Vesperene wrote:
I wonder if OMDS will join L mount alliance now. But before that green light the PEN F II and 1.4 primes!
Not sure why this keeps coming up -- it's wishful thinking. OM Digital does not have the resources to start manufacturing a whole new format, mount system, and lenses to go with it -- especially to attempt to compete in an already overcrowded market.
OMDS needs to focus on the slice of market that they already have, and continue to innovate and offer unique features that benefit from the m4/3's format.
OMDS has a pretty unique problem in that their biggest supporters tend to be buying their last camera system for physical reasons. They need to figure out some broader market appeal.
gmccroskery wrote:
Not sure why this keeps coming up -- it's wishful thinking. OM Digital does not have the resources to start manufacturing a whole new format, mount system, and lenses to go with it -- especially to attempt to compete in an already overcrowded market.
That's why I said L mount alliance. They don't have to invent a new mount or develop entire lens catalog stat. There are 120+ L mount FF lenses already in the market. If they don't like Leica there's always Sigma which they probably already employ for some of their m43 lenses.
Let's not forget Panasonic did the same move and nothing stops Olympus from applying their expertise in solid weather sealed bodies onto a full frame camera. My two dream cameras would be OM-1 like size and ergonomics with FF sensor and OM-3 with FF sensor, both already big enough.
Wishful thinking may be but one can always dream and in this case it might make business sense for the brand to thrive and not just survive.
Vesperene wrote:
That's why I said L mount alliance. They don't have to invent a new mount or develop entire lens catalog stat. There are 120+ L mount FF lenses already in the market. If they don't like Leica there's always Sigma which they probably already employ for some of their m43 lenses.
Let's not forget Panasonic did the same move and nothing stops Olympus from applying their expertise in solid weather sealed bodies onto a full frame camera. My two dream cameras would be OM-1 like size and ergonomics with FF sensor and OM-3 with FF sensor, both already big enough.
Wishful thinking may be but one can always dream and in this case it might make business sense for the brand to thrive and not just survive. ...Show more →
I did not say "invent", I said "manufacture" -- there's a big difference.
Panasonic did make that move, but Panasonic is a massively huge company with tremendous resources. To do what you are suggesting would divert a huge amount of resources away from the development, manufacture, and promotion of OMDS' m4/3's line -- effectively killing it. My thoughts are that if one wants a FF system, rather than the benefits offered by m4/3's, then there are already a number of other companies offering those systems. I believe that for OM System to jump into that pool, they would effectively drown themselves and m4/3's along with them -- and I really like my m4/3's gear.
RoamingScott wrote:
OMDS has a pretty unique problem in that their biggest supporters tend to be buying their last camera system for physical reasons. They need to figure out some broader market appeal.
That seems to be mostly an American thing. Here in Europe, plenty of younger people use MFT gear. A bunch of pros too.
Braindrain232 wrote:
A question to that release.... what was the genesis? Was OMDS drowning in red ink and mgmt decided to buy it out? Just curious.
OM Digital has the same number of Employees and capital (cash) as they started with 5 years ago when they were severed from Olympus. So they were not “drowning in red ink”. JIP does not look at their acquisitions as a long term investment and were likely willing to exit OM Digital now with a reasonable profit
Vesperene wrote:
That's why I said L mount alliance. They don't have to invent a new mount or develop entire lens catalog stat. There are 120+ L mount FF lenses already in the market. If they don't like Leica there's always Sigma which they probably already employ for some of their m43 lenses.
Let's not forget Panasonic did the same move and nothing stops Olympus from applying their expertise in solid weather sealed bodies onto a full frame camera. My two dream cameras would be OM-1 like size and ergonomics with FF sensor and OM-3 with FF sensor, both already big enough.
Wishful thinking may be but one can always dream and in this case it might make business sense for the brand to thrive and not just survive. ...Show more →
It would be awesome if they take their software and put it into FF body!
johnvanr wrote:
That seems to be mostly an American thing. Here in Europe, plenty of younger people use MFT gear. A bunch of pros too.
I mostly see seniors using the OM system. It's kind of a bad joke that at some point in life the nature/wildlife people trade in the big Nikkors for OM.
The younger folks here that want the retro style are more into Fuji, because they are still small enough but have larger sensors.
EB-1 wrote:
I mostly see seniors using the OM system. It's kind of a bad joke that at some point in life the nature/wildlife people trade in the big Nikkors for OM.
The younger folks here that want the retro style are more into Fuji, because they are still small enough but have larger sensors.
EBH
Yup, but it’s just different here. I shot a multi-day event a few weeks ago with a media pass and even in the press area were a few people using MFT. Of course, Europe also lacks the obsession that bigger is always better. I think that’s even more true in Asia, where I understand OMDS is doing well.
Small sensor systems, like the micro-four-thirds OM-1, have their advantages and disadvantages. In my experience, the advantages are significant and justify supporting this system, whereas the disadvantages are limited to mostly two technical factors. I believe that these disadvantages can be made less important if we should see more progress in sensor design.
One of the two disadvantages is a relatively small number of pixels (20MP in OM-1). Not a big deal, for sure, but a future OM-1 should be more appealing to consumers if the number of pixels would increase to about 30MP.
The other disadvantage of OM-1 II is more significant to a non-wildlife photographer: the smaller sensor captures less light than the larger sensors. To be specific, at the base ISO 100, my Sony A1 can theoretically capture 8 times more light than my OM-1 II, whereas my GFX100S II can capture 16 times more light at this camera base ISO 80.
The cost of capturing less light is more visible shadow noise.
This second problem can be helped if OM could do what Panasonic did in their G9 II. First, change the base ISO from 200 to 100. This would mean a two-fold increase in the maximum amount of light the sensor would be able to capture. If at all possible, a further reduction in the base ISO would be welcome in future OM-1 bodies. Also if possible, implementing a dual-gain sensor design (as in practically every modern full-frame camera) might help to reduce the shadow noise at the higher ISO. The last technical option is the dual-output processing of the signal as in G9 II or Sony A7V, when a lower gain is applied on the signal in highlights vs the signal in the shadows.
I think that the OM-1 has a lot of potential, however, the success of this system is going to depend mostly on future improvements in sensor design. For future success, OM may want to have a close collaboration with a company like Sony that makes sensors. If Sony asked me (purely theoretically), I would have strongly suggested them to acquire OM and invest in this system instead of the APS-C. The interesting computational features that OM cameras offer are welcome as well. If OM could implement in-camera raw denoising as efficient as that in DxO DeepPRIME, with in-camera output to denoised DNG - that would be great.
I would completely understand if Panasonic and OM System felt burned by the sales performance of their respective "portability first" offerings in the US over the last 15 years, but I think they're dreadfully missing the mark by not aggressively moving into that market segment given the resurgence of interest in point & shoots. I think an updated GM1/GM5, Pen F, and the like with some revised lenses using modern AF motors would do extremely well, especially if they adopted the heritage design language of brands like Fuji and Nikon (Zf/Zfc). Pana/OM were, as it stands, early by about a decade, and you know what they say about the difference between being early and being wrong, but I have lots of friends in their 20s and 30s, and everyone is either buying or interested in buying a compact camera.
I'm not saying you have to abandon birding pensioners entirely, but there's a legion of sorority girls out there as well who would buy micro 4/3's cameras, were there some tailored towards their preferences.
johnvanr wrote:
Yup, but it’s just different here. I shot a multi-day event a few weeks ago with a media pass and even in the press area were a few people using MFT. Of course, Europe also lacks the obsession that bigger is always better. I think that’s even more true in Asia, where I understand OMDS is doing well.
Pros know what IQ (pixels, noise, optical performance, etc.) they need for the job at hand. Enthusiasts are all over the place. Some folks have modest requirements and others want 100MP MF.
I'm hoping OM will stay relevant so there are more choices.
For wildlife I have the 50-200 and 150-400 plus both TCs. There is no other lens I expect to need for wildlife. I would upgrade my OM-1 mkii (I have 3) for 30mp simply because I would like to be able to zoom out a bit further and crop for action shots.
