Tannin
Senior Member
The OM Systems OM-5 II is a little gem of a camera.
Coming from the full-frame world - I've been using Canons for more than twenty years, mostly various types of 5D, but also a variety of APS-C and APS-H bodies - it is tiny!
But somehow, the designers have managed the impossible task of making a camera half the size of a 5D or R5 (and less than half the weight) which fits into my medium-large hands and feels like a proper camera, with controls I can reach and use (mostly) without difficulty.
The controls are (mostly) sensibly laid out, and for the most part easy to use. The two or three exceptions serve to highlight just how good the rest of the design is. Let's list them.
* The dinky little four-arrow-button with central OK button system for positioning the AF point is poor. No better than my ancient Canon 400D from twenty years ago, possibly slightly worse. It is slow, clumsy, awkward, and difficult to use without taking the camera away from your eye. (Contrast with the excellent system Canon have been using on all except their cheapest cameras since at least 2004, maybe earlier). This is the single biggest weakness of the OM-5 II. I don't like it but I can live with it. (Like Canon, OM Systems also offer a touch-screen alternative, which I regard as useless for real photographers - though it's probably quite handy for people who hold a camera out at arm's length as if it was a telephone.)
* The SD card slot is positioned such that it is awkward to remove the card because the flip-out cover is too close to it. (People with small fingers won't notice this.)
* The viewfinder is usable. Not great, just barely usable. Granted, no EVF can match a proper SLR viewfinder, but the OM-5 finder doesn't come close to the clarity and ease of use of an EOS R, let alone an R5 II. Contrast is lacking and colour rendering is a mile out. But it's good enough to (mostly) do the job, and a lot better than not having one at all.
* Too many of the controls are designed for unwanted tasks, either video (which I am not interested in) or gimmicky "computational modes" which are even less useful to an actual photographer. Thankfully, many of them (but not all) can be re-purposed and put to useful work.
I think that's about it. It is an astonishingly short list of issues considering how tiny the camera is. A list of its strengths and best features would be five times as long at least. I'm not going to try to mention them all, partly because that would take a long time, and partly because one tends not to notice well-designed parts of a tool (be that a camera, a hammer, a musical instrument, or a motor car) - you don't even think about them as they simply do what they are supposed to do without fuss or bother and leave your mind free to concentrate on the task.
Nevertheless, I will mention the good, tactile mechanical controls for many things (OM Systems seem prepared to spend money on boring-but-important things like quality dials and switches); the (mostly) simple, practical, and (mostly) intuitive menu system; and the weather sealing.
OK, so looks don't matter, function is all-important ... but it does look great. No harm in that. And did I say how delightfully small and light it is?
Does the OM-5 produce the wonderful clarity and detail I get from a 5DS R or an R5 II? Of course not. But it does a pretty fair job of coming reasonably close. Most of the time, the images it makes are plenty good enough. And they may well get even closer if I ever get around to buying a high-quality lens or two for it. Currently, I'm mostly using the kit superzoom, a 14-150/4-5.6, which is delightfully small, light, and versatile but doubtless not as capable as something more specialised.
I also have a tiny Panasonic 12-32 pancake, for when I want a genuine pocket camera. Haven't used that one much yet.
(I'm not sure that this counts as an actual "review", it's really just a collection of thoughts. No matter, I hope it is of use to someone.)
Coming from the full-frame world - I've been using Canons for more than twenty years, mostly various types of 5D, but also a variety of APS-C and APS-H bodies - it is tiny!
But somehow, the designers have managed the impossible task of making a camera half the size of a 5D or R5 (and less than half the weight) which fits into my medium-large hands and feels like a proper camera, with controls I can reach and use (mostly) without difficulty.
The controls are (mostly) sensibly laid out, and for the most part easy to use. The two or three exceptions serve to highlight just how good the rest of the design is. Let's list them.
* The dinky little four-arrow-button with central OK button system for positioning the AF point is poor. No better than my ancient Canon 400D from twenty years ago, possibly slightly worse. It is slow, clumsy, awkward, and difficult to use without taking the camera away from your eye. (Contrast with the excellent system Canon have been using on all except their cheapest cameras since at least 2004, maybe earlier). This is the single biggest weakness of the OM-5 II. I don't like it but I can live with it. (Like Canon, OM Systems also offer a touch-screen alternative, which I regard as useless for real photographers - though it's probably quite handy for people who hold a camera out at arm's length as if it was a telephone.)
* The SD card slot is positioned such that it is awkward to remove the card because the flip-out cover is too close to it. (People with small fingers won't notice this.)
* The viewfinder is usable. Not great, just barely usable. Granted, no EVF can match a proper SLR viewfinder, but the OM-5 finder doesn't come close to the clarity and ease of use of an EOS R, let alone an R5 II. Contrast is lacking and colour rendering is a mile out. But it's good enough to (mostly) do the job, and a lot better than not having one at all.
* Too many of the controls are designed for unwanted tasks, either video (which I am not interested in) or gimmicky "computational modes" which are even less useful to an actual photographer. Thankfully, many of them (but not all) can be re-purposed and put to useful work.
I think that's about it. It is an astonishingly short list of issues considering how tiny the camera is. A list of its strengths and best features would be five times as long at least. I'm not going to try to mention them all, partly because that would take a long time, and partly because one tends not to notice well-designed parts of a tool (be that a camera, a hammer, a musical instrument, or a motor car) - you don't even think about them as they simply do what they are supposed to do without fuss or bother and leave your mind free to concentrate on the task.
Nevertheless, I will mention the good, tactile mechanical controls for many things (OM Systems seem prepared to spend money on boring-but-important things like quality dials and switches); the (mostly) simple, practical, and (mostly) intuitive menu system; and the weather sealing.
OK, so looks don't matter, function is all-important ... but it does look great. No harm in that. And did I say how delightfully small and light it is?
Does the OM-5 produce the wonderful clarity and detail I get from a 5DS R or an R5 II? Of course not. But it does a pretty fair job of coming reasonably close. Most of the time, the images it makes are plenty good enough. And they may well get even closer if I ever get around to buying a high-quality lens or two for it. Currently, I'm mostly using the kit superzoom, a 14-150/4-5.6, which is delightfully small, light, and versatile but doubtless not as capable as something more specialised.
I also have a tiny Panasonic 12-32 pancake, for when I want a genuine pocket camera. Haven't used that one much yet.
(I'm not sure that this counts as an actual "review", it's really just a collection of thoughts. No matter, I hope it is of use to someone.)
