Primary lens would be the 12-45 or 12-40. Maybe another smaller lens or two.
Use would be walk around, vacation, street, walking on the beach, portraits. The Om-3 is very attractive but if you were to add a grip they would basically weigh the same. Is there enough size and/ or weight difference to give up the grip and better viewfinder of the Om1? I like the looks of the OM-3 but the lack of grip concerns me. However something easier to pack into a bag, etc would be a major benefit.
This will add to not replace my other system (A7R5) and I want something to use everyday..
jmmaher wrote:
Primary lens would be the 12-45 or 12-40. Maybe another smaller lens or two.
Use would be walk around, vacation, street, walking on the beach, portraits. The OM-3 is very attractive but if you were to add a grip they would basically weigh the same. Is there enough size and/ or weight difference to give up the grip and better viewfinder of the Om1? I like the looks of the OM-3 but the lack of grip concerns me. However something easier to pack into a bag, etc would be a major benefit.
This will add to not replace my other system (A7R5) and I want something to use everyday..
I have the OM-1i, OM-3 and OM5i plus 3 Sonys inc. the A7r5. The OM-3 is the camera I now go to by default (daily carry). Note I have the Leofoto grip attached (superb) which is actually an L plate-grip (you can remove the small L section if you wish). It adds 58g (a mouthful of water).
The OM-3 + Leofoto Grip is definitely smaller in the bag than the OM-1 (I have the Smallrig cage attached which makes a difference), if neither have a grip / cage the OM-3 packs easier. Without a lens attached.
One of the reasons I bought the OM-3 (aesthetics aside) is the front creative dial (I have this set to 2x B&W settings and one Colour setting that I can easily switch between - far far easier to do this than on the OM-1 or OM-5). I shoot RAW + Jpg.
I mainly shoot travel, location, street, urban, land & cityscapes and street portraits.
Pics here (most have been from the OM-3 + OM 20/1.4 and OM 45/1.2 (I do on occasion use the 12-40 during daytime, it works great) over the past 12-18 months : https://www.instagram.com/thedragonsfather/
Thanks Kevin. I have seen your Instagram posts and they look excellent.
Does the lack of a joystick cause you any issues with this camera. I assume the you use the multi selector or does autofocus select well enough on its own (for example eye-focus)
I have dual setups for both OM and Sony using the OM-1, OM-3, A7RIV and A7CR. Short answer the new OM-3 is now my daily carry with 5 silver Olympus primes, 12mm f2, 17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8 and the fabulous 75mm f1.8. I chose this over the A7CR with my Batis (4) or Sigma I Series (5) primes.
Mostly my photos now are for travel, local events, portraits, cityscapes and landscapes. I picked the OM-3 for numerous reasons, not just size and weight savings and the fact it is a much more beautiful kit The Creative Dial is not a gimmick, it truly lets you experiment with your photos on the go and be creative. The result is a finished jpeg that I can transfer to my iPad for instant viewing by others or sending a copy via Airdrop.
Edit: I did add a black half leather case to the OM-3 and don't feel the need for an extra grip. Have used the 17 and 45mm f1.2 Pro primes and 12-40 f2.8 Pro zoom. All with just a PD wrist strap. However when I used the 100-400 f5-6.3 zoom at a airshow to see how it would work, it got tiring as the day wore on and switched to the PD Sling strap. Next time will take the OM-1.
jmmaher wrote:
Thanks Kevin. I have seen your Instagram posts and they look excellent.
Does the lack of a joystick cause you any issues with this camera. I assume the you use the multi selector or does autofocus select well enough on its own (for example eye-focus)
No problem Jim.
I do miss the joystick for fast accurate AF positioning however the multi-selector does a decent enough job. The AF uses the OM1ii module so is very good on it's own most of the time.
Thanks to all - I am seriously considering purchasing an OM-3 this week as is a friend of mine. I will forward all this info to him. He is looking at 100-400 lens but I am thinking of the 12-45 zoom along maybe a 17 1.8 and another (undecided lens)
jmmaher wrote:
Did you buy the half case withe the grip bump out or the flat case?
Flat front - old school.
I got this in early March and the half case with an added grip had not been announced. Even so, I like the flat one as it does help with holding the camera and adds nothing in body height. If I was to buy an added grip it would be the Leofoto with the removable side bracket, I have their mini tripod and they make quality stuff.
As to an added lens to go along with the 17 f1.8, as you shoot portraits, I highly recommend the 45 f1.8, it is a quality portrait lens with a special SA element. I put a $7 EzFoto silver screw on 1" deep metal hood that has a 46mm thread on the front to work with the same 46mm filters as the 12, 17 and 25mm lenses. Never taken it off, and it still looks good.
jmmaher wrote:
Thanks to all - I am seriously considering purchasing an OM-3 this week as is a friend of mine. I will forward all this info to him. He is looking at 100-400 lens but I am thinking of the 12-45 zoom along maybe a 17 1.8 and another (undecided lens)
I find the 100-400 is just OK. If he's seriously into birding/wildlife then the 300/4+TCs blows it away and is absolutely worth the extra money. Ditto the rebadged (and slightly re-engineered) OM 150-600. The exotic 150-400 is one of the best wildlife lenses out there but unfortunately costs an arm and a leg.
I have the original 17/1.8, I've read that there is no optical improvement in the v2 (just added WR). That being so I'd skip it (the v1 is a decent lens I'd buy that and save your money if you must have 17mm) however I bought the OM 20/1.4 Pro and that is a wonderful lens - it is a wrench to even get it off my OM-3 I love it that much (MANY of those shots on my IG are from that combo)! The 45/1.2 Pro is what usually accompanies it (along with the Laowa 6mm and 10mm).
Nothing against m4/3, but why not just carry your Sony with a small prime? The 35mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2.5 both seem popular.
I have the older EM1.2, and it's not that much smaller than my Sony bodies. The OM-3 is probably a bit smaller, but I think if I remember correctly it's larger than the smaller m4/3 bodies.
formula4speed wrote:
Nothing against m4/3, but why not just carry your Sony with a small prime? The 35mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2.5 both seem popular.
.
Thanks for your observation. I have tried this many times and it's still a consideration.
I love many things about the Sony A7RV but an Om-3 with the equivalent of a 24-90 lens is still smaller and lighter than the A7RV with the 40 2.5
I walked around last week with Sony and a 50MM which took great images but when I wanted to go wider that wasn't really possible. It's the lenses that make most of the difference. If Sony had a high quality small equivalent to the 12-45 it could be a winner. The Sony FE 28-60mm f/4-5.6 just never seemed to take pictures that I really liked.
That's fair, I suppose the closest lens might be the 20-70 f/4 on the Sony side, which is (relatively) compact but it's hard to compete with the size of the smaller m4/3 lenses.
I would say, at least for me, I find that since neither system fits into a pocket, I end up needing a camera bag. So while the camera is smaller, I end up carrying the same size bag anyway. There is still the weight difference, but I find the current selection of full frame lenses to be easy enough to carry around.
On the other hand, trying different equipment can be enjoyable and if you've got the budget, the OM-3 is probably a fun camera to try. The original E-M5 was one of the cameras I've enjoyed shooting with the most over the years.
I bought the OM-3 thinking it would replace my Pen-F as a in-town camera and potentially my OM1M2 as a single camera body for travel with activities ranging from hiking in mountains, kayaking and walking in towns.
I took all three on a trip and in addition to my initial impressions, grabbing the OM1 off my Capture clip was easier and felt more secure so I sold the OM-3.
For my upcoming trip overseas, I plan to take my OM1M2 and Pen-F. I really like the in-hand feel, ergonomics and button layout of the OM1 (and EVF, dual SD cards, etc.. The Pen-F serves as a substitute for using my iPhone 15 Pro Max for photos and I keep the Pen-F in a small waist belt or jacket pocket for those “iPhone Moments” during travel when my OM1M2 is stashed in my carry-on daypack. I have a great 12-32 which is a perfect match for the Pen-F.
formula4speed wrote:
That's fair, I suppose the closest lens might be the 20-70 f/4 on the Sony side, which is (relatively) compact but it's hard to compete with the size of the smaller m4/3 lenses.
I tried and liked the 20-70 but the difference in system weight compared to the 12-45 is 38% and a corresponding size differential as well.
Frogfish wrote:
I find the 100-400 is just OK. If he's seriously into birding/wildlife then the 300/4+TCs blows it away and is absolutely worth the extra money. Ditto the rebadged (and slightly re-engineered) OM 150-600. The exotic 150-400 is one of the best wildlife lenses out there but unfortunately costs an arm and a leg.
I have the original 17/1.8, I've read that there is no optical improvement in the v2 (just added WR). That being so I'd skip it (the v1 is a decent lens I'd buy that and save your money if you must have 17mm) however I bought the OM 20/1.4 Pro and that is a wonderful lens - it is a wrench to even get it off my OM-3 I love it that much (MANY of those shots on my IG are from that combo)! The 45/1.2 Pro is what usually accompanies it (along with the Laowa 6mm and 10mm)....Show more →
I tested three copies of the 17/1.8 v2 and all suffered from a obviously soft lower left corner.
Then I bought the 20/1.4 after suggestions from @Frogfish and others and it is much better optically and I have been using that on both my OM1M2 and Pen-F. It is about 1” longer than the 17/1.8 which I can deal with especially for the improvement in IQ and wider aperture.
offtraildog wrote:
Then I bought the 20/1.4 after suggestions from @Frogfish@ and others and it is much better optically and I have been using that on both my OM1M2 and Pen-F. It is about 1” longer than the 17/1.8 which I can deal with especially for the improvement in IQ and wider aperture.
Thanks - will seriously consider this as Kevin suggested it as well. -Jim
Not 100% sure I made the right choice but I ordered the OM-3 with the 12-45. Will evaluate that before I do anything else. Thanks all for your assistance with this. Jim
The Creative Dial is not a gimmick, it truly lets you experiment with your photos on the go and be creative. The result is a finished jpeg that I can transfer to my iPad for instant viewing by others or sending a copy via Airdrop.