I can’t shake the feeling that OM System will struggle to survive. As a long-time fan of Olympus cameras, I really don’t want this to happen, and I sincerely hope they grow and thrive. But I get this pessimistic feeling because the marketing juggernauts of the bigger manufacturers are not interested in smaller sensors and are doing their utmost to convince us that full frame is the only sensor size worth investing in, because it’s what the “pros” use.
From what I’ve read and seen of the OM-3 so far, it’s a fantastic camera. I personally feel that OM System and Fujifilm make the most interesting cameras. They make devices that make you want to pick them up and use them. They inspire creativity, and, well, just look so much cooler than what Sony/Canon/Nikon are making. It’s not just about the retro look, but also about the ergonomics (very subjective obviously), and features. If you’re a pro, I know that working speed is crucial and that many pros just want something that works. But for hobbyists, I feel that the camera should have more appeal than “just works”.
Although I probably won’t buy an OM-3, I love the idea of the inbuilt ND filters, and the other computational features that they include. I want compact, light and weatherproof. I feel it is close to being a camera I would consider next… but I’m unsure about the future of Micro 4/3. Not because it’s inferior, but because of market forces. It needs a heavy hitter to champion it, and I’m not sure OM/Panasonic/L Mount alliance are enough to keep it alive.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think the growing interest in retro, analogue, imperfection, compact will continue and maybe save brands like OM System?
Do you think the trend will die down and we’ll increasingly see a split market between smartphone quality and full frame quality?
What does OM System and micro 4/3 need to do to thrive?
Should OM System consider APS-C or full frame to stay relevant (and thereby open up to Sigma, Tamron, other 3rd party lenses)?
Or should it just focus on its current market of outdoor/wildlife enthusiasts?
The OM3 is not really a camera for wildlife enthusiasts; that’s the OM1’s job. But for street photography, travel photography, etc. it looks as though it would excel.
Yes, fair point! They are trying to expand their market with this camera because its base is currently more of the outdoor/wildlife crowd. It will be interesting to see how well it sells considering this shift in target market.
My two cents worth. My main concern with the small sensor is its capability in low light compared to larger sensors. So I would want to be convinced by the marketing team that I am mistaken by this. The main advantages I see of the small sensor are the ability to produce high quality pocket size cameras so keep them light weight and small. Also the extra crop of the sensor brings out the maximum range of the telephotos for birds and wildlife. The small sensor also gives increased depth of field because smaller focal length lenses are used to match the smaller sensor.
To give context to my view I have not yet bought or planned to buy a full frame. I love the compromises of the APC size sensor.
I like small cameras. The Pentax Q was too small, but fantastically usable, somehow. The Panasonic GM1 was a better size, but an ergonomic disaster. Nikon 1 almost got it right, but forgot to actually add any controllable parameters.
OM Systems is in the perfect spot to build that goldilocks camera that is small, but capable, and ergonomically sound. I’d buy that day one. An ILC Ricoh GR. Being OM, it might even be rugged and sealed and stable, although that’s not really required in that class.
But if they instead keep building biggish wildlife kit, I’ll stick with my Fujis. A current-generation sensor would surely help, too, although the old one isn’t terrible. (And their zooms turn the wrong way and the on/off switch is on the wrong side. But hey, nobody’s perfect).
This was also a concern I had but I looked up the dynamic range of the OM-1 on photonstophotos.net, and I was surprised how close it is to my X-T5 APS-C camera. The main difference is that you get almost an extra stop at ISO 125 with the Fuji, whereas the OM-1 only starts at ISO 200.
I also think APS-C is a bit of a sweet spot, especially when you consider that OM System cameras are not any smaller than APS-C cameras. I feel that if OM also offered APS-C, I would no longer have too many concerns about dynamic range, you could get higher resolutions like Fuji’s 40MP sensor, and you would open up lots of lenses from 3rd party manufacturers. I really think OM System could benefit from this.
Yes, completely agree. I really think they would benefit from going APS-C for reasons I mentioned in my previous post. To compete in today’s market, I think they need to offer better resolution (as an option) and more lens choices. But everything else about their cameras is great for that perfect pocketable camera that can do so much more than smartphones/point and shoots.
What lenses would you say that you’re missing out on? Last time I looked the system seemed extremely complete with lenses from both Panasonic and Olympus. You even have exotic options such as fish-eye lenses (something you can’t find natively for either Fuji or Sony).
Going APS-C would be a huge change and would require them to redesign all of their lenses; something which is neither cheap nor fast. Moreover, it is not clear what advantage they would have in the crowded APS-C space compared with any of the incumbents.
I just got an OM1 Mark II for work, along with the 90mm macro lens. This is an upgrade from my previous work kit, a Nikon 810 with the 105mm macro.
I’m not sure the IQ is actually going to be better, probably not. But the computational features, especially focus stacking & bracketing, along with the top-notch weather sealing and general build quality, make it very attractive for field work in rough conditions.
I’ve had a TG6 for years, and kept thinking I’d buy a larger sensor version of that in a heartbeat. I’m a little slow, as I only realized that’s basically what the OM cameras are, without the full waterproofing.
For my personal camera, I have a Nikon Z50. So far, I find the ergonomics of that much more comfortable and intuitive than the OM 1. Part of that is learning a new system, and part of that is that you can’t squeeze all those features into a camera without adding complexity.
My colleague has just decided to get a OM 1 MII with the 12-200 zoom for similar field work (but without the emphasis on macro photography).
I’m not in the system, so I’m not missing anything per se. But there’s an argument for opening up to 3rd parties so people can have access to more affordable options from Viltrox, TTArtisan, Laowa, Samyang, etc. as well as the likes of Sigma and Tamron who compete with the 1st party lens makers.
I know going APS-C would not be cheap or fast, but staying with Micro 4/3 might be a risk.
The Panasonic GM5 was close. An iteration on that design would work, with a slightly more substantial grip (look at the GR) and a hint of a thumb rest (look at the Pentax Q).
If I could do it guilt free, I’d buy that setup in a heartbeat. I wish I had that job perk!
I enjoy the micro 4/3 system. I picked up a Lumix GX7 last year and later got a cheap full spectrum converted GF3. There’s a bunch of cheap lenses out there so it’s relatively easy to play around with different options. I hope I am not entering it at the tail end of its life…
As others have said, something like the Ricoh GR2 would probably sell well. Or Olympus could give their spin on something like the Lumix GM1. To get brand recognition you have to offer something that’s a combination of cool, cheap, and good. As much as I lust after something like the OM-1, that’s a dorky camera made for dorks like me. The OM-3 and PEN-F have lots of cool, but not so cheap. m43 cameras seem relatively popular in the secondhand market for everyday type cameras, so I have to imagine there’s a market for things along those lines.
ILC, viewfinder and weather sealed on top of what GR III already has would definitely get my attention. Of course, it would be difficult to deliver all those features without growing the package size. Wait, didn’t we just step into Fuji X territory?
For me, a viewfinder (with a diopter adjustment) lets me see clearly what I’m shooting. Shooting with an LCD means I have to wear glasses (whoops, I f’n left those at home again!) to compose well, and I probably have to have a stop faster shutter speed when not holding the camera tight to my face (my phone shots suck too). ILC is not really so much of an issue on a small package like the GR III, but the lack of it does mean (for me at least) that it couldn’t be my only camera. I would seriously consider adding a GR III if it had an integrated viewfinder.
That’s where the M43 sensor would come in to save cost and space.
Although I suspect that the decline of M43 has been caused precisely by the size and price no longer being significantly better than larger sensors; one could probably argue a similar process at work in APS-C vs FF, albeit not yet as advanced.
I think there’s something to this, particularly as the decline in high volume camera sales means that you have to sell high value units. Having said that, I still find the bulk of fast FF lenses means they can’t really be an everyday carry.
I was trying to find some data on who buys ILC cameras these days. The YouTube reviewers seem heavily skewed towards features that would only really be needed by professionals or, guess what, YouTube video creators. I just wonder what proportion of camera sales are made up of those market segments. The forums suggest it’s more hobbyists than pros but maybe that’s not representative, either. Still, those hobbyists seem to put a lot of weight on YouTube reviews for features that seem irrelevant.
My concern with the Olympus image sensor from images I have seen and cameras I have played with (but not owned) is the limited ISO capabilities for low light. I have a Canon R7 at the moment and very often take images at 32000 ISO. I know there are full frame cameras that could match this or in fact better this, but I suspect the 4/3 sensor could not. Willing to be corrected if that is the case.
I am also not concerned about dynamic range numbers plotted for cameras. Maybe I am overlooking something here, but for me I am interested in the look of the picture and I find too much noise distracting but am oblivious that another sensor would have given more shadow or highlight details. But in saying that I really appreciate that newer sensors have high dynamic range capture which makes HDR exposure merging less necessary than it was with early digital cameras.
BTW, the fuji XT-5 is my favourite camera that I don’t own. I love the invariant ISO feature. I wish the sensor on my R7 was as good.