OM Systems OM-3 - new retro body for 2025

oldwino said:
It seems like a nice camera. OM certainly builds solid cameras. with a lot of great features, better autofocus modes than either the Nikon Zf or Zfc, (certainly much better build than the Zfc, and IBIS), stacked sensor which punches way above its weight class, normal sized lenses, etc.

But they would have sold a lot more at $1600 than $2000. It's just too expensive for a "retro" camera, too close in price to the Zf and more than most of the Fuji cameras. Retro is attractive to many, but this is at a painful price point.
I'm sure it will be on sale for $1600 before too long...
Click to expand...

Do I really need super AF, IBIS in retro looking camera? I don't, since originals never had it.
But I prefer funky analog dials, not a odd no-names buttons spreaded like a chicken pox.
They could stack whatether, but it is still tiny sensor which will always less in high ISO capabilities.

And Zfc in excellent condition is as low as 500+ Euros.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Still only 20mp. Its been, what, 15 yrs that they've been making 20mp m4/3 cameras? I'm not upgrading from my E-M1 mk II until we get some more resolution.
Click to expand...
The flagship Olympus OM-D E-M1 was released in 2013 and had 16 Mpixels, so the first 20Mpixel mFT cameras were probably 2014-2015: maybe 10 years ago at most.

I still have my complete Olympus FT/mFT kit ...
250204-1854.jpg

That's 5 and 16 Mpixel cameras that makes fantastic photos. A ~15x20 inch print is printed at 240 ppi. How much more resolution do you need to make an excellent print? How much larger a print are you looking to make?

It would be nice to see some of the latest sensor tech incorporated to allow for higher ISO settings and lower noise. I'm not sure what this new OM-3 sensor is offering yet ... but I will presume that its 20Mpixel has some more modern tech in it, and that it outperforms my ancient E-M1 to some degree. The E-M1 is already a darn good performer—it's a pro-class body that I made a lot of money with—so I'm not sure whether I should buy a new body at this point ... depends on whether I find myself using it more again.

Just wanting another because it's new has no end to it. ;)

G
 
I don't think it's a new sensor, it's the same one as in the OM-1 II model from last year if I'm not mistaken.
 
Godfrey said:
The flagship Olympus OM-D E-M1 was released in 2013 and had 16 Mpixels, so the first 20Mpixel mFT cameras were probably 2014-2015: maybe 10 years ago at most.

I still have my complete Olympus FT/mFT kit ...
View attachment 4855472

That's 5 and 16 Mpixel cameras that makes fantastic photos. A ~15x20 inch print is printed at 240 ppi. How much more resolution do you need to make an excellent print? How much larger a print are you looking to make?

It would be nice to see some of the latest sensor tech incorporated to allow for higher ISO settings and lower noise. I'm not sure what this new OM-3 sensor is offering yet ... but I will presume that its 20Mpixel has some more modern tech in it, and that it outperforms my ancient E-M1 to some degree. The E-M1 is already a darn good performer—it's a pro-class body that I made a lot of money with—so I'm not sure whether I should buy a new body at this point ... depends on whether I find myself using it more again.

Just wanting another because it's new has no end to it. ;)

G
Click to expand...


I routinely sell 16x20 prints. I still have my first digital camera, a 6mp Nikon D70. I won't sell large prints from the photos I made with it; they just plain look like shit. The lack of fine detail in a large print is incredibly obvious, and selling prints that look like that would make my work look bad, so I won't do it. I only offer large prints made on film or with the 20mp cameras I have owned (Canon 5DmkII, Olympus Pen F, and Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk II), and honestly, they'd look better if I had a camera that gave a 360dpi resolution at that size. Modern printers need more than 240 pixels per inch, they're capable if rendering much finder detail than that. Epson's printers need at least 360 dpi for best quality.
 
I can't see this luring any new customers at $2000 for the same old stuff in a new form. Maybe someone who still uses M43 would be into it. I have no idea why they think $2000 was a good idea. Really great weather sealing and IBIS maybe?
 
JohnGellings said:
I can't see this luring any new customers at $2000 for the same old stuff in a new form. Maybe someone who still uses M43 would be into it. I have no idea why they think $2000 was a good idea. Really great weather sealing and IBIS maybe?
Click to expand...
I think you answered the implicit question of why people will buy it: "...a new form". Never underestimate the power of superficial style to create a perceived need. The Detroit automakers perfected that technique years ago! Then they learned, in the nineties, that "retro" was a way to put the frosting on that marketing technique.
 
JohnGellings said:
I can't see this luring any new customers at $2000 for the same old stuff in a new form. Maybe someone who still uses M43 would be into it. I have no idea why they think $2000 was a good idea. Really great weather sealing and IBIS maybe?
Click to expand...
The stacked BSI sensor on the OM-1 II isn't "old stuff" though. It is expensive, yes, too expensive for me. But at least it's offering the top sensor tech, not "old stuff" where it's most important.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I routinely sell 16x20 prints. I still have my first digital camera, a 6mp Nikon D70. I won't sell large prints from the photos I made with it; they just plain look like shit. The lack of fine detail in a large print is incredibly obvious, and selling prints that look like that would make my work look bad, so I won't do it. I only offer large prints made on film or with the 20mp cameras I have owned (Canon 5DmkII, Olympus Pen F, and Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk II), and honestly, they'd look better if I had a camera that gave a 360dpi resolution at that size. Modern printers need more than 240 pixels per inch, they're capable if rendering much finder detail than that. Epson's printers need at least 360 dpi for best quality.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

I've sold and won recognition at several exhibitions with Olympus E-1 5Mpixel prints at ~15x20 inch image size. They're very sharp and detailed. Not one viewer or judge ever commented that they "looked like shit" ... I am always complimented on the quality of my prints, even when the subject matter wasn't necessarily to the particular individual's taste.

Epson printing engines produce best results at resolutions which are integral multiples of 60 ... so 180, 240, 300, 360, 420 ppi all work well. If you can actually tell the difference between a well-rendered, sharply focused, 240/300/360 ppi image when viewing it at proper viewing distance of 5 to 7 feet, my hat's off to you. I can tell the difference when I have them on my desk and am using a magnifying glass, but that's not proper viewing distance for that size print.

I have these prints jumbled in together with similar subject matter and print sizing made with the E-M1's 16Mpixels and 24 and 40 mpixel Leica equipment ... No one has ever been able to tell which were what resolution or what camera...

I don't know what your prints look like, but if you can't get a clean 15x20 inch print out of a 16 Mpixel camera, well, there's some problem happening.

G
 
agentlossing said:
The stacked BSI sensor on the OM-1 II isn't "old stuff" though. It is expensive, yes, too expensive for me. But at least it's offering the top sensor tech, not "old stuff" where it's most important.
Click to expand...
The stacked sensor is great - better than the previous versions of the 20MP sensors.
Sadly, they cheaped out and put a lesser EVF in the new camera.
 
Godfrey said:
I disagree.

I've sold and won recognition at several exhibitions with Olympus E-1 5Mpixel prints at ~15x20 inch image size.
Click to expand...
When was that? I mean, when 5mp was the norm, sure people were impressed with a 15x20" but it is a really native 6x8" print at 300dpi. Going up to that size is going to lower that DPI substantially. At the size you are talking about, yes, you'd need that 6 feet in-between you and the print to disguise the low resolution. It could work well for a print with one big subject, but not for prints with many points of interest that require fine details. Despite what people say about viewing distance, in my experience, people look at photos very close in galleries and museums. That said, a 15x20" print from a 20mp camera is not an issue.
 
Last edited:
Godfrey said:
I disagree.

I've sold and won recognition at several exhibitions with Olympus E-1 5Mpixel prints at ~15x20 inch image size. They're very sharp and detailed. Not one viewer or judge ever commented that they "looked like shit" ... I am always complimented on the quality of my prints, even when the subject matter wasn't necessarily to the particular individual's taste.

Epson printing engines produce best results at resolutions which are integral multiples of 60 ... so 180, 240, 300, 360, 420 ppi all work well. If you can actually tell the difference between a well-rendered, sharply focused, 240/300/360 ppi image when viewing it at proper viewing distance of 5 to 7 feet, my hat's off to you. I can tell the difference when I have them on my desk and am using a magnifying glass, but that's not proper viewing distance for that size print.

I have these prints jumbled in together with similar subject matter and print sizing made with the E-M1's 16Mpixels and 24 and 40 mpixel Leica equipment ... No one has ever been able to tell which were what resolution or what camera...

I don't know what your prints look like, but if you can't get a clean 15x20 inch print out of a 16 Mpixel camera, well, there's some problem happening.

G
Click to expand...


I can spot a print made from a low resolution file a mile away. 20mp is BARELY adequate, and even then I see the loss of quality compared to a smaller print. Keep in mind that I do a lot of landscapes with fine detail in grass and such; those are the files that fall apart without the actual resolution being high enough. Portraits, product photography, and other low-detail subjects can be shot with lower res cameras and printed large. Not the work I do though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom