OM Systems OM-3 - new retro body for 2025

Archiver said:
Micro Four Thirds was designed specifically to remove the need for a mirror box and pentaprism viewfinder. By eliminating the mirror box, they could create a much smaller, more shallow body. Early interviews with the Olympus CEO (?) talked about a small interchangeable lens camera that you could put in a jacket pocket and carry to dinner. This was at a time when DSLR's ruled, and I carried a 30D in my shoulder bag everywhere. Micro Four Thirds system cameras were the first mirrorless cameras on the market, if you don't count the Leica M8.
Click to expand...

Nitpicking here, but the original pen-f was actually about the same size as current m4/3 models. While it would be amazing for few of us to have a digital slr version of the pen-f, it would require to solve quite a few engineering problems such as AF which I seriously doubt OM systems is capable/willing of tackling.

P.S. the first was the Epson R-D1 🙂
 
I don‘t know, is a digital rf a mirrorless camera? I think the term „mirrorless camera“ refered to the first cameras with interchageable lenses and live view. Otherwise almost every point and shoot digicam would be „mirrorless“ (which in reality it off course is).
 
LOL. Well, when you all get over the personal insult that OM systems has apparently visited upon us, consider that the entire dslr segment has been like the last flying 747 on a negative trajectory with a lonely automated voice in the cockpit intoning, "pull up.... pull up...." OM Systems has to prove that they can make some money in this niche before revamping the line with something revolutionary. My sense is that good old film cameras are selling fine at their current price points on the used market. Kids love 'em. So that's where you want excitement. Not us codgers.

So when we've finished shooing OM Systems off our lawn and complaining about what they were able to do, consider that many were predicting that they'd be underwater by this point. Personally, I think even an incremental model is something to celebrate in this product segment.
 
Archiver said:
Micro Four Thirds was designed specifically to remove the need for a mirror box and pentaprism viewfinder. By eliminating the mirror box, they could create a much smaller, more shallow body. Early interviews with the Olympus CEO (?) talked about a small interchangeable lens camera that you could put in a jacket pocket and carry to dinner. This was at a time when DSLR's ruled, and I carried a 30D in my shoulder bag everywhere. Micro Four Thirds system cameras were the first mirrorless cameras on the market, if you don't count the Leica M8.
Click to expand...
Exactly ... although no one considered the Leica M8 to be a "mirrorless" camera when it came out. It was simply the first Leica rangefinder camera (following the Epson R-D1 a couple of years prior) with a digital sensor instead of film as the recording medium, at the time. The term "mirrorless" came into being after the Panasonic G1 and Olympus E-P1 models (and then follow-ons) circa 2008-2009, and indicated a camera with a Live View imager—used for focusing, framing, and metering as well as recording—as the defining factor ... neither the Leica M8 nor M9 supported Live View.

Leica Ms were included as Live View cameras with the introduction of the M typ 240 (introduced about 2012, IIRC) and later models, although they remain rangefinder cameras in their native operation even today with the M11 range. The first true Live View Leica was the SL typ 601 in 2015, followed by the TL and CL models.

The advantage of mirrorless over DSLR designs (aside from the potential compactness) is that fact that, just as for rangefinders, it allows more degrees of freedom in lens design compared to having to accommodate the swinging mirror's mechanical clearance requirements. This is why rangefinder lenses (particularly short focal lengths) have been subtly superior (on average) to comparable short focal length (D)SLR lenses, and the same goes for lenses designed for mirrorless bodies.

Meditating on this, I've lived through all of this technological history and owned/used/made a living from many of these groundbreaking new cameras along the way. The years since 1998 to the present, 27 years or so, represent 10x or greater rate of change in camera technology compared to the previous 36-40 years of camera technology in my lifetime. It's just amazing ... The Nikon/Leica kit that once remained nearly unchanged (and still current!) for 30+ years became an ongoing carousel of new models, new features, new capabilities on an annual or even shorter baseline. It's nothing short of amazing. 🤯

In my old age, I'm enjoying the 'simplicity' and lack of hectic change of pace provided by elderly cameras from the '40s, '50s, and '60s. It really was a period of intense development and change, growing complexity, but it seems so quiet and staid compared to what happened in the last quarter century. 😇

G
 
Last edited:
aw614 said:
I kind of wish some more effort was put into it like having it more of that analog experience vs a vintage looking body with a PASM dial. Something like having Olympus shutter speed ring and exposure comp/ISO dials similar to past OM series film SLRs would have been nice to see.
Click to expand...
I think the retro design issue is complicated by having two different markets: Old timers like many of us on this forum with our beginnings with totally manual cameras and much younger photographers who are coming from their cell phone, and want a camera that looks vintage. Since they didn't learn photography with 1950's or 60's cameras they aren't as interested in an exact replica.

Interestingly, I didn't buy an Olympus OM 1 when it first came out in part because of the location of the shutter speed dial around the base of the lens. I was already used to a dial on the top of the camera and found the Olympus uncomfortable because of that design. I suspect that any company wanting to market a retro design will have to figure out similar design questions and risk alienating potential buyers depending ion what they choose.
 
I'd been using Nikon F Photomic FTn for some years when I bought my first Olympus, an OM-1n. Getting used to the shutter speed selector around the lens base was a big deal at the time: I didn't understand why they'd put a big, easy to grab knob on top (with a lock on it!) for setting film speed while the shutter speed, which I needed all the time, was just two little finger pads at the base of the lens to control it.

But I got used to it in due course, and the OM-1n was so much more compact and lighter weight than the Nikon F that I was delighted with it. I had an OM-2 a little later, and for much shorter time, and cannot remember clearly the ISO/Exposure Comp control on it. Then, as now, I tended to like manual controls much more than the automation.

All said, the new digital OM-3 seems quite nice: a classic style body with modern features. Details of the controls ... Well, I'll wait until I use one for a bit (if it ever happens) rather than making judgements about it from its looks.

(Have to say: I had the E-M1 and E-1 out yesterday just to re-familiarize myself with their controls. The E-1 I remember most things almost immediately, but the E-M1 really does have a plethora of settings, buttons, knobs, etc, which are daunting to figure out having not touched it in two years or so. I will spend an hour with the instruction manual some time soon. 😉 )

G
 
Godfrey said:
I'd been using Nikon F Photomic FTn for some years when I bought my first Olympus, an OM-1n. Getting used to the shutter speed selector around the lens base was a big deal at the time: I didn't understand why they'd put a big, easy to grab knob on top (with a lock on it!) for setting film speed while the shutter speed, which I needed all the time, was just two little finger pads at the base of the lens to control it.

But I got used to it in due course, and the OM-1n was so much more compact and lighter weight than the Nikon F that I was delighted with it. I had an OM-2 a little later, and for much shorter time, and cannot remember clearly the ISO/Exposure Comp control on it. Then, as now, I tended to like manual controls much more than the automation.

All said, the new digital OM-3 seems quite nice: a classic style body with modern features. Details of the controls ... Well, I'll wait until I use one for a bit (if it ever happens) rather than making judgements about it from its looks.

(Have to say: I had the E-M1 and E-1 out yesterday just to re-familiarize myself with their controls. The E-1 I remember most things almost immediately, but the E-M1 really does have a plethora of settings, buttons, knobs, etc, which are daunting to figure out having not touched it in two years or so. I will spend an hour with the instruction manual some time soon. 😉 )

G
Click to expand...
I'm sure I could have gotten used to the shutter speed control if I had bought the Olympus, as I certainly have with other cameras (Rolleiflex, all the DSLRs that I've used, etc.) but when I was buying into a new system it seemed silly to buy something that didn't feel right in my hands. My ultimate choice at the time, a Pentax MX, felt right immediately and I used that camera heavily for the next 15 years. I bought that Pentax in October and I remember the amusement of the salesman when I put on a pair of gloves to see if I could use the camera comfortably in the winter. The OM 1 and the Nikon FM both flunked that test, but the Pentax passed so I bought it.
 
Different hands ... The Nikon FM became my standard camera for almost 20 years. Alongside it, I had an F3, a Leica II, Leica Ms, a Rolleiflex, the Olympus OMs, and who can tell how many others?—but the FM always just felt right in my hands.

Then the digital era asserted itself and everything changed. I have to say, now, that the Olympus E-1 is my favorite of all the DSLRs I owned and used. I wish that instead of producing the E-3 and E-5, Olympus had simply upgraded the sensor in the E-1. It just feels perfect in my hands every time I pick it up. 😀

And, GADS! It is so slow to write to the card! Thank the gods its operation buffers captures and writes... 🤯
Okay, upgrade the sensor and quadruple the write speed ... I'd love the E-M1's sensor and performance fitted into the E-1 body, please! 😉

G
 
Small thing, but one which I enjoyed about my EM5II was the ability to set the EV steps to 1 stop for SS and aperture, which I see is continued with the OM-3. Something about the more retro styling, with the clicky metal top dials for exposure settings, makes it enjoyable to have a single click move a full stop like it does with most SLRs of the era which the OM-3 is invoking. It made the EM5II very fast and fluid to use, setting ISO and only needing to move a dial a click or two to get the exposure I wanted.
 
I'd be curious to compare Sony A7R5/A7CR IBIS, sensor dust removal, electronic level and computational features versus OM, because at least up to the A7R4 vs Pen-F, OM still had an advantage. But OM had the odd DoF preview button and no apparent way to make constant live view the default. Which didn't seem to make a lot of sense in the era of EVF.
 
olakiril said:
Nitpicking here, but the original pen-f was actually about the same size as current m4/3 models. ...
Click to expand...
I just wish the controls were either like a XE-3 (shutter speed and aperture on dials) or lenses that had a traditional aperture ring and shutter speed around the lens mount like the Nikkormat or OM-1.

B2 (;->
 
Godfrey said:
..........

Meditating on this, I've lived through all of this technological history and owned/used/made a living from many of these groundbreaking new cameras along the way. The years since 1998 to the present, 27 years or so, represent 10x or greater rate of change in camera technology compared to the previous 36-40 years of camera technology in my lifetime. It's just amazing ... The Nikon/Leica kit that once remained nearly unchanged (and still current!) for 30+ years became an ongoing carousel of new models, new features, new capabilities on an annual or even shorter baseline. It's nothing short of amazing. 🤯

......
Click to expand...
Yes the speed of change joined the Moores Law curve thanks to Father Kodak. Rather sad that the bean counters couldn't figure anything out until it was way too late.

Over automation has us down a path not unlike early Windows applications. Take for example when ACT moved from DOS to Windows. 98% of the time with a contact manager you did the same seven or so things over and over. In DOS there were PF or Keyboard combinations that you did and they took you right to what you wanted to do. The Windows UI removed those hot-keys and forced you to go through a submenu for 50% of your tasks. Best case you could get to what you want on a single pulldown.

Camera manufacturers did the same thing as we moved to where we are today. LOTS of menus to find a submenu and then a sub-sub-menu. The Department of Repetitive Duplicity and Village Idiocy must be in some engineers background. We care about Shutter Speed, Aperture, ISO/ASA/DIN, then move out. As this is all function based software there is no reason they couldn't have put functionality in the master shutter menu as well as something closer to the top.

Thoughts?

B2 (;->
 
Sony has had the micro four-thirds size IMX492LQJ sensor with 47.08M pixels, which can deliver 31.3 still frames per second and is 8K capable and the IMX594CQR sensor with 41M pixels and is 4K capable for some time. Where are the cameras?
 
Freakscene said:
Sony has had the micro four-thirds size IMX492LQJ sensor with 47.08M pixels, which can deliver 31.3 still frames per second and is 8K capable and the IMX594CQR sensor with 41M pixels and is 4K capable for some time. Where are the cameras?
Click to expand...
Maybe it's being saved for a future iteration of the GH series. A sensor like that sounds like it comes with some engineering issues like cooling and power management, perhaps the sensor itself is capable but the surrounding tech isn't quite there yet. No one wants a flagship camera that takes 70 photos before needing a battery change, or shoots 8k video for 30 seconds before bursting into flames. 😆

Or it is being used in cameras we don't know about yet, industrial applications or even military?
 
Archiver said:
Maybe it's being saved for a future iteration of the GH series. A sensor like that sounds like it comes with some engineering issues like cooling and power management, perhaps the sensor itself is capable but the surrounding tech isn't quite there yet. No one wants a flagship camera that takes 70 photos before needing a battery change, or shoots 8k video for 30 seconds before bursting into flames. 😆

Or it is being used in cameras we don't know about yet, industrial applications or even military?
Click to expand...
Who knows. But the tech to really update the Pen F exists.
 
lynnb said:
fyi Thom Hogan has some interesting comments about the new Olympus OM-3 on his website (scroll down after the link).
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with him that OM probably haven't done any real development. So using the same digital board also forced them to use the same expensive sensor for a camera that didn't need it.

But I have been wrong about the success of products quite a few times and probably OM know better how to make money.
 
I'm content with my Olympus E-M1 body in terms of resolution, features, and performance.

What I'm interested in vis-a-vis mFT is all the new lenses that have cropped up in the past few years ... My kit is based on adapted FT lenses and the new mFT offerings are smaller, lighter, even better performers. A Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 would be very nice...! Never mind a couple others that look very appealing... 🙂

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom