OM Systems OM-3 - new retro body for 2025

JohnGellings said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I was an exhibiting photographer from 2007 until 2016, when I retired. However, I've continued to use the E-1 occasionally, and recently (within the past 8 months) sold a half a dozen ~15x20 size prints that were made with it.

People who look at photos to try to pick flaws and be awed by the detail stick their noses right up to a 16x20 print and often carry a magnifying glass. I've never seen *any* of those people buy a print.

People who look at photographs to appreciate and enjoy whatever the aesthetic qualities/message/emotional content might be tend to stand at about the proper viewing distance and enjoy them ... I'd say that nearly all the folks I've seen buy photographs at a gallery or exhibition behave that way.

... And, of course, I use up-rezzing techniques with a 5Mpixel original in order to achieve the correct output pixel density for a large print like that. For the E-1, the print file is 20Mpixels, for the E-M1 it's 32Mpixel. The Leica M10-R/-M and Hasselbad 907x/CFVII 50c require no up-rezzing for this size print, also of course. I learned the techniques from one of the Olympus master photographers back around 2000 or so at a seminar. 🙂

G
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
Different eyes from mine and my clients'. If you can see, and react, to that kind of resolution, get yourself a Hasselblad or Fuji with 100Mpixel back. Or go to 4x5 film...

Good luck to you!

G
 
Archiver said:
Check it out.



www.dpreview.com

OM System OM-3 review: an advanced travel camera with its best foot forward

Our in-depth review of the OM-3, a Four Thirds camera with some serious travel chops.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

I swear, this looks so hot, hahaha. My first micro four thirds camera was the E-M5, then I went to Panasonic. But maybe this might be my second Olympus/OM?

They are also releasing refreshed versions of the venerable 17mm f1.8 and 25mm f1.8, with weather sealing and matching filter thread sizes. The 17mm seems to have lost the manual focus clutch, but oh well. Still exciting to see this new camera, and I hope this brings new customers to OM Systems.
Click to expand...

Absolute worst way to retro-fy a camera is to just to copy the shell....they didn't even get the name right lol

Seriously the appeal of an analogue retro camera is the manual dials... The point is, as had been done well in the zf, is to retain the manual dials so as to simplify the camera and not be bogged down with menus. Non dedicated dials could have worked if there was a top LCD panel but OM couldn't even be bothered.
2k cash grab...not worth ppls time imo
And gaudy awful art filters at the front is the nail in the coffin

The original film OMs were superb. I loved my OM2. They've fallen far from there. And the fall of Olympus was unfortunately justified. Whatever OM system is it's not appealing at all. Even the original 4/3 system was way more robust and professional than the awful presets and filters OM now has. Who edits their photo with a 2inch screen seriously....
 
Last edited:
agentlossing said:
This camera isn't lesser than the ZF just because it's a smaller sensor. It's a different tool with different features and more compact lenses.
Click to expand...
Am I allowed to have an opinion sir? To me, I do not think it is worth $2000. I think there are better cameras for that price (for me). I did say that M43 owners might like it. Stacked sensors only benefit certain users, but I concede it does add to the price. The rest of the camera is not very competitive outside of size, maybe weather sealing. However, trix4ever has made a very good point above. We will see how it pans out.
 
Last edited:
Godfrey said:
People who look at photographs to appreciate and enjoy whatever the aesthetic qualities/message/emotional content might be tend to stand at about the proper viewing distance and enjoy them ... I'd say that nearly all the folks I've seen buy photographs at a gallery or exhibition behave that way.
Click to expand...
That's quite the generalization. I´ve had my prints in galleries (Aperture Gallery in NYC, C|E Contemporary in Italy, etc) and I have sold books and prints. I still look at photos close in galleries and museums. There are fine details in photographs (not technical concerns) that you can only see up close and personal. Maybe not in grainy 35mm or small format, low res digital, but in high MP digital, medium format, large format, etc...definitely. I'm not understanding why I cannot look up close and from further back and still enjoy photographs.

Can a low MP print work at large sizes? Yes. Does it work for all types of work? No. I see no problem with both being right.

Uprezzing only gets you so far.
 
To me the sensor is irrelevant in this case. Whether it was an old generation 20MP or a yet unseen 40MP one, it wouldn't change the fact that with this camera retro is just for looks (don't look at it from the back though).

Maybe a better EVF and LUT support as Lumix cameras would make it a bit more appealing, but again it's missing the point for me. 2K for this camera when you can get the Zf with similar aesthetics but far better quality and usability tells me that the audience is mostly people already invested in m4/3.
 
Godfrey said:
Well, I was an exhibiting photographer from 2007 until 2016, when I retired. However, I've continued to use the E-1 occasionally, and recently (within the past 8 months) sold a half a dozen ~15x20 size prints that were made with it.

People who look at photos to try to pick flaws and be awed by the detail stick their noses right up to a 16x20 print and often carry a magnifying glass. I've never seen *any* of those people buy a print.

People who look at photographs to appreciate and enjoy whatever the aesthetic qualities/message/emotional content might be tend to stand at about the proper viewing distance and enjoy them ... I'd say that nearly all the folks I've seen buy photographs at a gallery or exhibition behave that way.

... And, of course, I use up-rezzing techniques with a 5Mpixel original in order to achieve the correct output pixel density for a large print like that. For the E-1, the print file is 20Mpixels, for the E-M1 it's 32Mpixel. The Leica M10-R/-M and Hasselbad 907x/CFVII 50c require no up-rezzing for this size print, also of course. I learned the techniques from one of the Olympus master photographers back around 2000 or so at a seminar. 🙂

G
Click to expand...
I've had exactly the same experience--usually other photographers who want to talk about equipment but never buy a print.
 
It appears to be a slimmed-down (but not significantly lighter) OM-1 Mk II. Compared to my older Pen-F, the selling point seems to be speed and computational features, which allow for 50 megapixel pixel-shifted handheld images, focus-stacking, and live ND, with compositing done in-camera. And maybe a larger color space compared to the older camera? The marketing stuff is vague, except to mention the term, and to emphasize 14-bit raw. I too wish it were a more direct follow-up to the Pen-F, but it seems that rangefinder-style camera bodies are a niche thing in the USA.

Would I buy one for myself? Good question: I'm well aware that Sony's A7CR can be had for an additional kilobuck, and then there's the rumored pocket-sized medium format camera from Fujifilm. At the very least, I'd want to wait a little bit longer to see if the latter becomes a real product.
 
Leaving aside the hype around the styling and the flavor knob on the front, this strikes me as just a classic in-between model to flesh out the line. First, in physical size:

OM series size comparison

Second, in weight - the gap between the OM-1 and OM-3 is about 100 grams, and between the OM-3 and OM-5 is about 90 grams.

Third, in features: the OM-3 has most of the innards of the OM-1, but with a few corners cut. From my perspective, the OM-3 is particularly interesting if one prefers the exposed top control dials of the OM-5 to the recessed control dials and grip shape of the OM-1, but wants the larger, longer-life battery of the OM-1.

Finally, price: at MSRP, these are $2400, $2000 and $1200. I'd certainly expect that in due course the OM-3 will be subject to the same periodic discounting as the others.

So in principle I think this is a reasonable offering; time will tell whether the market will tolerate the price point closer to the OM-1 than the OM-5, given the feature positioning.

For my purposes I don't find the price comparison with the Zf relevant. Either I want a system based around a small sensor, with its particular mix of advantages and disadvantages, or I don't.
 
JohnGellings said:
That's quite the generalization. I´ve had my prints in galleries (Aperture Gallery in NYC, C|E Contemporary in Italy, etc) and I have sold books and prints. I still look at photos close in galleries and museums. There are fine details in photographs (not technical concerns) that you can only see up close and personal. Maybe not in grainy 35mm or small format, low res digital, but in high MP digital, medium format, large format, etc...definitely. I'm not understanding why I cannot look up close and from further back and still enjoy photographs.

Can a low MP print work at large sizes? Yes. Does it work for all types of work? No. I see no problem with both being right.

Uprezzing only gets you so far.
Click to expand...

I'm reporting my observations. If you've seen, or act, differently, that's fine by me. Have you bought any of those large scale masterpieces that you examine at close range with a magnifying glass in the gallery?

Of course up-rezzing only gets you so far. That's why I limit what I make with 5Mpixel originals to the size I do, based on all the concerns about subject matter, resolution, etc. I don't claim to be able to see such subtle differences "from a mile away"...

G
 
I'm not advocating for the EVF or the price or some of the other choices... I'm in fact disappointed at how much they're asking for the camera. I'm just happy that OM finally made some kind of commitment to the small/medium form factor. It's what M4/3 has been lacking - small but not tiny and cramped, and not designed for videographers above photographers.
 
Godfrey said:
I'm reporting my observations. If you've seen, or act, differently, that's fine by me. Have you bought any of those large scale masterpieces that you examine at close range with a magnifying glass in the gallery?
Click to expand...
Come on Godfrey, you can look close at prints without a magnifying glass and you know it. I'm not sure why you think this is strange. And, no, I cannot afford huge prints by established artists. I prefer photography books instead. It really helps with the up close viewing and I prefer to look at bodies of work instead of individual images.

A confession I must add is that I prefer small prints.
 
John,

Why are you so offended by my observations? So you "look close" ... fine. And you find that you can see differences ... fine. And you don't buy any prints ... fine ... because you prefer books ... perfectly fine. Why are you so intent on saying my observations are "quite the generalization" then? Seems to be your behavior I'm observing and speaking about. That's pretty much what I said I see at the gallery, at exhibits... And the converse, that people who buy tend to view prints from the appropriate viewing distance tend to buy them with some frequency, is again, what I observe.

Looking close and examining for fine detail... perfectly fine things to do as part of the appreciation of a large and expensive print ... and recognizing that X number of megapixels implies some constaint on how vast a photograph you can print is vastly different from saying, in effect, 'Ugh, still only 20Mpixels! Only barely usable! I can see the lack of resolution from miles away!' or implying that with other disparagements. To me, that kind of bashing is just a lot of nonsense and puts the credibility of the forum community on the line when every new product announcement, by any manufacturer, gets that same treatment. It makes reading the forum a negative experience and a waste of time. Got it?

Sheesh.
G
 
Godfrey said:
John,

Why are you so offended by my observations? So you "look close" ... fine. And you find that you can see differences ... fine. And you don't buy any prints ... fine ... because you prefer books ... perfectly fine. Why are you so intent on saying my observations are "quite the generalization" then? Seems to be your behavior I'm observing and speaking about. That's pretty much what I said I see at the gallery, at exhibits... And the converse, that people who buy tend to view prints from the appropriate viewing distance tend to buy them with some frequency, is again, what I observe.
Click to expand...
Because I observe the opposite in NYC galleries. I'm not doing anything different than you are really in this post. You have your opinion and I have mine.
Godfrey said:
Looking close and examining for fine detail... perfectly fine things to do as part of the appreciation of a large and expensive print ... and recognizing that X number of megapixels implies some constaint on how vast a photograph you can print is vastly different from saying, in effect, 'Ugh, still only 20Mpixels! Only barely usable!
Click to expand...
But that's CC´s choice. He wants more than 20mp in M43. He's not alone there. He has something in his mind he wants to accomplish that 20mp is barely doing, but needs to keep his equipment weight down. We all have different expectations, wants and needs.
Godfrey said:
I can see the lack of resolution from miles away!' or implying that with other disparagements. To me, that kind of bashing is just a lot of nonsense and puts the credibility of the forum community on the line when every new product announcement,
Click to expand...
It isn't nonsense to us. If you make prints of lower resolution or lower MP photos at 300dpi or higher (to preserve details), you will not be printing big. Miles away? no...(though I have looked at billboards up close = 15 dpi res, a pixel looks like a golf ball), but a foot or two on a print printed way beyond its native resolution, sure. Lower DPI means worse fine detail.
Godfrey said:
by any manufacturer, gets that same treatment. It makes reading the forum a negative experience and a waste of time. Got it?
Click to expand...
But it is only a camera. We all have our preferences, wants and needs.
 
Last edited:
Coldkennels said:
...I'd just like to point out that I remember a time when forums like this would have had to find a collective change of underwear over something as "huge" as 20 megapixels.

I thought the megapixel fetishisation was long over. Apparently I was wrong.
Click to expand...
That's true... but have you seen a really nice print at 30x40" from a 102mp Fuji? I mean, that's 300 dpi and a perfect print from a a slightly large handheld camera.

If you need to print big, that's pretty nice. However, there's nothing wrong with small prints either. It is all in what you need, what you want and what works. There are a lot of different philosophies in photography.
 
I wonder why they went with an EVF. The reflex style viewfinder seems like it could work just fine as a MFT DSLR.

Or even a dual OVF/EVF to compete with Fuji.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom