OM-3, It's not about 'Retro' styling

[Cafe Racer]

If that's OMDS' intention I believe they've made a mistake. I think the Pen F design is more desirable than their retro SLR style cameras, which already exists in their lineup. The used market prices demonstrates this to some extent.

...I don't believe they've made a mistake.

What is the basis for your assertion? Personal bias/preference?

Used market prices for the Pen-F:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+pen+f&_sop=16

Used market prices for the OM-3 :

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+om-3&_sacat=0&_from=R40&_sop=16

The OM-3 is easily the Olympus "retro" camera most in demand

The OM System OM-3 hasn't been released yet, there's no used ones on the market! Do you know what a retro camera is? I think you're getting retro mixed up with vintage.

Vintage camera - Olympus OM-1 (film camera)

complete with the highest asking/selling price as one would expect.

Any argument about scarcity applies to the Pen-F as much as it does the OM-3.

While I used E-Bay, the same is true everywhere else I searched (Pen-F vs OM-3 used prices).
Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary that supports your assertion.

It's evident you're talking about the film era Pen F and OM-3; wrong cameras. I'm talking about the digital Pen F and the new, soon to be released OMDS digital camera known as the OM-3.

The best definition for a "retro camera" that I can come up with is this:

Retro cameras recreate the look and feel of classic film cameras, but use modern digital technology instead of film

PlumShots appeared to be confusing 'retro' and 'vintage'. The common usage of the word retro is to describe a modern product that imitates (or draws it's design inspiration from) a product from the (recent) past. And a vintage product is one that is over 20 years old but not antique, which is over 100 years old. Just wanted to clarify the difference, not comparing cameras.

Above I defined "retro" as "Retro cameras recreate the look and feel of classic film cameras, but use modern digital technology instead of film"

Let's try to get the terms right.

"vintage" cameras generally refer to older cameras from a specific time period, usually with a nostalgic aesthetic

"classic" cameras imply a time-tested design that is considered highly influential and well-regarded for its photographic quality, regardless of its age

"vintage" implies genuine age, "classic" denotes timeless quality, and "retro" IMHO means a modern take on an old "classic", like for example a Pen-F being a modern take on a Leica iiic.

Other people may choose to think "retro" simply means a modern take on an any old camera design, classic or not so classic, influential or not so influential, well regarded or not, timeless design or not.

Vintage, retro and classic are words that are descriptive rather than prescriptive and their usage tends to be expanded over time. Vintage originally came from the wine industry. There's now common usage of these words that perhaps may not fit what you're used to. However, I've never heard an original OM-3 or Pen F film camera or any others of that age being described as retro.

The OM5 is IMHO a fail in both look and feel. A classic film SLR should definitely not feel plastic. I know there were plastic film SLR's - I had a plastic 1986 Canon T90, but it did not look classic at all, more like a modern digital Canon SLR 20 years ahead of the digital DSLR age

There are vintage SLR film cameras which have body casings that are predominantly made of plastic and fall into the classic style category. I'm holding one right now, the Ricoh KR-10 Super, so I wouldn't use plastic as a differentiator when refering to a retro camera.

A "classic" camera could be considered a "vintage" camera, but not all vintage cameras are considered classics.

I would personally not consider the KRE-10 as a "classic" camera. You may consider it "classic" for personal nostalgia, because you own and used one.

There's no nostalgia on my part attached to the Ricoh, it's not mine, I repaired it for someone.

I don't describe the Ricoh KR-10 as a classic camera, I refer to it as a vintage camera. I said "classic style category". When I insert the word 'style' I'm refering to the design, which in this case are the analogue controls typically seen on cameras of a certain era.

However, a maker choosing to release a new "retro" camera would be well advised to choose a sample design that by a vast majority of potential buyers would be regarded as a true "classic". Nikon certainly did choose well with their "retro" model.

The Pen-F succeeds in the looks, and it even has the metal feel. But it still fails for me to recreate the feel of a classic film camera. For that it would need to have a dedicated exposure time wheel. And either a dedicated aperture wheel or an aperture ring... or at the absolute very least support the aperture ring that some Panasonic lenses like the 15/1.7 have.

I feel Fuji do a better job at recreating both the look and the feel of a film camera.

 

[MimiVivi]

Oh but of course.

The dozen years of the SAME conversation around every single OM-Olympus camera release isn't exhausting; it's me pointing it out that's exhausting.

But you got me bro--which I write without a lick of sarcasm: the arguments wouldn't keep repeating if people didn't want to repeat them.

So clink tha beer class, my mang; toast to you for nailing the heart of this thing on the bullseye.

 

[gary0319]

Oh but of course.

The dozen years of the SAME conversation around every single OM-Olympus camera release isn't exhausting; it's me pointing it out that's exhausting.

But you got me bro--which I write without a lick of sarcasm: the arguments wouldn't keep repeating if people didn't want to repeat them.

So clink tha beer class, my mang; toast to you for nailing the heart of this thing on the bullseye.

But, if we take a look at the rumored images and supposed specs it might be an interesting addition to the OM lineup, and while most everyone on this forum will find some reason to not purchase one there are a lot of near misses that might add up to a hit in the end.

1) Not a reincarnation of the range finder Pen F, but maybe retro enough for a nostalgic vibe.

2) Maybe not a complete organ transplant from the OM1 II, but certainly a far cry from the legacy 20mpx sensor of the last half decade, even if some juice has to be taken away because of power/heat constraints.

3) It seems enough “creative” features to set it firmly apart from the wildlife/birding focus of the OM1 series. Maybe somebody with less than 40 years of photography might even buy it.

4) Add in a few long overdue weather sealed primes for good measure……

It might just be interesting enough to replace my OM5, E-M10 IV, and if the video is good enough, even my Sony ZV1. Now…. just where did I leave that hammer for the piggy bank?

 

[cba_melbourne]

If that's OMDS' intention I believe they've made a mistake. I think the Pen F design is more desirable than their retro SLR style cameras, which already exists in their lineup. The used market prices demonstrates this to some extent.

...I don't believe they've made a mistake.

What is the basis for your assertion? Personal bias/preference?

Used market prices for the Pen-F:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+pen+f&_sop=16

Used market prices for the OM-3 :

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+om-3&_sacat=0&_from=R40&_sop=16

The OM-3 is easily the Olympus "retro" camera most in demand

The OM System OM-3 hasn't been released yet, there's no used ones on the market! Do you know what a retro camera is? I think you're getting retro mixed up with vintage.

Vintage camera - Olympus OM-1 (film camera)

complete with the highest asking/selling price as one would expect.

Any argument about scarcity applies to the Pen-F as much as it does the OM-3.

While I used E-Bay, the same is true everywhere else I searched (Pen-F vs OM-3 used prices).
Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary that supports your assertion.

It's evident you're talking about the film era Pen F and OM-3; wrong cameras. I'm talking about the digital Pen F and the new, soon to be released OMDS digital camera known as the OM-3.

The best definition for a "retro camera" that I can come up with is this:

Retro cameras recreate the look and feel of classic film cameras, but use modern digital technology instead of film

PlumShots appeared to be confusing 'retro' and 'vintage'. The common usage of the word retro is to describe a modern product that imitates (or draws it's design inspiration from) a product from the (recent) past. And a vintage product is one that is over 20 years old but not antique, which is over 100 years old. Just wanted to clarify the difference, not comparing cameras.

Above I defined "retro" as "Retro cameras recreate the look and feel of classic film cameras, but use modern digital technology instead of film"

Let's try to get the terms right.

"vintage" cameras generally refer to older cameras from a specific time period, usually with a nostalgic aesthetic

"classic" cameras imply a time-tested design that is considered highly influential and well-regarded for its photographic quality, regardless of its age

"vintage" implies genuine age, "classic" denotes timeless quality, and "retro" IMHO means a modern take on an old "classic", like for example a Pen-F being a modern take on a Leica iiic.

Other people may choose to think "retro" simply means a modern take on an any old camera design, classic or not so classic, influential or not so influential, well regarded or not, timeless design or not.

Vintage, retro and classic are words that are descriptive rather than prescriptive and their usage tends to be expanded over time.

The terms "Vintage" and "Antique" are actually precisely defined.

An "Antique" item is at least 100 years old. That is all cameras made from 400BC until 1925 (the term camera does not imply film, the "camera obscura" known from around 400BC projects an image to a wall through a pin-hole. In 1816 Mr Niepce created the first camera that could create a lasting picture onto silver cloride paper).

A "Vintage" item is at least 20 years old and less than 100 years old. That is cameras made from 1925 until 2005.

There is a sub-category of Vintage items called "True Vintage", which is items at least 50 years old and less than 100 years old. That is cameras made from 1925 until 1975.

Retro and classic are both subjective terms. Retro simply means imitative of a style or fashion from the recent past. Classic I explained elsewhere in this thread, it has a component that is indisputable, and a component that is open to interpretation.

Vintage originally came from the wine industry.

Much much older than the wine industry, or indeed any industry:

Latin vindemia, from the words vinum (wine) and demere (to remove)

BTW, "antique" comes from Latin antiquus = old (yep, just plain old)

There's now common usage of these words that perhaps may not fit what you're used to.

Common usage naturally differs between countries, cultures, languages and industries. Since English is only the 5th language I had to learn, you are perfectly right

Also note antiquarian usage of the terms Antique and Vintage is very strict compared to common usage. Because it can greatly affect the value of items. Vintage items often are just hyped up old junk. Well, many antique items too. But if you get sold something as antique and it really is only vintage, you can claim your money back as the seller misrepresented it.

However, I've never heard an original OM-3 or Pen F film camera or any others of that age being described as retro.

The OM5 is IMHO a fail in both look and feel. A classic film SLR should definitely not feel plastic. I know there were plastic film SLR's - I had a plastic 1986 Canon T90, but it did not look classic at all, more like a modern digital Canon SLR 20 years ahead of the digital DSLR age

There are vintage SLR film cameras which have body casings that are predominantly made of plastic and fall into the classic style category. I'm holding one right now, the Ricoh KR-10 Super, so I wouldn't use plastic as a differentiator when refering to a retro camera.

A "classic" camera could be considered a "vintage" camera, but not all vintage cameras are considered classics.

I would personally not consider the KRE-10 as a "classic" camera. You may consider it "classic" for personal nostalgia, because you own and used one.

There's no nostalgia on my part attached to the Ricoh, it's not mine, I repaired it for someone.

I don't describe the Ricoh KR-10 as a classic camera, I refer to it as a vintage camera. I said "classic style category". When I insert the word 'style' I'm refering to the design, which in this case are the analogue controls typically seen on cameras of a certain era.

However, a maker choosing to release a new "retro" camera would be well advised to choose a sample design that by a vast majority of potential buyers would be regarded as a true "classic". Nikon certainly did choose well with their "retro" model.

The Pen-F succeeds in the looks, and it even has the metal feel. But it still fails for me to recreate the feel of a classic film camera. For that it would need to have a dedicated exposure time wheel. And either a dedicated aperture wheel or an aperture ring... or at the absolute very least support the aperture ring that some Panasonic lenses like the 15/1.7 have.

I feel Fuji do a better job at recreating both the look and the feel of a film camera.

 

[cba_melbourne]

......I'm primarily a street photographer. So far, the only thing about this camera that might make it suitable FOR ME as a street camera is its small-ish size. To be a good street camera FOR ME, I'd like to know other things like: 1) How fast can it turn on? 2) Does it have a single axis tilt screen? 3) Does it have a min shutter speed setting? 4) Does it have a SnapFocus feature like Ricoh's GRIII series? 5) How quiet is the mechanical shutter? 6) How fast is the flash sync? 7) If set to manual focusing, will the lens reliably stick to the last-used focus distance so the camera can be used with zone focusing?

Unfortunately, very unfortunately, Olympus did market the Pen-F as a street camera. Presumably because it very much looks like a street camera. But it is not, the contrast AF is just not good enough for that, especially not in low light, and it has a FAS not a tilt screen.

That said: if you do not use AF, especially not in low light, or if you use snap/zone focus often, it may still make for a reasonably useful street camera. It's looks are especially friendly at not alienate subjects, and often do the opposite and even start a conversation about the camera. Depending on your style, that may be worth something too. It has 4 mode wheel selectable user modes C1-C4 that you can program to your liking, plus another four when selecting B&W mode on the front wheel, that is 8 useful user modes if you also do black and white photography.

To your questions:

1) mine takes about 1.2 seconds from turning on tho the first shot. That is too long for a street camera. But you can left it turned on and put asleep during a street shoot. Does not help with the first shot, but subsequent ones will be very fast. Just don't forget to turn it off when done street shooting, or it drains the battery.

2) no, it has a fully articulated screen. Not ideal for street shooting.

3) yes

4) sorry I do not know the GRIII. But there are two small light lenses well suited for street shooting, the 12/2.0 and the 17/1.8, which both have a manual focus ring that when pulled back exposes a zone focusing scale. By putting that ring back you will always and very quickly return to the snap focus you had last set. By putting it forward you can either zoom manually or use autofocus. Some of the larger pro lenses have this feature too, but they are likely too big and clumsy for street.

5) I would say it is very quiet when you turn off the artificial clack sound

6) it's 1/500s

7) yes. But that is really a workaround, is it? If you want to regularly use zone focusing, better pair the Pen-F with lenses that feature a snap focus clutch. That is the two small primes listed above, and a majority of the pro grade lens range.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

6) it's 1/500s

The manual says 1/250.

 

[cba_melbourne]

6) it's 1/500s

The manual says 1/250.

Sorry you are right

 

[Cafe Racer]

If that's OMDS' intention I believe they've made a mistake. I think the Pen F design is more desirable than their retro SLR style cameras, which already exists in their lineup. The used market prices demonstrates this to some extent.

...I don't believe they've made a mistake.

What is the basis for your assertion? Personal bias/preference?

Used market prices for the Pen-F:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+pen+f&_sop=16

Used market prices for the OM-3 :

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+om-3&_sacat=0&_from=R40&_sop=16

The OM-3 is easily the Olympus "retro" camera most in demand

The OM System OM-3 hasn't been released yet, there's no used ones on the market! Do you know what a retro camera is? I think you're getting retro mixed up with vintage.

Vintage camera - Olympus OM-1 (film camera)

complete with the highest asking/selling price as one would expect.

Any argument about scarcity applies to the Pen-F as much as it does the OM-3.

While I used E-Bay, the same is true everywhere else I searched (Pen-F vs OM-3 used prices).
Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary that supports your assertion.

It's evident you're talking about the film era Pen F and OM-3; wrong cameras. I'm talking about the digital Pen F and the new, soon to be released OMDS digital camera known as the OM-3.

The best definition for a "retro camera" that I can come up with is this:

Retro cameras recreate the look and feel of classic film cameras, but use modern digital technology instead of film

PlumShots appeared to be confusing 'retro' and 'vintage'. The common usage of the word retro is to describe a modern product that imitates (or draws it's design inspiration from) a product from the (recent) past. And a vintage product is one that is over 20 years old but not antique, which is over 100 years old. Just wanted to clarify the difference, not comparing cameras.

Above I defined "retro" as "Retro cameras recreate the look and feel of classic film cameras, but use modern digital technology instead of film"

Let's try to get the terms right.

"vintage" cameras generally refer to older cameras from a specific time period, usually with a nostalgic aesthetic

"classic" cameras imply a time-tested design that is considered highly influential and well-regarded for its photographic quality, regardless of its age

"vintage" implies genuine age, "classic" denotes timeless quality, and "retro" IMHO means a modern take on an old "classic", like for example a Pen-F being a modern take on a Leica iiic.

Other people may choose to think "retro" simply means a modern take on an any old camera design, classic or not so classic, influential or not so influential, well regarded or not, timeless design or not.

Vintage, retro and classic are words that are descriptive rather than prescriptive and their usage tends to be expanded over time.

The terms "Vintage" and "Antique" are actually precisely defined.

An "Antique" item is at least 100 years old.

Yes I already pointed this out.

That is all cameras made from 400BC until 1925 (the term camera does not imply film, the "camera obscura" known from around 400BC projects an image to a wall through a pin-hole. In 1816 Mr Niepce created the first camera that could create a lasting picture onto silver cloride paper).

A "Vintage" item is at least 20 years old and less than 100 years old.

And this.

That is cameras made from 1925 until 2005.

There is a sub-category of Vintage items called "True Vintage", which is items at least 50 years old and less than 100 years old

True Vintage came about to distinguish between items (particularly clothing) that were actually old from reproduction and retro items to aid online buying/selling because people and fashion companies were misusing the word vintage. eBay introduced this as a category to help people identify actual vintage. It's usage has already been expanded to mean something that's at least 50 years old although I'm not aware that it's commonly used outside of online selling platforms as people tend to just state the decade the item is from.

Anyway, the point was that PlumShots described the OM-3 film camera as retro, which it's not, that would be the new digital OM-3.

. That is cameras made from 1925 until 1975.

Retro and classic are both subjective terms. Retro simply means imitative of a style or fashion from the recent past. Classic I explained elsewhere in this thread, it has a component that is indisputable, and a component that is open to interpretation.

Vintage originally came from the wine industry.

Much much older than the wine industry, or indeed any industry:

Latin vindemia, from the words vinum (wine) and demere (to remove)

BTW, "antique" comes from Latin antiquus = old (yep, just plain old)

There's now common usage of these words that perhaps may not fit what you're used to.

Common usage naturally differs between countries, cultures, languages and industries. Since English is only the 5th language I had to learn, you are perfectly right

Also note antiquarian usage of the terms Antique and Vintage is very strict compared to common usage. Because it can greatly affect the value of items. Vintage items often are just hyped up old junk. Well, many antique items too. But if you get sold something as antique and it really is only vintage, you can claim your money back as the seller misrepresented it.

However, I've never heard an original OM-3 or Pen F film camera or any others of that age being described as retro.

The OM5 is IMHO a fail in both look and feel. A classic film SLR should definitely not feel plastic. I know there were plastic film SLR's - I had a plastic 1986 Canon T90, but it did not look classic at all, more like a modern digital Canon SLR 20 years ahead of the digital DSLR age

There are vintage SLR film cameras which have body casings that are predominantly made of plastic and fall into the classic style category. I'm holding one right now, the Ricoh KR-10 Super, so I wouldn't use plastic as a differentiator when refering to a retro camera.

A "classic" camera could be considered a "vintage" camera, but not all vintage cameras are considered classics.

I would personally not consider the KRE-10 as a "classic" camera. You may consider it "classic" for personal nostalgia, because you own and used one.

There's no nostalgia on my part attached to the Ricoh, it's not mine, I repaired it for someone.

I don't describe the Ricoh KR-10 as a classic camera, I refer to it as a vintage camera. I said "classic style category". When I insert the word 'style' I'm refering to the design, which in this case are the analogue controls typically seen on cameras of a certain era.

However, a maker choosing to release a new "retro" camera would be well advised to choose a sample design that by a vast majority of potential buyers would be regarded as a true "classic". Nikon certainly did choose well with their "retro" model.

The Pen-F succeeds in the looks, and it even has the metal feel. But it still fails for me to recreate the feel of a classic film camera. For that it would need to have a dedicated exposure time wheel. And either a dedicated aperture wheel or an aperture ring... or at the absolute very least support the aperture ring that some Panasonic lenses like the 15/1.7 have.

I feel Fuji do a better job at recreating both the look and the feel of a film camera.

 

[cathal gantly]

...if the new camera model to be announced next week was as near a replica of the original OM1 / OM2 35mm film cameras as possible. I don't see why this far into the digital age we can't get to the same dimensions as those cameras. I think these were possibly the most beautiful 35mm cameras ever produced, and were desirable, high-quality cameras.

I have an OM2n and an XA2.

I think that if the new model does indeed have the OM3 designation then it clearly will be intended to fit into the market between the OM1 and OM5. The specifications will reflect that. Better than the OM5, but not quite as good as the OM1. The colour dial, which has been previewed, is a nod to the devotees of the Pen-F. This will be SLR style, not Pen-F style. From discussions here over the years, that's something Pen-F users love. Personally, I'm a raw shooter and so while I like the aesthetic look of the dial, I'd have no use for it.

Unfortunately, I'll be to busy shooting with my EM1.ii and lenses in Costa Rica to be part of the "It's a miss for me because it doesn't..." or "This camera shows that the end is nigh for micro four thirds because..." debates.

 

[eques]

... Those who own, and understand the Pen-F (which I do) will appreciate the potential ...

To truly appreciate the Olympus PEN-F, you must have a very high IQ. Its design is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of photography and aesthetics, most of its brilliance will go over the average user’s head. The precision engineering, the timeless retro-modern fusion—it’s not just a camera, it’s art. Only true connoisseurs can comprehend the depth of its features, like the customizable color profiles, which reflect pure genius. The casual photographer? They just don’t get it.

I never "got it". I purchased an E-M5 II over a Pen-F and never regretted it. Does that make me dumb?

You wanted to take photos with the camera, not of the camera.

Peter

 

[phenix jc]

... Those who own, and understand the Pen-F (which I do) will appreciate the potential ...

To truly appreciate the Olympus PEN-F, you must have a very high IQ. Its design is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of photography and aesthetics, most of its brilliance will go over the average user’s head. The precision engineering, the timeless retro-modern fusion—it’s not just a camera, it’s art. Only true connoisseurs can comprehend the depth of its features, like the customizable color profiles, which reflect pure genius. The casual photographer? They just don’t get it.

Please, stop to trash the f*boys.

They're a splendid opportunity to have fun.

The more nerdy, the more fun.

(TY for the laugh

 

[PlumShots]

...so please clarify what you are referring to as a "mistake" ?

Olympus/OMDS have consistently stated that Pen-F sales did not meet expectations and chances of a successor model are slim to none.

If the OM-3 is intended to be the successor to the Pen F (I don't think it is), then I

OMDS hasn't stated or implied that the pending release is a Pen-F successor and based on teaser images I don't think anyone believes it to be such (creative dial notwithstanding).

believe OMDS has made mistake changing the design to an SLR style.

As stated previously, I think your Pen-F used price assertion misses the mark somewhat.

You are comparing the used price for a one-off dead-end product (digital Pen-F) to a continuing series (digital SLR-styled bodies).

It should be of no surprise that the used price of previous digital SLR-styled bodies are relatively lower as newer SLR-styled models continue to be released, effectively lowering the used price for previous models.

When you compare vintage Pen-F to vintage OM-3 models, the used prices for the OM-3 are relatively and consistently higher.

Again, no surprise as there was an entire extensive OM ecosystem with more bodies and lenses released compared to that of the Pen-F.

From a business decision perspective, the owner/user base of the vintage OM models is much larger than that of the Pen-F owner/user base.

Attempting to tap into this relatively much larger OM "nostalgia" market with a digital OM-3 is IMHO a better risk proposition versus a digital Pen-F II, especially if there are cost synergies with current models, which there obviously are.

Cheers.

Cheers.

 

[Cafe Racer]

...so please clarify what you are referring to as a "mistake" ?

Olympus/OMDS have consistently stated that Pen-F sales did not meet expectations and chances of a successor model are slim to none.

If the OM-3 is intended to be the successor to the Pen F (I don't think it is), then I

OMDS hasn't stated or implied that the pending release is a Pen-F successor and based on teaser images I don't think anyone believes it to be such (creative dial notwithstanding).

It was suggested by the OP, which is who I was originally responding to.

believe OMDS has made mistake changing the design to an SLR style.

As stated previously, I think your Pen-F used price assertion misses the mark somewhat.

So you don't think your price assertion misses the mark?

You are comparing the used price for a one-off dead-end product (digital Pen-F)

A one-off dead-end product?

to a continuing series (digital SLR-styled bodies).

Wasn't the digital Olympus Pen a continuing series of cameras? What was the first Olympus m4/3 camera and how many iterations followed it?

It should be of no surprise that the used price of previous digital SLR-styled bodies are relatively lower as newer SLR-styled models continue to be released, effectively lowering the used price for previous models.

When you compare vintage Pen-F to vintage OM-3 models, the used prices for the OM-3 are relatively and consistently higher.

Do you realise the original OM-3 didn't sell well so less cameras were made making it rare compared to other models. Perhaps you would call that "a one-off dead-end product." It's also mechanical unlike like the OM-4, so it will work with no batteries and will be easier to repair, which is a desirable feature. This is why it's sought after by collectors and commands a higher price? Rare and mechanical. It isn't because of the design.

Again, no surprise as there was an entire extensive OM ecosystem with more bodies and lenses released compared to that of the Pen-F.

Perhaps this will surprise you! Are you aware you're comparing cameras of two different formats? The vintage Pen F uses half the 35mm frame and the vintage OM-3 uses the full 35mm frame. This difference is not insignificant. The digital versions both use the same m4/3 format so you're not comparing 'apples to apples' when comparing vintage vs modern.

From a business decision perspective, the owner/user base of the vintage OM models is much larger than that of the Pen-F owner/user base.

Attempting to tap into this relatively much larger OM "nostalgia" market with a digital OM-3 is IMHO a better risk proposition versus a digital Pen-F II, especially if there are cost synergies with current models, which there obviously are.

Cheers.

Cheers.

 

[Art_P]

cba_melbourne :

And yet, many that bought a used or new Pen-F four years ago when still in stores could make a big profit selling it today, sometimes an > 100% profit. But everybody that bought an OM1 made a huge write off in just 2 or 3 years.

What write off? My OM-1 is still as functional as the day I bought it. The release of the mkII did not render it useless. (Granted, I wish I had waited a couple months, as I bought just before the II was announced.)

Well, timeless design is just that... timeless and collectable

Unique. And not replaced by a mkII which would have forced the price down.

Whereas a camera that lives only from it's tech specs, becomes obsolete and undesirable in no time just like any smartphone does

Hey, my original E-M5 still works, still takes pictures, still battles rain and rough handling... It is neither obsolete nor undesirable. I figure by the time it died, either the OM-5/II will be out, or the OM-3 will have dropped a bit in price.

 

[Yannis1976]

One mans meat is another's poison . I find the design of the Pen-F unappealing and unergonomic . It had poor AF relative to other models at the time, no weather resistance , no 4K video , and whilst I prefer them the use of a fully articulated screen is a bit unusual for this type of camera. The creative modes are more P&S than genius

I much prefer "rangefinder" designs to "SLR" for almost all my uses and the Pen-F stands out as one of the very few that have seriously disappointed me. Perhaps a jpeg-only user might find more joy in the camera but like you I found it lacking almost everything that I enjoy when I use "similar" fixed-lens cousins like the X100 series or even the new D-Lux 8.

I am a big fan of the GX8 with its pseudo RF design but it has a decent grip and better sized ( for me ) . I would love a true update with a few of the latest advances but not going to happen.

Count me in!! I loved also its EVF

Whilst I would have to draw the line with some truly hideous cameras As a rule I favour usability well above how the camera looks

I bought a Pen-F new and sold it for a huge loss soon afterwards. I wouldn't buy another at any price.

It does seem to have held value better than other m43 models on the used market . I just don't get it's appeal

 

[DaveLBlack]

I just can't wait until the camera gets unveiled and the FAS versus TILT screen arguments start. That's the best bit.

Cameras that had both. X-t4 has both. There's probably other cameras out there with both.

 

[Jaime100]

Virtually every post I read bemoans the idea that OM Systems has simply taken the guts of an OM-1 and shoved it into a 'retro' style body -- Boo-hoo!

The problem is that none of us yet knows the specs of this camera, nor the actual features/functionality of this camera.

We know the specs. We know the features / functionality. We all know everything about it.

It'll have the usual 20MP sensor and, in terms of image quality, it'll perform effectively the same as the OM I and II (and the several 20MP EM cameras before those).

It'll have quick autofocus with OK-to-pretty good subject tracking, effective for most practical photographic purposes and subjects, but not class- or industry-leading in any way.

It'll have OM's usual outstanding sensor stabilization.

It'll offer OM's usual and very useful computational photo capabilities--live ND, live composite, hand-held-high-res, etc.

It'll have the usual, useful 4K video capabilities, but break no ground over current OM products.

It'll offer high IP-rated weather resistance.

In sum: it'll be a nice, small-ish, retro-looking system camera armed with OM's usual strengths and usual weaknesses. Also per OM usual, it'll be priced on the expensive side of "reasonable" for what it is. If you dig those usual OM system strengths, the price will feel fair. OTOH, if you're one of those doods who dwells on the usual OM or m4/3 weaknesses, the price will seem ridiculous compared to what you could get in whatever other system you prefer. (So you should just go buy into that other system, right?)

People who don't dig the usual OM system weaknesses will continue to not dig the usual OM system weaknesses. People who love the usual OM system strengths will continue to love them.

Stans will stan, haters will hate. Threads here will extol the new camera's many predictable virtues; trolls will dig in on the less sophisticated autofocus, the low-ish resolution / 12-bit RAW files, the inherent limitations of the smaller format size etcetera etcetera etcetera blah blah blah; people will assert right and wrong and outright ridiculous things about "equivalence" as they wring the laws of physics for every drop of rhetorical juice. You've heard it all before . . . and you'll hear it all again. And nobody will be convinced of anything.

Like other OM products, the camera will sell reasonably well in Japan but will be close to non-existent everywhere else. JIP will be cool with that--reasonably good sales in Japan is their jam--and honestly everyone else should probably be cool with it too. Your camera's popularity has nothing to do with the quality of your photography. If you shoot it in the states, other photographers you encounter will see it and be curious about what it is. You'll have nice conversations now and then.

It won't be an explosive hit like the Fuji X100VI. That sort of weird TikTok groupthink psychosis influencer lightning only strikes once. Which is probably for the best, because, as at Fuji, OM's middle-age salarymen managers probably wouldn't understand the TikTok lightning if it did strike and would be weirdly, ridiculously reticent about making enough product to capitalize on the moment. This won't stop influencers from trying to make the OM-3 "happen" like the X100, but it won't "happen." Which is, again, probably for the best if you actually want to buy and shoot one!

In short: as regards the OM-3, nobody is going to be surprised by anything whatsoever. Not the camera itself, not the sales, not the conversation around it, not the technical characteristics of the photography that comes from it. Just like nobody's been surprised by the OM-1 II, the OM-1, the OM-5, the EM-everything before that. Yes, lots of people were surprised by the E-M5 in 2012. But the world is a different place now, the camera biz is different, too.

That's all fine, though: surprise is overrated. A nice camera is a nice camera, and if you dig OM, it'll be great to have this one available. Like OM's jam? Need a new one? Here's your cool retro-looking OM-3.

Now that you know all of this, you won't have to go through any of it yourself, further. You can just buy the camera if you were planning on doing that, and enjoy using it rather than waste time arguing about equivalence and markets and god knows what else that isn't taking photos with your new tool!

(You're welcome!)

:-D

Nicely stated.... ....I won't add.

But I wonder, ....just in the back of my head. Could OM3 have a shutter that sounds like a film OM1 camera?