Growing niche argument for a "real" OM-5 Mark II

[EZGritz]

You are probably a better chef.

 

[EZGritz]

What would you want to add to it when you have the M1X?

The OM-1 menu. More Live ND filters. Subject recognition is probably not important in this body. It isn't to me in the EM5.3. The new sensor is nice to have, but not have to have.

I agree it pretty much has everything needed for the intended purposes. I noticed you migrated from some pretty good Nikon gear. Some people have both systems. The D500 is still appealing to me.

--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y

 

[BleeKar]

What would you want to add to it when you have the M1X?

Smaller size than the M1X. I use them differently.

The OM-1 menu. More Live ND filters. Subject recognition is probably not important in this body. It isn't to me in the EM5.3. The new sensor is nice to have, but not have to have.

Agree with this

I agree it pretty much has everything needed for the intended purposes. I noticed you migrated from some pretty good Nikon gear. Some people have both systems. The D500 is still appealing to me.

My Nikon gear was showing its age. Too much bulk to travel with. Olympus is smaller, more nimble with lens options to cover all my needs. With the OM-5 I can toss it in my duffle and not have to worry about the weather conditions. Although buttons are hard to manage when my fingers get cold and stiff.

 

[inlawbiker]

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

I don't think it's a niche argument, it's what everyone has been saying since the E-M5 III became more like an E-M10. They held it back a little, for whatever reasons they had, from the top-notch level cameras the original E-M5 and mark II were.

Not everybody wants a DSLR style body even as compact as the OM-1 is. It's not ideal for street or travel photos.

The OM-5 actually makes me a little concerned for OM-S, as though they only had enough people to work on the OM-1 while they dropped everything else.

G.

 

[ahaslett]

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

I don't think it's a niche argument, it's what everyone has been saying since the E-M5 III became more like an E-M10. They held it back a little, for whatever reasons they had, from the top-notch level cameras the original E-M5 and mark II were.

Not everybody wants a DSLR style body even as compact as the OM-1 is. It's not ideal for street or travel photos.

The OM-5 actually makes me a little concerned for OM-S, as though they only had enough people to work on the OM-1 while they dropped everything else.

G.

JIP will be imposing strict cashflow targets. You can see that OMDS is pretty aggressive in discounting to find optimum price/volume points (eg OM1 falling from £1,999 to £1,724 after less than a year for a couple of weeks and then bouncing back to £1,979 full price and £1,824 on discount), as well as discounting to shift slow moving stock.

I'm guessing that cash-to-cash analysis on developments is key to prioritising development effort. When your whole business is niche in the market, you need to be careful.

I'm also thinking that OMDS may have contracts to take various parts where they need to use them up or incur penalties. So cash management will go back into the design details of bodies. They also have the problem of moving away from Olympus branding on all new production with at least a token effort in "upgrading", eg the 12-40mm mk ii.

Complaining that OMDS are not developing products like Canon or Sony runs contrary to their market position and the approach that JIP will take.

Andrew

 

[abe4652]

My niche argument is that subject recognition AF is so good in the OM-1 that even elementary schoolers like my own could have huge amounts of fun with it, if that AF was packaged in a small and light enough body. My growing niche argument is that sharing the joy of birding (moosing, racing, planing, etc.) at a young age will lead to more young adults enjoying the hobby.

I don't think it's a niche argument, it's what everyone has been saying since the E-M5 III became more like an E-M10. They held it back a little, for whatever reasons they had, from the top-notch level cameras the original E-M5 and mark II were.

Not everybody wants a DSLR style body even as compact as the OM-1 is. It's not ideal for street or travel photos.

The OM-5 actually makes me a little concerned for OM-S, as though they only had enough people to work on the OM-1 while they dropped everything else.

G.

How was the em5 mark 3 worse than the 2?

 

[EZGritz]

I don't think OLY could have put all of the EM1.3 features and functions in the EM1.3 nor could they do it for the price. The EM1.3 was hundreds of dollars more expensive MSRP and the EM5.3 body is smaller making the heat dissipation and packaging engineering more difficult.

I have no concern for OMS. I think they are doing pretty well and are owned by a well-healed company. We don't about everything they have been working on or what their product plans are. Some of it is driven by what is possible to engineer in a smaller body. The OM-5 does some things the EM10 can't. They are differentiated.

 

[Impulses]

It took Oly entirely too long to bring OSPDAF down from the original E-M1 to a smaller/cheaper model, and now it looks like it'll take OM entirely too long to do the same with the OM-1... To a certain extent I actually get that the challenge is now greater, because they probably developed everything around the even faster sensor readout of the OM-1 and bringing that kinda sensor to a more affordable body may not be feasible...

But it still leaves them without really great options down the lineup, and rehashing the E-M5 III by way of the OM-5 was prolly not a good sign. Pana put DFD on everything relatively quickly, Canon put dual pixel AF on absolutely everything, Sony often introduces newer AF tech on lower end models (A7C before A7 IV, a6### with real time tracking before many A7 models, etc) and everything now has OSPDAF...

Fuji has put OSPDAF on everything too tho they might be slightly behind the pace overall, Nikon is actually facing a similar dilemma in bringing the great AF from the Z8/Z9 to their lower end series but it's still kinda early days there... It'll be interesting to see how Pana handles OSPDAF now that they've dipped their toe there, I'm sure it'll show up on a GH or high end G body first but will it migrate down within the year?

In a lot of cases these are things that don't really need anything that's inherently tied or exclusive to a larger flagship body (stacked sensors aside), so keeping it from the rest of the lineup is shooting yourself in the foot imo.

 

[Impulses]

Sounds like a good idea while they are working on fitting the OM-1 innards to the OM-5. It would interest me. Sort of an almost as good as an OM-1 for less money. Maybe they can do it.

If they include the OM-1 menu that alone would generate some sales. I'm happy with the physical body and don't need the base strengthened. I've had no trouble with the EM53 base and neither have the vast majority of owners. I don't want them to make the body any heavier. Lightweight is one of the reasons I own it. Either the OMS grip or a leather half-case would strengthen it. I'd rather go that way and add something besides weight.

 

[EZGritz]

OMS can't be Canon or SONY. C&S funding comes from multiple sources. Probably they can bleed a little cash if they want to from other businesses like OLY did. I think you are right that OMS is probably managed like a separate small niche company and it is imposing limitations on what they can do, how fast, and when. Fiscal discipline is a good thing. Probably OMS has to pay for itself at some point and return a yearly profit to the parent company. If not, why own it?

I don't see the balance sheet but I suspect if it were me I'd look to focus on profitable products and not fund loss leaders or break even low-cost products to try to snag customers and upgrade them. I think those days are gone with the unit volume decline and replacement of most of the compact camera business with cell phones. For small niche players at least.

I think lower overall unit volume means more expensive products and products and product lines that have to justify their existence financially. It might slow the release of new models but since some of them are incremental improvements I'm not sure it's important. I'd rather wait for a significantly better camera than jump on every new model for minor improvements. Perception matters a lot though. It's hard to market products that look old and dated. Without outstanding products it's a tough business.

 

[EZGritz]

In almost all cases I don't need PDAF on the EM5.3 or OM-5. I could live without it. I have the OM-1 for the rest of what I photograph.

I took 100 photos yesterday with SAF which only uses CDAF and is more accurate than PDAF to prove to myself SAF works on the OM-1. You only need PDAF for moving subjects but for years I did OK at sports photography with CDAF-only bodies. PDAF is easier for that but not absolutely necessary. What did we do when we only had film and MF? We learned how to use it and did well.

Cannabolizing your $2,000 camera with sales of your $700-$1,200 camera is shooting yourself in the foot. Sometimes firmware features and functions require more expensive and larger bodies. Not everything can be done in tiny bodies with the same hardware assuming it fits.

The ASP-C bodies can not match the flagship FF bodies from C, N, and S. You give up something for smaller, less expensive bodies.

--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y

 

[ahaslett]

OMS can't be Canon or SONY. C&S funding comes from multiple sources. Probably they can bleed a little cash if they want to from other businesses like OLY did. I think you are right that OMS is probably managed like a separate small niche company and it is imposing limitations on what they can do, how fast, and when. Fiscal discipline is a good thing. Probably OMS has to pay for itself at some point and return a yearly profit to the parent company. If not, why own it?

I don't see the balance sheet but I suspect if it were me I'd look to focus on profitable products and not fund loss leaders or break even low-cost products to try to snag customers and upgrade them. I think those days are gone with the unit volume decline and replacement of most of the compact camera business with cell phones. For small niche players at least.

I think lower overall unit volume means more expensive products and products and product lines that have to justify their existence financially. It might slow the release of new models but since some of them are incremental improvements I'm not sure it's important. I'd rather wait for a significantly better camera than jump on every new model for minor improvements. Perception matters a lot though. It's hard to market products that look old and dated. Without outstanding products it's a tough business.

I agree with all of that, but I think that cash requirements are even more important than profit. Profit growth drives business valuation but sustainability depends on cash calls, especially when the cost of borrowing is high.

It isn't that hard to believe that OMDS management have been told that they have to manage within their own cash generation from quarter to quarter.

Although that prevents "breakthroughs", it is also an excellent risk management discipline. If OMDS management can increase cash generation, they will likely be allowed to reinvest it to increase profit growth.

If you are not sure what the difference is between profit and cash, there are lots of places where you can find out more. When you talk about returning a profit, you are mixing cash (which can be returned) and profit (which can't). You don't have to be profitable to generate cash (asset stripping) and many profitable companies generate little cash (rapid growth).

JIP will have an exit strategy for OMDS. Where that falls between asset stripping and trade sale following profitable growth only they can know. In any case, what they are likely interested in is total cash in to total cash out over maybe five years.

Andrew

 

[EZGritz]

I don't care that much about the 55g and I use a half case on it anyway, more for looks, a comfortable grip but also to protect the body from dings and scratches and it does support the base plate not that it's something that matters to me. It's strong enough for my purposes and I have three other bodies if I need a stronger baseplate. I don't even use a tripod once a year. With HHHR, I'm not sure I'll ever use a tripod again. It would have to be for something special I haven't seen in years. I'm not interested in carrying the camera on a shoulder strap. I use a wrist strap and have a bag over my shoulder for anything else.

The Em5.3/OM-5 is just OK with me as they are.

 

[EZGritz]

Excuse me. I understand free cash flow. I don't know JIP's plans for OMS but I know I would not want it to burn too much cash for too long. That will impact valuation if I want to spin it off and limit the number of interested buyers if I wanted to sell a turnaround story from loss to profitability, not to mention impact on the career of the managers. Not as many will be interested in buying a company that lost money for years when it was part of OLY, then reorganized, presumably cost reduced, and still lost more money for five years for JIT. A case can be made for continual losses for competitive product improvement but not forever. OMS is worth more if it can be proven to make money and the sooner the better to establish a pattern and reach an exit point if that's the goal.

 

[ahaslett]

Excuse me. I understand free cash flow. I don't know JIP's plans for OMS but I know I would not want it to burn too much cash for too long. That will impact valuation if I want to spin it off and limit the number of interested buyers if I wanted to sell a turnaround story from loss to profitability, not to mention impact on the career of the managers. Not as many will be interested in buying a company that lost money for years when it was part of OLY, then reorganized, presumably cost reduced, and still lost more money for five years for JIT. A case can be made for continual losses for competitive product improvement but not forever. OMS is worth more if it can be proven to make money and the sooner the better to establish a pattern and reach an exit point if that's the goal.

That’s good. Your comment about “returning a yearly profit to JIP” misled me.

A

 

[MNE]

I am just saying that if the guy is a Pro photographer, then we shouldn't suggest that he use an entry level camera. He can use whatever he wants to, just like you and me.

 

[Impulses]

I don't care that much about the 55g and I use a half case on it anyway, more for looks, a comfortable grip but also to protect the body from dings and scratches and it does support the base plate not that it's something that matters to me. It's strong enough for my purposes and I have three other bodies if I need a stronger baseplate. I don't even use a tripod once a year. With HHHR, I'm not sure I'll ever use a tripod again. It would have to be for something special I haven't seen in years. I'm not interested in carrying the camera on a shoulder strap. I use a wrist strap and have a bag over my shoulder for anything else.

The Em5.3/OM-5 is just OK with me as they are.

 

[Impulses]

In almost all cases I don't need PDAF on the EM5.3 or OM-5. I could live without it. I have the OM-1 for the rest of what I photograph.

I took 100 photos yesterday with SAF which only uses CDAF and is more accurate than PDAF to prove to myself SAF works on the OM-1. You only need PDAF for moving subjects but for years I did OK at sports photography with CDAF-only bodies. PDAF is easier for that but not absolutely necessary. What did we do when we only had film and MF? We learned how to use it and did well.

Again, that's great for you, but across the market good C-AF and good tracking have become table stakes. So if Oly wants to stay competitive they can't just cater to buyers like you.

Cannabolizing your $2,000 camera with sales of your $700-$1,200 camera is shooting yourself in the foot. Sometimes firmware features and functions require more expensive and larger bodies. Not everything can be done in tiny bodies with the same hardware assuming it fits.

If good C-AF & tracking are the only reason for a higher end model to exist (they're not but this is your logic) then they're in even more trouble than I thought...

 

[EZGritz]

Sure. His choice if he's a pro or not. He can use what he wants. The more advanced cameras may have a capability that doesn't help him because of the kind of photography he does when they are designed for something else. He can fall back to an older camera. They offer everything he needs. It doesn't mean there is something wrong with the new one and he shouldn't say there is if that's what he's saying.

He's a professional camera gear reviewer. The dilemma he's facing is the brand he's been supporting for years is going in a direction he is not. He appears to be frustrated about it and I can understand that. As a professional, he's doing damage to himself if he takes the frustration public and he has. Compare with Peter Forsgard's separation from OMS. Much more professional.

When Robin's brand goes in another direction it's a problem for him because reviewers can't make money reviewing old gear. If he can't exercise the new gear because it's designed for photography he doesn't do that's the real problem. It erases his value as a brand ambassador and gear reviewer. Maybe he needs to say goodbye to OMS, that's a question for him. If he's saying there is something wrong with the new model it's OK to say so but it needs to be qualified. I see similar complaints posted but as far as I can see they are in situations way out at the extreme edge of photography where they are rarely encountered. I tried to replicate the problem with 100 photos and could not. I concluded there either is no problem and people are imagining it or passing on something someone else says is true but they haven't seen themself and it isn't, or the chances it will cause a problem are so remote that it isn't worth mentioning. As Thomas Eisel who shoots both Nikon FF and the OM-1 says, no camera is perfect and all of them are going to fail sometimes. He blames himself for most of the failures after doing an extensive analysis of his professional work over more than 10 years. He says it was always that he didn't pay attention to camera settings and he asked the camera to do something he knew it could not do.

Three prominent and popular Pro photographers who use OLY/OMS gear have discussed this issue in videos. Robin, Peter, and Thomas. They seem to have concluded that there are some situations where the OM-1 will fail using SAF and its been reported on DPR. The problem for me is I can't replicate the problem leading me to believe it is very rare. The other problem is the rapid of spread of misleading information on all social networks where something is pass along that is out of context or without evidence and example, or enough contextual information. It's reality-distorting and it can give perfectly good products undeserved bad reputations and kill them. I think the SAF OM-1 issue is a good example though the camera is far from being killed and I think it will blow over when enough people see they don't have the problem enough for it to matter to them. But meanwhile, Robin drops back to an EM1.2 because he says SAF isn't as reliable on the OM-1 and I don't think he's offering the complete picture and it's causing some to people to think - Oh, the OM-1 is a bad camera, a defective design - because that's what people like to do. I hear from other Pros complaints about other brands. Show me a perfect camera that can do everything perfectly every time. No such camera. OM-1 is good enough for me. It way exceeds my skills as a photographer. So far it has never failed me in any mode.

I watched many of Robin's videos and read most of his product posts over the years. They are opinions with examples, not detailed guides but they have been very good for what they are. The problem for Robin and many reviewers is it's hard to find a bad camera that was offered as far back as 10 years or more. They are all great. They all make great images if you know how to use them and you can make them all fail if you try.

Robin is a great photographer of the kind of photography that he practices and probably he can be great at any kind of photography. But at the same time, the kind of photography he does does not push the technology very far and he can make great photos with 10-year-old cameras and he always has. He can make great photos with an EM-10. Now OMS is going in a different direction and his photography does not benefit much from current camera tech more than old camera tech does. It's a dilemma for all photography reviewers that almost all cameras made in the last 10 years are so capable that they have to push the camera beyond the average use case for most photographers to find the camera's limits. When a 10-year-old camera can work for most photographers the average reviewer of new gear, the camera reviewer, not the camera is obsolete.

Do I need to watch a video that says the new model is great? No, I do not. I know it's great. the one they made 10 years ago was great and the new one is better. If you post a video proclaiming the deficiencies of a format or a model or a brand people throw rocks at you. How do you add value as a camera gear reviewer?

I no longer watch most camera review videos because they don't add anything to what I already know and they do not have any more depth to them than the guy I run into at the lake does. In fact, the experience of the guy at the lake may offer more. My interest has migrated from simple video opinions of professionals to in-depth user guides. I don't care so much if a photographer likes a system/brand/model or not. I want to learn how to use it. An opinion video does not help me with that. Robin makes opinion videos. Great if that's what you need. It isn't what I need. I'd rather pick the camera up and make my own opinion for my own use from my own experience. I care more about that than I do what Robin or any other camera reviewer thinks of the basic capability of the camera and in most review videos that's all you get. I'm lucky because I live close to a very good full-service camera store that will loan out anything they have for a test drive. I know for the majority of photographers maybe, they don't have this benefit. So many camera stores have closed and did not add this value anyway.

I pushed the OM-1 pretty hard last winter shooting a motorsports event in sub-freezing temps in low light and found it amazing, better than the Canons used at the same event. I pushed it in all kinds of ways and can't find anything to complain about except I wish I could turn on HHHR anytime and find it perfect for anything I want to use it for yet those things are pretty rare for me and I know there is a limit to camera tech as which point if you need to take a lot of 50MP photos, buy a 50MP camera.

Back to Robin. I can't think of a photo he ever posted he made with an EM-10 that would be materially better if made with an EM1.2 or an OM-1. Falling back from an OM-1 to an EM-1.2 does not mean SAF on the OM-1 doesn't work well as some people may conclude and pass on as truth even if they never touched an OM-1. Such is the nature of social networks = the madness of the crowd. I meant and mean no disrespect to Robin. He can take a great photo with any camera. He doesn't need an OM-1 to do that. He can do it with an EM-10 An OM-1 won't make his photos better no matter how good it is because his type of photography does not push the capability of a ten-year-old camera. He knows how to use them to make the images he wants. Falling back to an EM-1.2 does not mean the OM-1 is less of a camera than the EM-1.2 is but some people will conclude that this is true and will pass it on as true even if they have no experience with either of these bodies because that's what social network crowds do. I disrespect the crowd, not Robin.

As for me, I haven't found anything to complain about the OM-1 except its complex and has so many ways to customize it for so many different things I'll probably never learn how to make the most of it because I won't use it enough for that. That's a problem with me, not the camera. Is it better than an EM-1.2? Yes, it is in every way that I can see and in some ways as in the ability to coax a good image out of a high ISO RAW and the ability to identify and track a moving subject and take a very well-focused image of it it's way better, on a different level, near the top of the list of the best cameras that can do this at any price and it more compact and lighter at the same time.

Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y

 

[EZGritz]

Some people can never be satisfied with anything. They prefer to complain. I don't care what they think. I only care about what works and does not work for me based on my own experience.

--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y