 |
| OM digital Systems new OM-3 camera. (Press Photo) |
Do you own the "perfect" camera? You don't because the "perfect" camera that meets everyone's needs and wants doesn't exist. Then why would some expect the "next" camera to be perfect? Hold that thought.
When OM digital systems recently introduced their new camera, the OM-3, the first thoughts that came to my mind after reading the announced specifications was, “What was OM thinking when they created this new camera?“
Almost immediately I found myself being critical of certain aspects of this camera. Why would OM include an electronic viewfinder that is three generations old? Why is there only one memory card? Why is the LCD of such low resolution? Where is the joystick? Why is the IBIS less capable? Why aren't there more programmable buttons? Why is the mechanical shutter restricted to 6 FPS? Why is it so expensive? Who is this camera really for? You may have had many of the same questions.
I hate to admit it but I fell into the same trap in which I see most influencers and reviewers fall. We tend to be immediately critical of anything that is not, in our minds, as we think they should be for a newly introduced camera. We always expect more. We always want better. We want more features. We always immediately compare new cameras to current models. Well, I'm happy to say I quickly recognized my negative mindset and started thinking differently about this camera.
From the specifications, the OM-3 has an all metal classical Olympus OM film camera body and shape with the guts of the OM-1 Mark II. Being that I owned both original OM-1 as well as OM-2 film cameras I found myself really liking the looks of this camera. It reminded me of all of those great times I had photographing with its film loaded predecessors. If you think about it, the OM-1 Mark II has more features and can do just about everything you ever want a camera to do (no be, however). That bodes well for the OM-3. It has cutting edge technology in a retro styled body. I found myself really wanting to like this camera.
I then started watching many YouTube videos, as well as reading a variety of blog posts about what the influencers thought about this camera. Overall, it seemed to be that most were pretty positive. That said, almost everyone that had one of those "Day 1" videos or blog posts published had actually use the camera, even if for a short while. They were given the camera before the public announcement by OM so their reviews were available on the day of launch. From those pre-announcement reviewers OM would expect a positive review or a favorable initial assessment of the camera so, I believe, we should all take those reviews with a grain of salt. Camera companies don't give out cameras for testing expecting negative reviews. If the camera is reviewed negatively, the influencer won't get the next piece of kit.
After The camera had been out for a week or so, I saw some additional comments written by bloggers as well as those who comment on blog posts. These people had not only not used or held the camera, but they have not actually even seen a copy of it in person. Many of these people made comments that were negative. I read comments such as, “this is a parts bin camera.“ Other comments reflected around the fact that there was “nothing new in this camera" and that OM was doomed because they introduced nothing new. I expected these comments.
Over the next few days, thinking about this camera and the comments that had been made, the thought hit me that why is it that only the newest, latest and greatest, fastest, most feature filled, with the quickest autofocus and subject detection and all the other bestest (made up word) things will do in new cameras? What has our photographic community evolved into? Is it wrong or bad or stupid to see a camera and like it for its shape, for how it feels in one's hand, for its engineering or for the nostalgia it may evoke in ourselves? Why is it that only the latest and greatest is okay and we shouldn't buy cameras for any other reason other than pushing the technological envelope?
When you consider buying an automobile, don't you consider its looks as one of the first things you take into account? If the car doesn't have all the latest wizardry, big touch screens, technology, features, etc., that may be available in the market do you criticize it and cross it off your list? Probably not. You like the car for its looks, the brand name, the reputation, the engineering and other aspects of it. If the latest and greatest technology isn't in the car, you probably still will consider it for many other reasons. Advanced technology is just one attribute among many.
When you buy clothing, do you consider color, style, material, etc.? Are you going to buy a shirt because it has the latest cloth technology but is ugly and out of style? No. There are aesthetic considerations in most things we purchase and advanced technology, again, is only one consideration out of many.
Why can’t we buy and use a camera because we like its looks even though it has current or even slightly older technology (that has worked fine for us in the past) but not necessarily next generation technology? Why can't we buy a camera because we like the way it feels in our hands, meets our own needs as well as being very happy with the quality of the images it produces for us? We can and should.
I mentioned I had both Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 film cameras. I love using those cameras. To me they were counterculture. Back in the 1970s most pros were using Nikons but a lot of photojournalists’ companies bought the Olympus cameras because they were small, lightweight, well thought-out, highly engineered and durable. I believe, but am not completely sure, they were slightly less expensive than the Nikon F and F2 and its variants. Those attributes meant a lot to the photographers who used them when out in the field doing their jobs. I bought mine for the same reason—smaller, lighter weight, high quality comparatively tiny lenses and very well engineered. As I said, they were counterculture.
I believe this camera will sell well. There are a lot of 'seasoned' photographers, such as myself, who don't need the greatest, fastest or most technologically advanced cameras to enjoy our photography. There are a lot of 'seasoned' photographers that like taking a step back in time and enjoy using things and having experiences more than just exercising the latest technological wonder. Those of you who have been reading my blog for some time know I shoot with both the Fujifilm X-T5 and Nikon Zf. Why did I buy those two cameras in particular? Some of the reasons are how the cameras look, how they feel in my hands and the retro dials and controls. They remind me of the film cameras that I used for decades. If you think about it, the OM-3 is still pretty cutting edge technologically as well as retro designed so we get both in one attractive basket. Not the latest and greatest technology but more than sufficient.
But what about the price? I think it is a little high. By that’s only my opinion. Your opinion may vary. On the other hand it is new. Everything new is priced high so the most profit can be made from the early adopters. Second, it has most of the capabilities of OM's flagship camera. It is only lacking a few things that don't actually impact image quality itself. That metal body, controls, R&D and engineering costs, sensor, image processor and all of the computational photography features are no less expensive than in an OM-1 Mark II. If it is priced a bit high for you, wait until Black Friday and Christmas later this year. I bet the camera will be put on sale. Then you can consider it at a lower cost. But OM isn't doing anything that other camera companies don't do when pricing new gear. If you think the OM-3 is a little overpriced, forget about it and buy a Leica—any Leica. Lol.
As for me, if the OM-3 would fit in with my current plans and augment my current gear in a logical way I would buy it based upon emotion, capabilities and price. It isn’t better, faster, more capable or produce better images than my OM-1 Mark II. But if the price was right and I needed it, I would buy it because I like the ‘idea’ of it. I like its looks. I like how I think it will make me feel when using it. In fact, I would get out one of my old skinny leather straps from one of my film cameras from the 1970s, attach it to the OM-3, hang it around my neck like I did with cameras decades ago and put a 25mm or 17mm lens on it. I would then walk around and casually practice my craft in a very low stress manner. Slow and easy. Pure nostalgia.
Let's hope the photographic community doesn't continue down this path that only the newest, fastest and best technology from new cameras is the only way to go. We should be buying cameras because we want the joy and fun of using them—and that includes also meeting your needs. If your cameras don't feel good in your hands, if your cameras don't make you want to pick them up and use them, if your cameras aren't fun to use, then you probably have the wrong cameras, no matter what technology is inside.
The Image Doctors in their latest podcast got it right. I suggest you listen to this podcast (#265). You can find it here. In fact, you should be subscribed and listen to all of their podcasts. The Image Doctors are two well experienced, rational, mature, clear thinking gentlemen who provide excellent perspectives on photography in general, gear, the photo industry and the art of photography.
In my opinion, photographic pleasure should trump technology when you practice your art and craft. Just my opinion.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2025 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Interesting perspectives. As an Olympus/OM daily driver, I was immediately interested in the OM-3. I had hoped for an upgraded OM-5 body with the OM-1.2 features except for high frame rates. That would be a functional upgrade to my original Olympus for maximum portability. In particular, the advanced EVF, graduated Live ND, expanded stabilization, and expanded handheld focus bracketing would be welcomed.
ReplyDeleteMy original Olympus, the small body M10 II, is somewhat limited in features compared to the OM-1. Yet, I have enjoyed using it in the field, as the small body is pocketable with most lenses. It is fun to use, and the results from the 16mp sensor is not that far off the OM-1. I recently came across an image of a distant eagle made with the M10 and tiny 40-150R lens. After a 2X upsize in PS, the print made me wonder if the OM-1 would have done any better.
As for portability, an M10, 7.5 prime, 20mm pancake, and the 40-150R can all fit onto one hand. I usually drop the M10 into my jacket pocket with the small 12-40 f2.8. The image quality is excellent and may be indistinguishable in a print on the wall from a much larger camera. And this kit can travel in your jacket, cargo pants, etc.
I think OM should be concentrating on the small body cameras, with much faster lenses. For example, the 40-150 f2.8 is my favorite lens now. At 150 and f2.8 the lens is superbly sharp, and I am able to use lower ISO settings in dim light. The DOF at f2.8 is equal to that of my full frame lens at 300mm and f5.6 with the bonus of a 2 stop lower ISO.
And a comment on the internet reviewers: I think they have a column space to fill and mostly do only that, too often speaking the party line especially about sensor size.
I have learned it is better to make my own tests and evaluations with respect to my standard uses. I have many times been anxious to ship back a rental camera or lens that I had rented only to verify my intent to purchase. The Zeiss Milvus was an example. One of the most beautiful lenses I have ever held, but the images looked just like those from my Nikon lens.
Hello Dennis. I’m a mostly m43 shooter, and love the system. My poor old EM5 II was reluctantly retired a few years ago because inexplicably it developed fungus on the sensor, verified by MPB. So, I wasn’t even able to sell it. I looked at the EM5 III, and didn’t like what I saw in terms of the plastic construction, so went with an EM1 III. I love the EM1 III; it’s fast, reliable and especially nice with my 40-150 f2.8. But, I really miss the smaller body often, and I just really don’t enjoy plasticky camera bodies. So, I’m pretty interested in the beautiful OM3. My only gripe is it would’ve been nice if the EVF were a bit higher resolution to go along with its pricing tier, and like you, I do feel the price is a bit much so I will wait for a good sale. I will also note something that I haven’t seen discussed much, but the reported CIPA battery life for the OM3 is significantly higher than even the OM1 II at 590 shots per charge, versus 520 for the OM1 II. That is starting to get into good old DSLR battery life territory. I wonder if part of that excellent battery life is the less power hungry EVF. If so, then perhaps the low end EVF is not the worst thing. Regardless, I’m really happy to see OM System making a truly new style of body in the m43 space, and the OM3 seems like it would be joy to use and own, especially with primes. Wishing you a good day. -Paul
ReplyDeletePaul, thanks for your comment. In my experience, and this is just me, when I get concentrating on making an image when looking through the viewfinder, I lose track of the EVF’s resolution. I find myself intently concentrating on composition, light, watching the subject move, etc., to then press the shutter button at an exact moment. The resolution of the EVF is secondary to all that. My Nikon Z8 has a terrific 3.69mp EVF and my OM-1 Mark II has a 5.76mp EVF. I have a difficult time seeing much difference at all. When I used my earlier Olympus cameras, I don’t remember complaining about the 2.36mp EVF. Maybe I’ve forgotten but that EVF wouldn’t stop me from buying the camera if it otherwise meets my photographic and emotional needs. As for battery life, I don’t know what tests CIPA uses, but I’ve never had a camera whose battery life didn’t far exceed CIPA’s ratings. I know that when I’ve been out photographing birds and wildlife, I’ve made over 2000 exposures in a single day using a single battery. Granted, these were made using 15fps or so, but even in my general photography forays, I’ve never used up an OM battery in a days’ worth of shooting. ~Dennis
Delete