John Matthews

Count on people saying "it doesn't have internal NDs" or "only 44MP".

Yes, I have it too. Those radioactive lenses never match anything, really. It’s a one-and-done lens due to yellowing. Still, it’s really great IMO.

I'd love to see an fp Mini, an APS-C camera with IBIS and decent AF. That could be interesting, but it would be tough competition with the S9 unless it has a EVF and proper shutter. Now, I'm just dreaming. :-)

FYI: There are 18 total cameras in L-mount- 17 are Full-frame and one APS-C. There are 2 box cameras and one gimbal. It would be great to see another APS-C from anyone. Even better, I'd like to see where DJI might take the system. I suppose Sigma, Blackmagic, and DJI are just waiting to see what Panasonic and Leica are going to do in the end. The intriguing one is Sigma. I think they've said the fp and fp L were largely failures for them, but don't get the impression they're giving up.

Quick question: Has anyone used Konica lenses? Which one is your favorite? I already have quite a few, but I'm considering others. Namely the 28mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. Maybe some other zooms?

I understand that most M43 cameras are about value. The OM-3 is not that. The pricing of the OM-3 says it. It should be cristal clear at this point. They're going after Leica wannabes, something that Olympus had done time and time again back in the days of Maitani Yoshihisa, a well-documented Leica lover.

I agree it's overpriced, especially when looking at the market as a whole. However, it's one of one in M43 land (minus the PEN F, which is still expensive even used). I guess the Fuji phenomena has now carried over to M43. Over the past 2 years, I've seen used prices only go up at least 50% on the small M43 cameras of yesteryear. IMO, the reason for the pricing is most certainly to squeeze out every last bit of profit and also to protect it from being over-sold like the Fuji's. I think it will go down though, probably to $1799 within 6 months if it doesn't sell out too quickly.

I've been watching quite a few negative "reviews" or just people sharing their thoughts on the OM-3 (because they weren't given one to review). I've never seen so many comments saying basically "yeah, it's expensive and not innovative, but I'll buy it anyway".

Yes, that's right. The GH2 and LX100 sensors were worlds apart, possibly having completely different suppliers too. The GH2 had 16MP in 3:4, 2:3, and 16:9 ratios, but not the 1:1 oddly.

It won't happen because it wouldn't have functional IBIS, a feature that everyone knows panasonic for, unless you're talking about a M43 crop on a S35 sensor. I don't see the point. They just want you to buy a S5 or S9. The LX100/ii series had the standard 16MP and 20MP sensors respectively, but they included "cropping" features. The GH2 and the GH5S were the only ones that had the larger sensors with 1.86x crop (I believe). I don't believe the GH5S had crop modes like the GH2 though. Both cameras didn't have IBIS.

Reread my post: That's subjective. Watch the NarrowBand channel. He actually has it and compared it. Again, that was not my point. My point was that they have different use-cases. So many people were wrong about OM System when Olympus was sold to them. It must be hard to admit. There have been several releases; some were engineered by Olympus, for sure. However, this camera is not as it was engineered by OM System. No, it didn't turn into a cheap Chinese company making e-waste. No, it didn't fail 100% of the time like some would like to believe. Olympus Imaging is dead. Why? Scandals, bloat, and marketing probably. OM System got rid of some that. I'd say that's successful. Also, their products are unique, even today, with quite a following. Other manufacturers somehow cannot offer the same features. That's not bad and much better than I would have expected.

Here's a great walk though of build on the OM-3:

One could argue that the difference in the S5ii as the photo hybrid and the S5iix as the video hybrid isn't enough of a difference. A high MP sensor in a S5ii body would make that clearer.

Undoubtably, Panasonic will choose a cheeper sensor with great readout times in S35 mode and less so in FF. I cannot see them taking a global shutter, but I do remember Sean of Lumix admiring the Nikon one. I just think they'd need to ask TowerJazz or someone else to make one for them because I doubt Sony will. Could be wrong though. High megapixel is not necessarily a good sign because it seems that's what you do when you cannot do a more meaningful update. Specs sell though. I do think that, if done right, 8k will offer "more". I just hope they get the downresing right.

That's a good plan. I've now sold all of my M43 stuff (except a GH2). Honestly, if you couple DXO Noise reduction, you'll very usable shots in low light and good light for screen and print. The only thing FF does for photography is wide-angle shallow DOF for photos. Also, if you plan on using vintage lenses, FF is a better choice.

300 dpi is for photos you look at super close. A 16x20 in is not that; many photos printed at that size will have "enough detail" at 150dpi. It also depends on the printer, but print has even less of a difference than a screen because you simply cannot zoom in. Here's my favorite video on the subject:

I sometimes go back to look at my photos of the A7R2 and compare them with the S5ii. You'd really think the difference would be massive in that the Sony has 18MP more than the Panasonic. In reality, the difference seems minuscule to me. It would seem it's more about cropping than IQ. For video, I imagine the difference would be more in that you might get less moiré (not that I've ever seen in my personal footage, only in YouTube video tests).

I wasn't aware that Fuji did Pixel shift in-camera. My understanding that others do it but it takes software after the fact, making practically unusable for critical applications and a difficult workflow. Does Fuji offer Live Composite, Live ND, or Focus Stacking in-camera too? Again, the key is "in-camera" because it's a deal-breaker for many who actually use those features. I don't see how this matters for evaluating the product, other than evaluating the current performance of the company. Does it stand that Nikon is a crap company for implementing RED Codecs because they didn't invent it themselves; therefore, their products that have are somehow not good? I don't think so. Who cares how they got it? It's in the camera- great! That's my point. It's a "stylish" camera. That means something different to many people. I think it looks good and has some amazing specs for what it is, not for whatever is around it in the lineup. It's great that the OM-1 costs half as much. People will have that option too. However, I do believe people are going to buy it massively, even if there's a "better", heavier, bigger camera for half as much. Why would anyone have ever purchased a GM1 over a GH4- because they're different use-cases. Oddly, the GH4 is now LESS expensive than the GM1 in the used market. I have a feeling the OM-3 will be a desirable camera for years to come, with its lack of innovation and all.

So the OM-3 isn't bringing anything new to the table other than subjective beauty? It just so happens there are many features that still, to this day, are not being done in other camera systems that Olympus/OM System have perfected. With the exceptions of Pentax and Panasonic, no one else offers High-res Shot Mode. With the exception of Panasonic, no one does Live Composite. What about Live ND? No one does that. How about Focus Stacking in-camera? Nope, no one does that either. "In-camera" is an essential point. Why? Because you get another chance at taking the image if you muck it up. With other brands, you might get it right, but there's no way to check. Is the OM-3 revolutionary? No. Is it expensive? Yes, for now. Is it unique? Yes, because it's stylish. (with a IP53 rating, a huge deal for some) No other camera on the market offers these unique selling points in a stylish body that weighs only 496g. Actually, I think it's a bit of a marvel in that it weighs only 82g more than the E-M5iii/OM-5, you get a more advanced processor, a new sensor, a metal body, and a bigger, more advanced battery. Not bad. Will it sell? Not great at $2000, but like with all of their previous releases, it'll go down $200-400 in the next 6 months. Also, Fuji production is late. Also, M43 users were waiting for something like this. It will sell out, I suspect.

This line-up seems quite reasonable to me. OM-1 (latest and greatest tech), OM-3 (a mix of the latest and greatest but with full-metal, stylish-hipster build), and the OM-5 (does almost everything, but super small and light and utilitarian).

Yeah, this OM-3 seems like it's several generations ahead of the OM-5 (which was practically an E-M5iii, a camera I bought twice- it was great!). So, what's the rub? The competition is off the wall when considering the money, but if you're not looking for extreme value. I could take 98% of my shots with this camera, a 17mm f/1.8, and a 40-150mm kit lens. My problem is I simply have too many vintage lenses to ignore and now FF makes more sense as I want better coverage of my lenses, not just the center. Also, this camera only makes sense if you're really into M43 (like I was), but for $2k, I'd rather pick up a S5 and a ton of vintage lenses and an L-mount kit lens.

Yeah, I won't buy the OM-3 at this price.

For $2000, the build needs to be excellent. It looks good to me. Would I buy it? No, not at that price, but I'm no longer invested in M43- sadly because I really do love the mount. Also, I don't mind the utilitarian look of the non-retro cameras. However, I must say the OM-3 is probably going to hit the mark much better than the S9, another camera without a grip. Yes, the S9 is FF, but without smaller lenses and a proper mechanical shutter. The OM-3 just has so many lenses that work for it. IMO, it's the ecosystem that is, once again, the real strength of the OM-3- also it has most great features people want. The 17mm and 25mm look to be hits, once they're on promotion. I'm not of the opinion that OM System = cheap Chinese scam gear of the type you see on Amazon for $100. That's preposterous.

I doubt their coming out with anything APS-C, but from I've seen with the original Four Thirds mount, it doesn't follow that prices will tank. Sure, you can pick up a Olympus E-420 with 2 kit zooms for about 100 euros, but that camera is 15 years old on a dead mount. Also, brand new, it would cold less than 500 euros- not bad considering 15 years of use. Even Samsung's mount didn't have prices tank, they will go down eventually though until the collectors want them. Cameras are never investments unless they're collectable and if you find a deal. Actually, I'm surprised there isn't more interest in vintage lenses as they're old and limited in quantity.

I guess that's only for the S9 (and whatever might be coming next). I have to say it's a strange limitation if this is truly the case.