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

[John Matthews]

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Are you talking about a higher-resolution mode using sensor shift?  Fuji does this too, at least on the GFX 100 series.  Though if the Olympus/Panasonic/Pentax implementations support doing it handheld, that's an improvement over Fuji's which requires a very stable tripod.

The original Canon R5 could do it too - no idea how well it worked, but I think I read that they removed the mode from the R5 II in favor of "AI" upscaling...  a place where "progress" isn't.

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.

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Olympus perfected it and OM System inherited it, big difference.

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!

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The styling is subjective, I think it's fake looking and fugly.

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.

[eatstoomuchjam]

49 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

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.

My mistake!  I didn't realize you were limiting the pixel shift comments to it being processed in-body.  Last I checked, it still needed to be done in post.  Sorry for the misunderstanding!

[John Matthews]

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

 

[Andrew Reid]

On 2/10/2025 at 1:18 PM, John Matthews said:

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.

You keep banging on about "innovation" without mentioning the elephant in the room which I've pointed out time and again, that OM System have innovated jack shit and all they have done is cut & paste from Olympus.

You say it looks great, aesthetically pleasing and all that, well this is subjective but I think it looks cheap for a $2000 camera and certainly worse than the E-M5 III.

The size difference between the OM-1 and OM-3 is not equivalent to the GH4 v GM1, the OM-3 is wider at 140mm wide and 500g vs 590g for the OM-1 and 135mm, so a GM1 it ain't.

I'll leave you to get to know your cameras better but in terms of the OM-3 whatever floats your boat I guess!

[John Matthews]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You keep banging on about "innovation" without mentioning the elephant in the room which I've pointed out time and again, that OM System have innovated jack shit and all they have done is cut & paste from Olympus.

 

Reread my post:

On 2/10/2025 at 2:18 PM, John Matthews said:

I have a feeling the OM-3 will be a desirable camera for years to come, with its lack of innovation and all.

 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You say it looks great, aesthetically pleasing and all that, well this is subjective but I think it looks cheap for a $2000 camera and certainly worse than the E-M5 III.

That's subjective. Watch the NarrowBand channel. He actually has it and compared it.

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The size difference between the OM-1 and OM-3 is not equivalent to the GH4 v GM1, the OM-3 is wider at 140mm wide and 500g vs 590g for the OM-1 and 135mm, so a GM1 it ain't.

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.

[Andrew Reid]

20 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Reread my post:

I'd rather pluck my eyeballs out.

20 hours ago, John Matthews said:

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.

Just because the camera has a new body design, doesn't mean to say it is engineered by OM System.

They are still using an Olympus parts bin and reusing the same components, reusing basically the entire camera again and again.

20 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Olympus Imaging is dead. Why? Scandals, bloat, and marketing probably. OM System got rid of some that.

Marketing, who needs that? Engineers? Nah.

20 hours ago, John Matthews said:

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.

Man there is a reason the OM-1 has an Olympus badge, and the E-M5 III too, which is the basis for the OM-5.

The OM-1 Mark II and OM-5 are *rebadged existing products*

I don't know why that isn't registering with you.

Therefore it is not OM-System but OLYMPUS who deserve 100% of the credit for the OM-1, OM-3 and OM-5, which are the basis for all of OM-System's current line-up = rebranded existing Olympus products.

The OM-3 does have a new cosmetic makeover and swaps a few parts out of the OM-1 with the OM-5 like the EVF.

OM System since the takeover have merely done a couple of firmware updates, a buffer memory increase and a shell reshaping.

Plus a new logo.

So I don't understand why you are giving so much credit, you're talking as if they have built a brand new system from the ground up and a brand new camera.

That is fucking stupid.

[IronFilm]

Atomos just released raw support for the OM-3.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2025/02/13/atomos-releases-new-firmware-that-offers-expanded-hdmi-raw-support-for-ninja-shogun/ 

Quote

OM SYSTEMS OM-3: 4096×2160 at 23.98, 24, 25, 29.97, 50, and 59.94 fps
3840×2160 at 23.98, 24, 25, 29.97, 50, and 59.94 fps
1920×1080 at 23.98, 24, 25, 29.97, 50, and 59.94 fps

 

[Andrew Reid]

Oh yeah can't wait to put a shitty Atomos on top of an OM-3.

Amazing.

[John Matthews]

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".

[MrSMW]

54 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

I've never seen so many comments saying basically "yeah, it's expensive and not innovative, but I'll buy it anyway".

I rarely watch reviews of anything these days unless it is for something I specifically need or want.

There is just too much hype and often complete BS with every new camera launch these days.

Most of it just seems to be talk for the sake of talk, (a bit like some of my posts on this forum…), ie, ‘content for content sake’.

Looks aside, this new OM camera based on specs looks very overpriced to me, especially compared with what else is available.

Other than for folks determined to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[John Matthews]

33 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I rarely watch reviews of anything these days unless it is for something I specifically need or want.

There is just too much hype and often complete BS with every new camera launch these days.

Most of it just seems to be talk for the sake of talk, (a bit like some of my posts on this forum…), ie, ‘content for content sake’.

Looks aside, this new OM camera based on specs looks very overpriced to me, especially compared with what else is available.

Other than for folks determined to fit a square peg into a round hole.

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.

[John Matthews]

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. 

[Andrew Reid]

10 hours ago, John Matthews said:

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 - stupid consumers with too much money = inflation