OM-System OM-3.... Um!

[Andrew Reid]

So you know when the famous lead singer dies but the band wants to carry on...

 

Olympus cameras were some of the most beautiful ever.

Both in terms of feel, build quality and looks - they were all very lovely. Better, in my opinion, than many of Fuji's attempt at 'classic' style cameras.

The PEN-F was a lovely design... here's a reminder of that...

I still have mine, and even though the OLYMPUS OM-1 (the final true Olympus camera by their Japan engineering team) has surpassed it in every way, I'll never part with it for stills.

(Such a shame they never did a 4K 10bit PEN-F).

Well the PEN-F and OM-1 are even more special now because we know they were the last goodbye, the sunset over Mount Olympus, the pinnacle of 75 years of camera history and the best evolution of the entire species, which is now extinct.

So the OM-3 after all these years since Olympus fell, is the first 'real' OM System camera as in a fresh concept, new body, a new camera from the Japanese investment bank or whatever the fuck they are.

Clearly it shares none of the DNA design with the Olympus cameras, it looks like a contractor on Blackmagic street, Singapore, at best a design office of 5 accountants have raided the parts bin of an E-M5. Where's the fucking grip? Have they even tried this thing with their own lenses especially the larger zooms?

Why isn't it a rangefinder style body like the PEN-F, where does it sit in the range between the OM-5 and OM-1 (as it seems to offer nothing different to either of them in terms of specs)?

Why does it have a viewfinder hump when it's supposed to be different conceptually to the OM-5 / E-M5 III?

As an aside I really hate the design language of all the text, "OM SYSTEM" is far too much to be cramming onto the front of the viewfinder, and the OM-3 logo is too far over with a huge negative space at the edge making the horrible square shoulder look even more drawn out than it is.

And the back is also really 'off' in terms of proportions...the layout upsets my eyes.

So we can safely say the OM-1 was the peak, also the E-M1 X.

This is a different company, not the same designers, not the same Olympus staff, maybe not even one engineer carried over.

Very sad to say, but OM System are history, they will not be able to survive with sup-par products and designs in such a competitive camera market. How can they even compete with Fuji let alone with the rest?

RIP!

Proof that camera design... indeed all design... is art... and cannot simply be mimicked by the talentless.

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

So you know when the famous lead singer dies but the band wants to carry on...

 

Olympus cameras were some of the most beautiful ever.

Both in terms of feel, build quality and looks - they were all very lovely. (...)

(...)

Proof that camera design... indeed all design... is art... and cannot simply be mimicked by the talentless.

Significative to see all that written here by you @Andrew Reid Cameras design is something, the camera body a sort of an extension of a human brain, there's some singleness behind this unique object in fact < 3 Why ain't they all equal, isn't it? ; ) Like people, we can feel the differences sometimes between versions of same camera model, go figure all the rest you mention there... Even today, I've been discussing this with a brand representative : X BTW I am in love with my FX30... What such a grace, folks! :- )

[tupp]

The design DNA of the OM-3 seems to flow from the OM-1 SLR of the 1970's:

[MrSMW]

I quite like it, but would I buy it?

Nope. I'd rather have the OM5 or the original (digital) OM1 that was the last one to have OLYMPUS on the front.

I do wish my Nikon Zf was more this size though as that's my only real niggle with it, - it's a bit large for what it is.

[Davide DB]

In addition to the camera, three lenses were upgraded. Version II of their 100-400 zoom lens was introduced, which I was very interested in. I currently use the Lumix version a lot which is a terrible lens. Optically it is good for its price but can only be used with AF. the zoom and focus rings are practically unusable. impossible to get smooth movement, the plastic creaks and they go jerky.
The optical quality of the new 100-400 OM zoom is the same as the old version (mediocre lens) but the big difference is in the stabilization: the first version had practically no stabilization because it did not communicate with the camera. This version interfaces with the camera's stabilization but... (the devil is in the details) the synchronization works only on OM bodies and not on Lumix cameras. Damn them forever!
This is yet more proof of the uselessness of the M43 alliance. What is the point if the lenses and camera bodies are not 100% compatible among the various companies in the consortium? It really sucks, and despite investing heavily in the M43 system, I hope they fail permanently. Damn them!
 

[ac6000cw]

Nice try - and I suspect that once it drops in price it'll actually sell quite well to people wanting a more retro-look camera.

But for me the lack of any sort of grip, no front function buttons and especially the low-res EVF makes it unlikely I'll buy one (as an existing OM-1 owner). Also the left hand dial (with only three positions) seems a waste of space - the E-M1 ii/iii and OM-1 left hand switch arrangement would be far more useful.

According to the PetaPixel YouTube review, on the video side they've added a couple of (8-bit only) 'Cinema' picture profiles, and extra video C-AF sensitivity (+2/-2) settings, but still no 'normal' 10-bit video profile - just HLG and OMLog, same as on the OM-1.