized for example). Micro Four Thirds needs to be micro again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the earlier generation Olympus m4/3rds cameras are the ones I like the most. The compact, premium, stylish retro cameras are the reason I bought into m4/3rds. Metal bodies with a size related reasuring heft that commucated a solid, quality product.

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.


Premium. Olympus E-1.

Cafe Racer said:

Cafe Racer said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

Cafe Racer said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The E-1 like other metal body cameras has several pieces screwed together. For example the Sony A7/9/1 bodies:





The OM3 above is not showing two of the three metal pieces comprising the outer shell.

ardohy said:

Cafe Racer said:

cba_melbourne said:

Cafe Racer said:

julius_emanuel said:

ardohy said:

No to mention that the OP elminated the top rear-dial altogether. There's no free lunch, something has to give.

Click to expand...

It is a quick mockup and not an accurate representation..

Olympus proved with the E-M5 and E-M10 with all its succesors, that you can make a small body with excellent ergonomics for the size with 2 top dials. So OM DS should give us a hiqh quality body in a small form factor as the E-M5II was for example.

OM-3 is premium priced fullframe sized body which makes no sense to me in the micro four thirds eco system (an A7CII is smaller, a Sigma BF similar sized for example). Micro Four Thirds needs to be micro again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the earlier generation Olympus m4/3rds cameras are the ones I like the most. The compact, premium, stylish retro cameras are the reason I bought into m4/3rds. Metal bodies with a size related reasuring heft that commucated a solid, quality product.

The lazy design, oversized OM-3 only has a part metal body

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

Backless.


Premium. Olympus E-1.

ardohy said:

ardohy said:

that weighs less than the much smaller E-M5ii when their batteries are removed. Cheap, thin materials with a large battery that adds weight, trying mimick the premium build of the earlier generation cameras!

ardohy said:

The OM-1 is still there as a niche for those who need a large grip with best ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The E-1 like other metal body cameras has several pieces screwed together. For example the Sony A7/9/1 bodies:



The OM3 above is not showing two of the three metal pieces comprising the outer shell.

Click to expand...

See here.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68337808