Insofar as it's the topic of conversation, opinions about the just-announced OM Digital Solutions OM System OM-3 are divided. Some are saying its purpose is to slot between the existing OM-1 and OM-5, and they give measurements and weights to make their case. Others say it's a marketing move into "retro" because old guys allegedly like retro because we (ahem—have to count myself in the elder generation now) are unable to move on from 50 years ago. That's a bit of a slander, considering that an 80+ year old reader from Israel who wanted to visit me here in the boondocks rented a plane in NYC and flew himself here, and another of those allegedly hidebound readers is doing post-processing in Photoshop using his Apple Vision Pro goggles (and says it's spectacular). I think young people like retro just as well, because old film cameras are a style accessory in their generation. But, old or young or in the middle, retro is a minority enthusiasm, let's admit. I'm in favor; others aren't.
A friend and I got into the discussion about it. We weren't arguing, really—I can't think of a time hostility has ever entered into our communications. He said:
"I doubt that the retro-cult thing is going to gain them many new sales from people who haven't already decided that Micro 4/3 offers an appealing tradeoff of advantages and disadvantages. So ultimately the gamble that OM is making is this: can they gain more by up-selling prospective OM-5 buyers than they will lose from prospective OM-1 buyers moving down, and by enough to cover the costs of developing and stocking an additional model?"
Texting with one finger, because I was eating, I typed back:
"I think there’s considerably more at stake—a new camera makes OM System a real camera company that is releasing new models, not just a remnant merchant surviving on aging legacy models. It might or might not be a significant/profitable product, but it’s crucial for the company’s image and to reassure all of its customers that it’s a going concern that intends to remain in business. Just my 2 cents."
To which he responded:
"On that count it's looking like a fail, at least if early discussion board chatter is representative. Many are panning it as offering nothing really new, rather just a rearrangement of existing parts. I agree with that. And it suggests that OM can't afford to develop anything genuinely new. So the fact that the new model took this form exacerbates the 'going concern' issue rather than alleviating it. And from those not already committed to the small sensor because of its particular virtues, the reaction is, 'but I can get a full-frame camera for that kind of money.'"
Thom Hogan points out that you can also get a OM-D E-M1 mark II, from which the guts of the OM-3 were allegedly repurposed, for exactly the same money as the OM-3. That might adjust as time goes on.
So that's yet another complaint: that the OM-3 is not really new—doesn't break new ground—doesn't offer anything we didn't have before—and that it's a "parts-bin camera," the latter meant as a condemnation. It has mostly the guts of the OM-D E-M1 mark II, some say; some say the guts of the OM-1 mark II. (If you can confidently sort out all the Olympus/OMDS camera designations, you're alone in the Universe. It's like being an expert in Newtonian alchemy).
Even Olympus couldn't afford being Olympus
But here's the thing. We got spoiled for a lot of years. Cameras were a frontier market for a while. Growth was chaotic and intense. Giant multinational electronics companies rushed into the biz. Sony played Djokovic to Canon and Nikon's Nadal and Federer, and the Big Two became the Big Three. Look at graphs of camera sales in the 2000s. And all along, Olympus, conspicuously even in that era, was trying innovative new ideas (remember the folded in-body telephoto lens path?) and coming up with cunning new technologies. But Olympus ended up hemorrhaging money rather spectacularly. I have a poor memory for figures, but my memory is that it had lost $157 million over either one year or two near the end, and God knows how much over the decade prior to them running for the doors c. 2021.
That's the Olympus we want back; that's the Olympus we expect; it's the Olympus we're used to: a deep-pockets international corporation with heritage going back to 1932 that kept throwing away good money to support original engineering and a parade of new products...all at a loss. Now, however, OMDS is a small independently operated subsidiary of a private equity firm, JIP, that makes money by buying and restructuring unwanted and unprofitable divisions of larger corporations.
Put plainly, this ain't the good old days. And I think people are responding to the OM-3 like they think it still is. They want progress! They want new! Innovation, please. Push the envelope. They want to be dazzled and tempted and indulged and catered to like Olympus used to do.
But Olympus used to do that by lavishing us with products developed with endless mountains of vanishing cash from the parent company. And those days are gone. Olympus couldn't even afford to do what Olympus used to do. Why would anybody think that OMDS, much smaller and more streamlined and with shallower pockets—and much less R&D money and fewer personnel (I have no confirmation of those last two things, but it's very likely I think), be able to continue the old tradition?
People who care
Looked at from a realistic viewpoint, I think the rational reaction is to be very pleased by the appearance of the OM-3. It's a fine little alternative. It shows that there are people at OMDS who care about cameras. And about photographers. It shows they are willing to make new products to keep the company alive and viable. Yeah, maybe the OM-3 uses existing parts—but the original Ford Mustang was a parts-bin car, and that product caught the public's imagination, not to mention that it did rather well over the decades. The original Shelby Cobra was a Frankenstein, a British AC Ace with an American V8 shoehorned in. Try buying an original now—you'll need expendable cash in the millions. And we're going to complain that the OM-3 uses a sensor that's used in other cameras? Really? That's often done, you know. If you want every new camera to have an all-new sensor in it I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
Acknowledging that not everybody likes retro, the OM-3 a beautiful little retro exercise, at least as good as the Zfc and the old Pen F. And it's nicely judged: it has the new menu system from the OM-1, a big plus; it's weatherproof; it has a single card slot—some of us (there's that "us" again) having no desire for two; the eye relief has been improved (allegedly—I'd have to look through it); and it uses the larger battery from the OM-1. And weight and size are Goldilocks.
Any niggles? Its EVF has fewer dots. That's the only thing I presently see that seems like pure cost-cutting. And you know that I personally don't prefer the swing-out viewing screen—I like the flip-up kind. That's just me. OM System has a long history of preferring the swing-out style, however, and its customers are used to that.
If you'll notice, these aren't even retro dials. The
on-off switch certainly is retro, though!
One thing that's def not a niggle: the Internet is griping that the OM-3 has no hand grip. C'mon. You think the aftermarket won't take care of grips, even if OMDS doesn't? There are like ten add-on grips and cages for my rectangular cuboid Sigma FP, including two from Sigma. My Fuji X-T1 has only a tiny grip, which is one of the best things about it, because I could choose the size of add-on grip (big) that fits my hand. Complaining about the grip looks a lot like trying to manufacture arguments against the new camera.
So, forumers and discussion groups and commenters, as well as my compadres in the nattering class: let's remember an ancient Mikey rule, from this old donkey who's been testing cameras since before LeBron James was born: you've got to hold a camera in your hand and shoot with it before you really know what it's all about. Until then, don't pre-judge. I probably said that in the pages of the ancient and long-gone Darkroom Photography magazine when Ronald Reagan was President, and I've been saying it ever since and all along.
Until then, better keep an open mind.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Kristine Hinrichs: "I’m admittedly an Olympus/OM 'fan-kid.' Since 2013 I’ve owned every OM-D/OM iteration (plus several 'marks') except the E-M1X. I have the OM-3 on pre-order to replace my OM-5 and complement my OM-1 mark II. I think the OM-3 is what many of us hoped the OM-5 would be, and I would not be surprised to see the OM-5 fade away. I have been hoping for the OM-1 in a smaller package, with a similar menu, the same battery, syncIS with some lenses, and subject detection.
"I think a key here is that this is not being marketed as a wildlife camera. I think OM got themselves in a corner with the OM-1 as people assumed it is just for wildlife, limiting its appeal. I am one not concerned about a grip—if I wanted a bigger camera, I’d buy another OM-1 mark II. I do wish they’d bring syncIS to some of the smaller lenses, however."
Kenneth Tanaka: "I’ve no interest in this camera. But it sure looks breathtakingly over-priced ($1,999) for what it is and compared to predecessors and (mostly Lumix) competitors."
Walter I.: "By the way, Thom Hogan did not say that the OM-3 uses repurposed E-M1 mark II guts. He said, 'In essence, OMDS is doing a strange thing with this new model, squeezing the current OM-1 innards into a changed and slightly simplified body and trying to wedge that between the OM-1 and OM-5. I'm not sure that there's room there for that. [...] Still, perhaps the 'newness' of the 'timelessness' may trigger some additional buying by a few. I'm unconvinced as to why I'd want the OM-3 over the OM-1 mark II, though.'"
Albert Smith: "I may be wrong, and I have no vested interest other than general photography practice, but the term retro seems like a moniker that doesn't match my interpretation. For me, the top deck of a retro camera should allow you to see (and adjust) the three parts of other exposure triangle, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, plus (my most used control) the exposure compensation dial. I can compare my old Nikon FE2 with my newer Fujifilm X-T class body, and 'retro' applies in both form and function. When I look down on that Olympus, I see none of that."
Chris: "Agree with your assessment. It takes some effort to do a completely new body and style. They did it! This shows signs of life and gives hope to those of us invested in the system that the company is alive and kicking."
Gorazd: "This was a very logical and down to earth read, and summarizes my sentiments as well. OMDS is not Olympus, and it shouldn't be. It should pick up where the old company left off, make itself sustainable and build on from there. Anyone that has any knowledge of how businesses operate knows that we are talking a 10-year goal here. First third spent on consolidation, second on finding stability, and the third on getting ready for a feasible future, based on how good of a job was done this far. Hence, I think the OM-3 is a great release. It captures imaginations, offering something new to existing customers and something to bring new people into the fold. The tech has reached a very good plateau as well. Cameras today are really, really good, regardless of brand or sensor size, and people arguing about that are finally starting to sound like relics. Yes, we know FF is superior, but Micro 4/3 is great too, and sufficient for a lot of us (I would even argue most). At this point it's all about charm, use-case, and personal preference, and to me OMDS nailed it with the OM-3. I truly hope it sells well and wish them luck!"
Moose: "I'm an OMS fan. I have purchased four of their bodies. The form factor doesn't much please me, but they do things no other cameras can do. They make possible shots I couldn't dream of a few years ago. Like Mike, I want them to succeed. Some stuff: I worked for many years for a Fortune 500 company with lots of vertical integration. The distribution of costs, expenses and profits between internal entities is as much politics as accounting. Not so much, in my case, because of stupidity or venality. It's just really hard to distribute that stuff. I could go on, and on.... Suffice it to say that those old reported losses from the camera group may or may not have had any bearing on how the spun-off company will do. When we went through an LBO, consultants came in and revalued everything. I didn't agree with all of it, but it made even more clear how arbitrary it all is. JIP may well have come in and decided the camera business was viable; why else acquire it?
"Next: there are no parts-bin cameras, nor indeed any volume consumer electronics. They are made in one-shot batches. If the OM-3 has any internal parts the same as the E-M1 II, that's because they worked for the new design, and were reordered from scratch. I could go on, and on...."
Mike adds: ...And Moose does, but in the full Comments section. What he wrote is fascinating, but too long for a Featured Comment. Do check it out.
Jayanand Govindaraj: "If, as you say, the OM-3 is at least as good as the Nikon Zfc, it is also at least double the price of a Nikon Zfc (which would have better low light capability as it has a bigger sensor for approximately the same number of megapixels). Why should anyone but a blind fanboy buy an OM-3 at a price equivalent to a Nikon Z6 III? It has the smell and feel of a typical product from a company run by private equity, which is all about short term pick-pocketing of the loyal customers!"
Per: "I think people miss that this is a camera that is targeted to be fun to shoot with. People will want this for the feel of solidity, that they hold a high class product that looks good, and the easy access to colour modes and computational features. Will I get one? Not sure; for the ski photography I do, an OM-1 mark II is more suitable. Will I want one? Once I try it, yes, I expect I will."
My only complaint is that it's a little pricey. Regarding the viewfinder, from what I hear even though the resolution is so-so, the viewpoint is very good, so eyeglass wearers like myself will appreciate it.
For me, its main competition is the used market. If I were to get back in to micro 4/3, I would likely get another EM1 Mark II, which currently go for $550 or so at MPB.
This review at Petapixel does give me a little gear lust, though. I have always enjoyed micro 4/3, and have never felt shortchanged in image quality. If anything, my "keeper rate" for casual shooting goes up, thanks to the increased depth of field and the increased shutter speed (yes, I know I can just raise iso on full frame to match it, but have some kind of psychological aversion to doing so).
Posted by: John Krumm | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 10:25 AM
At least as good as the Zfc except for one thing -- the Zfc right now is about half the price.
Posted by: John Camp | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 10:52 AM
The OM-1, OM-2, OM-3, OM-4 were brilliant cameras and everything else Olympus made seems like some sort of compromise. If the first digital camera Olympus made had been the OM-3 they would still be in the camera business. The price is certainly too high but compare it to the price of your most coveted SONY camera and it will look a lot more reasonable.
Posted by: Rudy L Mack | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 10:58 AM
Don't have a dog in this, just don't care for any of the retro/digital confabulations. They're like Hollywood sets, cool from the front- fugly, plasticky and noncomplementary in the back. Fujifilm did the retro thing right, although they've now abandoned the retro curves for more boxy, angular, right angles.
As for: my pinky doesn't fit comfortably, it needs two more frames per second, two more megapixels... puh-lease!
Posted by: Stan B. | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 10:58 AM
I love m4/3 and want to keep using it. I'm still very happy with my pair of Panasonic GX8s. What I want in a new m4/3 camera is a 35-40MP sensor with the best of current technology. All the better if it came in a GX8 form factor. I don't care which company makes it. I'll keep hoping it appears someday.
Posted by: Dave Levingston | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 11:00 AM
Olympus user from way back here. I have an original OM-1 film camera and three E-series DSLR's. What's always impressed me about Olympus is their glass. I don't stretch myself using all the bells and whistles on the body but definitely need specific glass for my interests. I'm just hoping Olympus keeps up this tradition regardless of what cool stuff they put in the body.
Posted by: Mel | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 11:04 AM
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that you guys were debating with regard to Olympus cognoscenti, which is valid, of course, but what about those new to Olympus, or to 4/3, or to ILCs or even to photography? Those shoppers probably care less about the prehistory of the system than about having three different bodies to choose from. Can't fault OMDS for trying to make their core product appeal to more people (including those considering the risk of a used OM-D).
Bigger camera makers have long used the same sensors in different bodies, and still do. People generally don't complain if it's a good sensor. If they complain about anything, it's the "crippling" of sensor performance or features to suit the price point, but I take it that's not what's going on here.
So, from a distance, it does look like a tempest in a teapot. Or maybe just venting, which is OK, I guess. Ho hum. Please wake me when OM releases a digital XA (or, for that matter, a film XA!).
Posted by: robert e | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 11:47 AM
The undeniable benefit of SLR-shaped cameras without the big handgrips is that they slip into/out of bags and large pockets, whereas the modern DSLR-shaped cameras with the big comfy handgrips just... don't. That isn't important for all cameras (my small Pentax MX SLR is small enough to slip into a large pocket with a compact lens, but too heavy), but for M4/3, it makes sense. It just makes sense. Bring back the GX series, Panasonic!
Posted by: Andrew L | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 12:22 PM
It sounds like many of the opinions are from the people who said the Pentax 17 was too expensive because "I could buy an old Pen F for less than $100".
The OM-3 is a handsome camera and has mostly up-to-date parts inside. Yes, the price is a bit steep, but then what isn't anymore? The problem I see is having a model that is priced closely to models with better specs.
Lack of a hand grip? I guess these complainers didn't look up photos of the original OM series of cameras. Most models didn't have a grip. (The webpage https://www.imagingpixel.com/p/olympus-om-slr-cameras-1972-1994.html shows only the OM-3 Ti and OM-4 Ti with grips -- that were barely big enough for your fingertips.)
If someone likes the look of the camera enough to ignore the pricing relative to other OM models, who could complain? A camera that makes you want to use it, even if only to look at it sometimes, can't be all bad.
Posted by: Dave | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 01:38 PM
I’m a long-time Olympus user, dating back to the original XA and continuing through various Stylus and compact digital cameras. When the OM-D E-M5 was released with PDAF, I decided that m43 was the future and jumped from my Nikon DX kit to Olympus (with two Panasonics mixed in). Right now I have an E-M1.3 and E-M5.3, along with a pretty extensive collection of primes and zooms. I ‘m thinking of upgrading the E-M1.3 to an OM-1.2 this year, because rumor has it that it finally has a useable object detection and tracking capability.
I bought a Nikon Zf last year, intrigued by its retro design as well as its outstanding technology. I’ve been very pleased with it, and have gradually expanded my Nikon kit with a Z6III and several lenses, including the 351.8 and 85/1.8. I use the 24-120/4 regularly for granddaughters’ sports on the Z6III, with much better results than I ever got from the E-M1.3.
Will I buy an OM-3? Not likely. It looks sort of retro-ish, but not really. I think my E-M5.3 looks more retro than the OM-3 does. To my eye, the only retro thing about the body is the lack of a hand grip - a pretty decisive functional dis-improvement. Even the Zf has a rudimentary handgrip, although I added the Smallrig grip. Note that both the OM-3 and the Zf are wider than their parts-bin compatriots, probably because loosing the hand grip also robs the camera of interior volume for electronics.
So I hope it’s a home run for OM Systems - I like the cameras and lenses they sell, and hope they have a long future ahead of them filled with enough innovation to stay alive. But I’m doubtful the OM-3 supports their cause.
Posted by: Scott | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 01:41 PM
The OM-3 is, well, fine. What do I know, I bought my ZF because it was green!
But you can no longer compare Olympus against anything other than other M43 cameras - as price and any feature other than weight are never going to favor the system. I don't see the OM-3 getting a lot of net new users for OM, but it's a solid commitment to fans and current shooters, and that has real value.
I STILL think that my favorite feature from the OM series, the shutter speed selector around the lensmount, would be so perfect for especially this model. Flip aperture and shutter to 'A' to run the camera from the top, or turn them to have manual controls - no space taken from the top panel and intuitive. Alas. Well built moving controls with click stops are likely more expensive than the sensors at this point.
Posted by: Rob L. | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 01:47 PM
I don’t get people being upset about what the OM-3 is, a new model using elements of existing models. That’s what Fuji cameras and most cars are. It’s an amazing camera in a small package. But, and it’s a big but, people for some reason are focused one sensor size. So, here we have a camera that can do things no full-frame camera can do, but Americans will still just think about sensor size. Luckily, the Asian market may keep the brand alive.
Posted by: John | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 02:22 PM
I shoot Olympus and am not particularly interested in the OM-3, but that's because its features overlap with my current cameras so there is no reason to buy one. OTOH, I have nothing against it. The fact that it doesn't have any new and improved gee-whiz tech means nothing to me. I don't use all the tech in my current bodies. Who is taking all these edge case photos that require new tech?
If OM-D wanted to shake the world up a little, they should release a B&W-only version of the OM-3. That would create a buzz. After the success of the Pentax K-3 Monochrome, I'm a bit surprised others haven't done the same.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 03:36 PM
I preface this comment by saying I’m in no way the target market for the OM-3; I’m almost 100% a film user, and decided against Micro 4/3s as a platform for various reasons when I needed something digital for work purposes years ago. However, my “other half” uses an Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkIII that she chose specifically for bird photography, so I’m not exactly unfamiliar with M4/3 cameras, and definitely understand why people would use them.
However, all that being said… this feels very much like it missed the mark. The two digital cameras I do use often for different purposes are a Fujifilm X-Pro 2 and a Leica M240, and I specifically chose (and cling onto) both of them because they have “proper" controls. Need to change the shutter speed? It’s right there, on the top, obvious to read and set. Need to change the aperture? It’s on the lens, where it’s supposed to be. Anything else you need - ISO, exposure comp, auto-exposure, whatever - is clearly marked and quickly accessible.
That is what defines a “retro” camera to me - something that strips out all the overcomplicated mess of recent years (by which I mean the last few decades). And while my partner loves the photos she gets out of the E-M5 MkIII, she’s always having to remember what each unmarked dial is and where the controls she needs are. Considering she also uses a pair of old Nikon F film bodies, a truly “retro” OM-3 would be a perfect upgrade for her. Instead, this is just a pretty looking body with all the trappings of every other digital camera out there (including a patently ridiculous "special effect” dial on the front like Fuji’s “advanced filter” settings I flicked through when I bought the first X-Pro model and have ignored ever since.
Bah, humbug, etc.
Posted by: Tony Gale | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 03:42 PM
The real competition for Olympus is the Fuji X100. In other words, trying to convince prospective Fuji customers to choose Olympus instead.
Posted by: Dan Khong | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 03:51 PM
It's not "push the envelope", but push the outside of the envelope, exceeding established limits, the envelope being those limits.
[Hey Luis, nice to hear from you. Haven't seen your name go by since back in May. Did you know that tomorrow is the anniversary of your first-ever comment on TOP, in 2011, 14 years ago? Time flies. --Mike]
Posted by: Luis C. Aribe | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 04:14 PM
Hi Mike, thanks for your take on this new announcement.
It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. I like your point about people’s expectations of Olympus vs OMDS.
Just one minor critique. You make the points:
- “Now, however, OMDS is a small independently operated subsidiary of a private equity firm, JIP, that makes money by buying and restructuring unwanted and unprofitable divisions of larger corporations.”, and
- “It shows that there are people at OMDS who care about cameras.”
My own cynical view is to set the expectations bar of JIS even lower - it shows that JIS cares about profit (I.e. need to issue ‘new’ products to keep sales going). I suspect it’s the lack of any new tech that’s driving one side of the commentary. To your point, OMDS doesn’t have to be cutting edge any more, they just need to generally keep up with the wider industry.
Still, one product launch is just one data point. Key Q is whether this reflects a trend since OMDS took the reins. That’s what we’re all prognosticating over - medium / long term corporate perspective over short term customer perspective. In the short term, if people buy it and enjoy it, more power to them.
Posted by: Not THAT Ross Cameron | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 05:31 PM
This discussion aside, a deal-breaker for me is the swing-out (as opposed to tip-up) rear screen. Precisely why I'm sticking with my original EM-5, and why I'd love to have (but at this point cannot afford/justify) an XT-5.
Posted by: Rick Neibel | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 05:32 PM
Olympus or any other brand. It is impossible to buy a camera now that is not capable of excellent images. Sensor size & technical improvements are still of little use in the hands of a lousy shooter.
As long as it is comfortable in use & you like it - most anything now does a good job.
Posted by: Daniel | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 06:33 PM
Mike --
Your comments about the business side of m4/3 and Olympus in particular are not only spot-on, but also rarely said clearly enough. Long ago Panasonic, Olympus' M4/3 frenemy, decided the major benefit of the M4/3 sensor's geometry was its read speed, greatly facilitating its use in video, and pushed aggressively down that road. That left Oly specializing in M4/3 for still photography by default, and, in the end, they failed to make a very good case for it.
When Sony was knocking it out-of-the-park in the last decade perfecting mirrorless tracking AF (crucial for wildlife/bird-in-flight and a major M4/3 market) Oly was always a few steps behind. Even worse for a small sensor-based still photo system, Oly missed several generations of sensor improvements in that period too. That last was game over for me and i left the the format in 2018.
This all came to fruition in 2019's E-M1x, which was a huge, heavy, expensive, ghastly disappointment. Yes, it had framerate, but in every other way (such as, crucially, AF) it was behind its competition. Did i mention that, like this "new" OM-3 (!), the E-M1x also shared a sensor from 2016's E-M1 ii?
I know that the m4/3 format still has its fans (i was one for a few years) but introductions like this one are the best that can be expected given the raw economics of the situation, as you accurately describe.
-- gary ray
Posted by: gary bliss | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 07:06 PM
I'm with you, Mike. The only companies that can afford actual technological camera innovation are Sony (clear leaders) and Canon. Fujifilm have buckets of money but no longer seem to be pushing the boundaries.
On the other hand, there is innovation in packaging. I don't mean the cardboard box, of course. The way features are combined can be innovative, and I think Olympus had always been strong this way, as are Fujifilm, and at last OM are showing their strength too.
That's why I am excited to see the OM-3. A scan of the summaries by review sites (I looked at 7: PetaPixel, DCW, Photographyblog, Amateur Photographer, PCMag, Fstoppers and Yahoo) who have clearly been using pre-release OM-3s, keep on saying the same sort of thing: it is a wonderful camera, it makes you fall in love with photography again, it inspires joyous creativity. That's what innovation in packaging can do.
Two things surprised me: the price and the size. One wishes it were cheaper but understands it cannot be: the cheapest camera with a stacked APS-C sensor is $2500 and full frame, $4000. And for size, when I saw the announcements I assumed it was the size of my old E-M5 II, but no, that was my mistake!
Posted by: Arg | Monday, 10 February 2025 at 07:48 PM
Agree with you 120% OMDS won't throw meaningful R&D money into this business.
To me, for the retro market, the main disappointments are:
- Why not in a Pen-F rangefinder form factor?
- The retro market will care a lot about the aesthetics. Why is the font "OM-3" so timid and ugly?
Posted by: John Y | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 01:18 AM
I'm an OMS fan. I have purchased four of their bodies. The form factor doesn't much please me, but they do things no other cameras can do. They make possible shots I couldn't dream of a few years ago.
Like Mike, I want them to succeed.
Some stuff:
I worked for many years for a Fortune 500 company with lots of vertical integration. The distribution of costs, expenses and profits between internal entities is as much politics as accounting. Not so much, in my case, because of stupidity or venality. It's just really hard to distribute that stuff.
I could go on, and on . . . Suffice it to say that those old reported losses from the camera group may or may not have had any bearing on how the spun off company will do. When we went through an LBO, consultants came in and revalued everything. I didn't agree with all of it, but it made even more clear how arbitrary it all is.
JIP may well have come in and decided the camera business was viable; why else acquire it?
Next: there are no parts bin cameras, nor indeed any volume consumer electronics. They are made in one shot batches. If the OM-3 has any internal parts the same as the E-M1 II, that's because they worked for the new design, and were reordered from scratch. I could go on, and on; all this hokum about how things are designed and manufactured is ignorance.
More ignorance, in casual blather on the web. It's obvious that some folks have the simple idea tha any new sensor will have more MPs. Oly themselves lowered the pixel resolution during the TG series development. Panny did the same in one of their P&S series.
Let's let DPReview talk:
"The OM-1 is built around a completely new 20MP Stacked CMOS image sensor. Stacked sensors are the next generation of technology beyond BSI designs, combining layers of semiconductor to allow more complex designs and faster readout.
The sensor has 20 million microlenses and a Bayer array with 20 million color patches, but there are four photodiodes behind each of these, which are combined to form each pixel. These sub-pixels can be read-out individually, giving the camera four fractionally different perspectives on the world. These are compared to derive depth information about the scene, giving phase difference autofocus in an X-shaped pattern.
With 80 million individual photodiodes to read out, it's perhaps not surprising that Stacked CMOS design only delivers a readout speed twice as fast as that of its predecessor. We've measured the rate at around 1/125th seconds, which is twice as long as the fastest full-frame stacked CMOS chips take, despite the smaller size.
It's still quick enough to improve the performance of the various multi-shot modes the OM-1 offers."
So, 20 MP, yes, the same 20MP as any of the E-M1 series bodies? No. Same as some Panny? Doubt it, but don't know. Is 20 MP enough? For me, yes. I had a Sony A7 II, and bought an A7RII. For me, all the extra resolution gave was bigger files and slower processing. Both gone.
As to grip, the modest grips like after-market stick-ons aren't good for me. The Oly ones for the OM-3 & 4, also to small to do much.
I do a lot with long zooms. The OM-1 grip just falls into my hand as though made for it. Good, big add-ons just add a lot of size and weight. Might as well have an OM-1 — Oh, I do!
"They want to be dazzled and tempted and indulged and catered to like Olympus used to do."
How quickly they forget the ill-fated forays into film AF.
(Oh yeah, I've been using Oly mirrorless since the E-PL1. I've used 12 different models, primarily E-M5, E-PM2, E-M5 II, E-M1 II and OM-1 and OM-1 II. Even a little with another three E-bodies.
So, yes, you may classify me as "you're alone in the Universe", but I know others of my ilk. \;~)>
Rant dies . . .
Posted by: Moose | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 03:40 AM
I won't be buying the OM-3 despite having various Olympus bodies and a small stable of lenses (zoom and prime). I have been very satisfied with the build quality and reliability of my Olympus kit compared with other well known makes that I have owned in the past.
Posted by: George | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 04:34 AM
I am going to check it out keeping an open mind but do keep in mind the following:
- Whether OM Systems has the resources to innovate or not, create compelling products vs the competition, which is fighting four our hard earned dollars, it's NOT a customer problem. They are not a non-profit organization after all, and neither are the others.
- People were clamoring for a PenF successor. Those who say "but the PenF didn't sell well" consider that the reasons there do not have much to do with the PenF itself as much as its implementation. This camera doesn't do anything much a PenF 2 pretty much wouldn't do.
- While the OM-3 is smaller than the OM-1, it's still not a compact camera. m43rds is crying for a modern compact camera- this would be a PenF or EM5 MarkII body. I think this would make the camera stand out more being unique and a unique real small system, and not the ambiguity the system is riding at times at the moment where the bodies and even some lenses aren't smaller or obviously smaller than the competitors.
All that said, I want to keep the open mind and check it out. I think in terms of addressing a plurality of photographic situations, the OM-3 seems pretty flexible.
Posted by: Ricardo Hernandez | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 05:27 AM
In 1986 Canon came with the T90 designed by Luigi Colani. This German chose for what was introduced as ‘organic design’ and this started the trend of the big black polycarbonate blobs that most photographers used ever since. An artistic disaster if you ask me but it became a huge success. Leica and Fuji, although they also had some ugly designs during the years, stuck to their style. Is that retro? Is Rolls Royce retro, or do they just have a consistent visual identity that we should call classic?
Sony introduced in our digital era a new contemporary look. Technically they were ahead of the rest for a while. They produce most of the sensors, also for other brands, cooperate with Sigma and Zeiss for their lenses and have a top quality line up of optics of their own. They make beautiful cameras but somehow I never got connected with them. Maybe because to me their devices feel more electronic than photographic?
The last fifteen years I have been using Micro Four Thirds exclusively. A format that has been far more innovative than full frame, which seems more like the reanimation of an old mastodon. Someone said retro?
Again, sales figures obviously are not on my side.
Am I going to get the OM-3? Not yet. The price is a bit steep and it is technically overkill for a happy snapper like me. But that CP button is really intriguing and for my traveling I need something that is small, weather sealed and does not overheat in the tropics.
Posted by: s.wolters | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 08:58 AM
I think it's the OM-1 (not E-M1) Mark II that you can get at a street price that is the same as the announced price of the OM-3. It will be somewhat larger and clunkier of course. But with a nice hand grip. 🙂
FWIW my own feeling about this new body is about the same as Thom's.
Posted by: psu | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 09:07 AM
In terms of manufacturing, this is clearly a new camera. Your analogy of parts bin cars is sound. OMDS has designed a new, complex body to house components made largely elsewhere. In terms of software, it is largely not a new camera. But since Olympus's demise, there has been software innovation -- new menu, graduated filter ... and maybe some new stuff involved with the creative dial (but, though I've not seen it mentioned, it looks to do very much what the EP-7 does). So OMDS seems alive on both hardware and software, unless the software was already in train before the spin out.
Posted by: John | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 09:10 AM
I'm sorry, but if "the aftermarket will take care of the handgrip" is a thing, then what's that say about the actual design process in the first place?
The Japanese are culturally driven. They often value "smaller" over "functional." This is why we got soap bar cameras in the first place. Thing is, the Japanese market is NOT a sustainable niche all by itself, particularly if you look at the price points at which the Japanese public is actually buying (way below the OM-3 price).
There's a reason why grips evolved on cameras, and the reason hasn't gone away. But the designers seem to think it has.
Posted by: Thom Hogan | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 09:28 AM
Not really feeling the grip angst I'm seeing all over the regular review venues. Shot OM-1s and OM-2s for years, back in the 35mm before-times, and it never occured to me that I needed a grip protruding from the body. Not that I'm tempted by this OM-3. My OM-D EM-5 Mark III does everything I need, apart from having a less cumbersome name.
Posted by: nextSibling | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 10:04 AM
Thank you for remembering me, you must have quite a memory! And thank you also for reminding me that time flies, I really, really needed that.
Posted by: Luis C. Aribe | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 04:01 PM
"Retro" needs clarification. Is a camera cosmetically retro or functionally retro? The new OM-3 is cosmetically retro. When paired with its lenses, it lacks two features once considered standard equipment: clearly marked shutter speed and aperture controls. Instead we get two anonymous top-deck dials and a selector for still photos, video, and "S&Q", whatever that means.
On the front of the camera is a film-simulation selector. Really? Do people change film simulations so often to justify a dedicated control? Don't features we use relatively infrequently belong in the menus? The camera will be less cluttered and is less prone to accidentally changing a setting.
If "retro" is the marketing bait, I think the most likely customers would rather have a functionally retro camera -- which doesn't preclude that it's also cosmetically retro.
Posted by: Tom R. Halfhill | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 04:27 PM
Mel writeth:
"What's always impressed me about Olympus is their glass. I don't stretch myself using all the bells and whistles on the body but definitely need specific glass for my interests. I'm just hoping Olympus keeps up this tradition regardless of what cool stuff they put in the body."
I too hope they keep up the lens development. Have you tried the recent-ish F1.2 glass? I'm in love with my 25/1.2 and 45/1.2. With the use of gobs of elements, of many different sorts, they have managed to give the in-focus look of vintage fast 50s and 85-90s with nicer transitions from in to out and lovely background bokeh, rather than the often edgy backgrounds of all those old Double Gauss derived designs.
PLUS — AF, focus stacking and EXIF!
Not that µ4/3 has any shortage of lenses available. Looks as though I have (OMG) 18 and have had 34 different µ4/3 lenses.
Posted by: Moose | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 04:47 PM
Interchangeable lens cameras have come a long way in the last 30 years, and already exceed the needs of most folks. Sure, more megapixels and dynamic range would be nice, and the video side of things is still improving rapidly. But lots of photographers are already well-served by any of the excellent current offerings.
OM System can't afford to compete on pure specs, but they're already good enough for a lot of applications! So why not differentiate with physical design? And whether by good product management or necessity, you get most of the goodness of the OM-1 II, so it's quite capable as well.
I've looked at larger sensor systems, but then I find myself turned off by the size and weight of the lenses. All talk of equivalence aside, I'd much rather head out with a 17mm f/1.8 than a Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.8 at triple the size and weight. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is 60% the weight and nearly an inch shorter than the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8, which makes a big difference when traveling.
But that's just me. That's the set of compromises I'm willing to make. The OM-3 lines up with them, and does it with style. Maybe there's a lot more criticism of how the camera is overpriced or falls short, because every new product release for a small company like OM System is a high-stakes affair?
Posted by: Martin Q. | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 06:44 PM
I just wish they'd import the parts necessary to repair my digital Pen F, which is still a nice camera.
Posted by: Merle | Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 11:16 PM
Dave, the OM3&4 (original film cameras) didn't have grips as standard. Those were optional screw on grips. The only (manual focus) Olympus made OM with a grip was the 40/PC. The 2000 was a Cosina.
Posted by: Paul Queripel | Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at 06:40 AM
The idea of "mature technology" seems to be lost on digital camera users so I won't belabor it here.
Posted by: Rudy L Mack | Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at 09:20 AM
Paul Q.,
Thanks for the corrections. It appears the wikipedia page has more accurate photos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-4).
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at 12:36 PM
Jayanand Govindaraj said: "If, as you say, the OM-3 is at least as good as the Nikon Zfc, it is also at least double the price of a Nikon Zfc..."
The OM-3 shoots 12-bit raw at 120 fps, which is nearly 11x more than the Nikon Z fc which only achieves 11 fps for 12-bit raw. Not everyone will need or want it, but for those who do, it goes a long way to justifying the price difference.
Posted by: Stephen S. | Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at 06:27 PM
OM is not really a camera company and a lot of people thought from the beginning that they would milk the Olympus technology for as much as they could and then shut the whole thing down.
Releasing a number of very, very similar cameras that are closely based on the E-M 1s at impressively high prices has done nothing to convince me that they are in it for the long term.
Posted by: Jeff | Thursday, 13 February 2025 at 01:05 PM
I want one. I will buy one. It looks beautiful. It reminds me of the camera I learnt on and used exclusively for my first ten years of photography, until I moved to medium format and onto large format. The original OM1, that my father gave me when I was still a kid.
I believe it will succeed. Street and travel photographers will love it, particularly in Japan where it’s targeted at. It shines with tiny lenses.
I’ll use it in random with my OM1 mk ii, which can now keep my zoom on. Two bodies with different lenses makes sense. So pleased it has the same battery. When I need to hold a camera all day in my hand I’ll be using thr OM1, but for daily use it’s this beautiful camera I’d like to wear all day.
The lower resolution viewfinder suits me, because I mainly shoot manual focus with my voitlander 25 mm f0.95 lens. It’s easier to focus with a more gritty viewfinder. I find the OM1 so hard because I don’t get that sharp glimmer when I hit focus which I loved in earlier EM models. My favourite was always the first EM5 with a metal body, and a RRS grip and base plate. I was always sad they went so plastic after that.
Yes I am a fan boy. I keep trying different systems. The last was three years with leicas, SL2’s and M monochromes. Fuji medium format, canon DSLR’s too. But I keep coming back to my Micro Four Thirds. The small sensor is an advantage, greater depth of field, easier to stabilise the sensor, and the lenses. Omg the lenses. What an incredible range. My bird lens is stunning. 150-400 omg.
No one ever looks at my work and says ohh you could have done better with a different system… I find the internet so frustrating and misleading.
I hope they succeed and that this is the first of many successful projects for them.
One thing I wish for is blend modes in multiple exposures and make it easy for us to take many on top of each other instead of limiting it at two. Put twenty blend modes in and you’ll capture the abstraction photographers. Mind you it does pretty amazingly as it is.
Posted by: Leonard Metcalf | Friday, 14 February 2025 at 04:19 PM
This discussion is certainly over my head I would rather go back to film cameras especially the Pen FT which sèrved me well for many years and later the OM1& OM4Ti which I used with a Vivitar series 1 35-85mmf2.8 varifocal lens and aSplit image viewfinder,and meticuluos attention to developing and printing.I had read earlier I have the that the performance of a lens was better close to its centre than its periphery and half frame enlarged was closer to 8x10 and post card size than full frame.FILM is still available and dark rooms are easy to set up,they ofcourse lack the immediacy that digital camers bring but hey it is all about anticipation.
Posted by: Marcus Gunaratnam | Friday, 14 February 2025 at 06:52 PM
I think that no matter what camera OM System had produced there would have been major criticism; there are far too many people who seem to be personally invested in wanting the company (and the micro-4/3 format) to die.
Is the OM-3 a “retro” alternative to the OM-1, a successor to the Pen-F, or a camera that’s intended to be both at the same time? To me the (digital) Pen-F’s uniqueness is embodied in the creative dial and its unmatched ability to fine-tune in-camera jpegs (obviously nowhere near the capability of any computer software) and not its “rangefinder” style body. It’s why I chose it over the EM-1 II which was by far the better camera. And it’s why its appearance on the OM-3 marks the camera for me as its defining feature as the Pen-F successor so many seem to have wanted. I like they chose to use the film OM cameras as muse, and that it uses the new menu system (I still struggle with the old menu system even after 7 years). I guess they chose to use the sensor/processor from the OM-1 II rather than that from the (very capable) OM-5 (which has the sensor from the Olympus EM-1 III) and the EVF from the OM-5 rather than that from the OM-1 II. Doesn’t seem like much to complain about. For an eyeglass wearer the eye point and EVF magnification are much more important than the number of pixels and although I liked the OM-1 EVF when I tested it the OM-5 is just fine (and both are inferior to the one in my Leica Q2).
Will currently micro-4/3 users (especially those who’ve been asking for an updated Pen-F) buy the OM-3? Will it attract new buyers or those looking to move from FF to a more compact system? Perhaps not with all the vitriol being thrown around and the current orthodoxy around FF systems, but they should. I still think micro-4/3 is better suited to most photographers most of the time. And with the creative dial it will be a lot more fun as well!
Posted by: Bernard Schneider | Saturday, 15 February 2025 at 12:47 PM