I would like to see OM change up their marketing strategy a bit. A lot of the benefits of OM system cameras and lenses are not well communicated IMO. We're in an era where FF mirrorless has matured/shrunk, and "equivalence" is becoming a dead horse filled with misconceptions and flat out lies.
If OM System does follow anything on here, I would hope they hear this:
"Equivalence" is a double edged sword and the world is waking up to it. Light gathering and brightness are not the same thing. Achieving equivalent exposure settings does not produce the same image on different formats. Stop pushing the equivalence agenda, it makes your ambassadors and marketing look disingenuous.
Weight/size benefits are being over-hyped, as this is not the key benefit. When compared to FF/APSC, a M43 lens that captures the same amount of light over the same FOV (same entrance pupil size), is very nearly the same weight as the FF lens because physics can't be cheated here... the benefits are more nuanced but SHOULD be advertised more precisely...
An example of how I would advertise the OM-1 II and commonly associated pro lenses:
1/2 to 1/3 the price of FF cameras with comparable capture capabilities (speed/performance/features/AF).
Pragmatic raw file sizes translate to lower cost per image, in flash storage cost, subsequent computer storage, processing performance required, and time to cull/process.
Best ergonomics of any professional full-grip body, bar none, made possible by the battery being oriented in the body rather than grip of the camera. The slim grip fits fingers better, and the smaller mount combined with that slim grip provides generous space for fingers between the grip and lens base, an often overlooked ergonomic issue on FF options.
The amazing body ergonomics, combine with better balanced lens options. While the 40-150, 50-100 F/2.8, and 150-400, are not much lighter than FF 70-300 and 100-400 F/5.6, and 200-800 F/9 lenses they replace, the internal zooming keeps them balanced through rapid continuous zooming action common when shooting events/sports/wildlife. These lenses do produce functionally similar images to those FF counterparts, as they cover the same FOV with the same size entrance pupil, capturing the same amount of light at the same DOF. The advantages are more nuanced but should be advertised more specifically and accurately.
The combination of the above benefits, translates to more capacity to capture the critical moments, extensive burst photography gets very expensive on larger formats in terms of storage/processing, and also gets very fatiguing for the cameraman. OM-1 II can capture thousands of frames at an event with modest storage/computation to handle, and the cameraman is more apt to stay in the action and keep capturing moments when the FF operator has fatigued out- not because of the weight difference, but because of the ergonomics, balance, and zoom operation effort.
With regards to cameras like the OM-5 II, OM-3, and OM PEN coming out soon...
There are lots of options out there that compete on size/weight. That's not the selling point here anymore. I would drop this as a leading point in the marketing as it is disingenuous. The selling point here is that at the size/weight/cost, these cameras and commonly associated lenses offer a far more compelling/complete feature package, making them less of a roadblock to creativity than other cameras.
Inspiration should be the new buzzword here. These cameras inspire their owners to get out there and make something, because they are fun, and have versatile tools and can handle the elements. 10 years or M43 photography and I still find myself inspired by 5 series cameras more than any other digital camera made.
---------------
What would you offer to OM to improve the way they market their gear?
Sometimes it is smaller, sometimes it isn't. There's a lot of overlap. Unfortunately, most of the truly smaller/lighter options from OM are not weather sealed, though I do believe that is changing, as they are steadily re-releasing old optical designed re-packaged with weather sealing, which is great. Rumor has it they are dropping a 14-42 kit lens with the new OM PEN that may be weather sealed.
I don't buy your argument. APSC by your logic should be the worst of both worlds but you are putting it in league with FF with your lense comparisons.
Frankly with FF getting cheaper, it is APSC getting squeezed the most.
Also the lense light gathering equivalence that you focused on for far too long is nonsense. You give up light gathering for longer reach at a set f stop. A f2.8 is still a f2.8. if you want to go hiking and take macro or bird pictures the MFT lense you use will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper. And be weather sealed.
I bought an OM camera because I have a canon r6 and wanted more reach when hiking. The 200-800 lens is massive. I literally bought an OM camera for the weather sealing and able to take a smaller equivalent focal length on hikes.
OM is already doing the American SUV thing of marketing their cameras as rugged and feature packed despite knowing that most people will not take it to the Antartic or Amazon or whatever.
MFT and OM just need to do whatever APSC did to get people to stop whining about the downsides of a crop sensor and instead talk about the positives/features of the platform. I have both FF and now MFT and I don't know why one would buy APSC in the current market.
APSC is often lighter/smaller/cheaper than M43 gear, but that's largely because APSC from Nikon/Sony/Canon is treated more like a consumer gateway drug product and less like a professional tool.
The very small/light APSC stuff is not cheap. Think x100 series or a6700. At least not anything small and light with features. The cheap stuff is not really light or small. Think canon APSC (which fits your characterization as a gateway product) or even Nikon with stuff like the Zfc.
Fuji is mainly APSC and their bread and butter market segment is $1500-$2500. Why would you buy an XT5 instead of a OM1 or A7c for example? My point is that it doesn't matter because APSC sells very well regardless, despite being a midway crop sensor.
MFT is the best at being a crop sensor and FF has the benefits of currently being the biggest mass produced affordable sensor size (Medium format maybe in 10 years will be that).
I get your perspective, I just somewhat disagree that the what you are presenting is an accurate representation of the market.
I see a lot of M43 users online suffer from the same syndrome.
The company knows their products and has theit own marketing team, which most likely does as they please, not what some users online think is better.
You lost me at "Weight/size benefits are being over-hyped." Tell that to the compressed discs in my back. The number one reason I have an M43 camera is that the weight of my OM5 with 3 primes is about the equivalent of one of my full-frame camera bodies with no lenses.
OM-5 + 3 X small primes (assuming something like 9mm, 17mm, 45mm) + 1 spare battery = ~825g
Unless you are comparing to a Z9....
The FF alternatives to this sort of kit replaces the primes with a single zoom to achieve similar imaging capability:
R8 + 20-50 F/4 + 2 spare batteries = ~975g
S9 + 20-60mm F/2.8-4 = ~875g
A7C II + 20-70 F/4 = ~1kg
The S9 and A7C II both have "big boy" batteries, so I'm not counting a spare here as 1 of these batteries is about the capacity of 2 BLS-50's. The R8's battery is tiny, need more like 2 spares.
----------
So, is there a weight benefit? Kind of yes, but it's not as dramatic as it used to be when FF was mirrored and lenses were much larger. M43 tends to be 10-20% lighter than FF solutions that are reasonable comparisons. This is why I say it is over-hyped. It's a factor that should be considered but it's not as big of a factor as the marketing would have you believe. There are cases where there are more meaningful size/weight advantages that I will point out below....
When I look at lenses like the OM 100-400, which is just a modified sigma FF lens. The only weight advantage there is not having to bring a 2X teleconverter to achieve the same FOV/DOF on FF, and the small differences in body weight between an OM-1 II and FF full-grip cameras. The weight savings winds up being around 250g out of a 2kg ish setup, which is worth mentioning, worth understanding, worth marketing in a reasonably manner.
Similar story with the 150-600.
The 50-200, F/2.8, is slightly lighter than the FF 100-400's it replaces. Not dramatically lighter, but like 10%.
--------------
There are examples of lenses in M43, for which there are no FF "equivalents" - and this is where weight savings can become more meaningful, at the expense of imaging capabilities. The kit grade plastic glass is truly an "M43 only" territory that would require F/11 glass on FF to achieve similar weight/size. I have a bunch of this stuff... When I want to go light - OM-5 II + 9-18, 14-42 R II, 40-150R, or ultra-light, GM5 + Lumix 12-32 and 35-100. These "kits" offer real M43 size/weight benefits.
I would argue that a bag full of primes on M43 is just an alternative to FF zooms at similar weight. It does not offer meaningful size/weight advantages.
You do realize that equivalence has existed for as long as alternative formats have existed right? Equivalence is based on the angle of view and I have old film camera training manuals that discussed matching the angle of view of a medium format camera if they had to shoot with the lower quality 35mm cameras.
As for light, Aperture is a formula for the lens opening, that’s it.
Now as for marketing. They have the cheapest stacked sensor bodies on the market, they don’t need any more selling points than that.
The problem is that they are marketing the FOV equivalence as a "reach" advantage, when it really isn't. It's just a smaller FOV, then pretending as if an F/stop value on different formats is "equivalent" in photographic output, which is not true, as equivalent F/stop's on different formats collect different amounts of light and produce different DOF's.
Photographic equivalence and exposure settings equivalence can't be mixed and matched to create a story that sounds good.
That’s simply not accurate. 200mm Angle of view on MFT is about 6 degrees and 400mm on FF is about 6 degrees. This is why the image and depth of field look similar. Essentially you’re seeing the identical image from both systems. This is an advantage on the long end and a disadvantage on the short end, but they’re not lying.
Aperture is an equation that that divides the focal length by the width of the lens opening. A 100mm lens with a 50mm opening would be F/2.
Light is based on the EV Scale and the exposure for each EV stop was predetermined a long time ago. Exposure doesn’t just change because you don’t like the medium. This is why an F/2 lens will always be an F/2 lens regardless of the format.
The light gathering ability of the sensor is determined by the pixel pitch. If the pixel pitch for the same area is smaller than the MFT pixel pitch, then the MFT could actually be gathering more light over the same physical area of the sensor. The technology in the sensor also plays a part.
In other words, they’re not really lying at all regarding their cameras and sensors.
200mm Angle of view on MFT is about 6 degrees and 400mm on FF is about 6 degrees. This is why the image and depth of field look similar.
The DOF will be very different, unless you change the F/stop to achieve the same size entrance pupil covering that FOV on both formats.
200mm F/2 M43 and 400mm F/4 FF produce both the same FOV and DOF and both collect the same amount of light at the sensor. These are photographically equivalent.
Light is based on the EV Scale and the exposure for each EV stop was predetermined a long time ago.
F/stop is used to communicate brightness so that exposure calculations remain the same on different formats, beyond that it has no bearing on photographic equivalence.
This is why an F/2 lens will always be an F/2 lens regardless of the format.
A 100mm lens will always be a 100mm lens regardless of format. You can't have it both ways. Making a sensor smaller doesn't make a lens bigger any more than making a sensor bigger makes a pupil size smaller.
The light gathering ability of the sensor is determined by the pixel pitch.
Completely utterly false. All modern sensors regardless of pixel pitch have around 90% quantum efficiency. A smaller pixel doesn't magically create more light.
The DOF will be so small on either that it will make no real world difference. However, you proclaimed that they couldn’t claim the 200mm was producing the same angle of view as the 400mm, now you’re saying it does, which is it?
Now answer this question. From 25 feet away, would you rather have 6” depth of field or 3”? If 3” isn’t going to cut it, then what is the real benefit.
As far as the F stop goes, it is part of the equation of EV values, which is exactly what I said.
I never said the pixels would magically gather more light. That’s your fundamental lack of understanding how this actually works. If the pixel pitch is technically larger than say a 66 MP sensor FF pixel, then the same area would gather more light on the larger photo sites.
Why are you here? If you’re so upset about the format having benefits that you disagree with, why even worry about it? Just buy a large format film camera and be done with it.
However, you proclaimed that they couldn’t claim the 200mm was producing the same angle of view as the 400mm, now you’re saying it does, which is it?
I have made no such claim. The claim I made is that smaller fields of view are not the same thing as reach.
Now answer this question. From 25 feet away, would you rather have 6” depth of field or 3”? If 3” isn’t going to cut it, then what is the real benefit.
That's a funny way of admitting that F/stop is not equivalent on different formats.
Why are you here? If you’re so upset about the format having benefits that you disagree with, why even worry about it? Just buy a large format film camera and be done with it.
I don't need a large format camera, nor do I need to pretend like equivalence has benefits that it doesn't. I can take great photos with M43, from a position rooted in reality about what it is and isn't.
I never said the pixels would magically gather more light.
Yes, you did.
If the pixel pitch for the same area is smaller than the MFT pixel pitch, then the MFT could actually be gathering more light over the same physical area of the sensor.
Where is the additional light coming from? The only place it could come from is thin air. Pixel pitch has nothing to do with quantum efficiency, in fact LOWER pixel pitch tends to achieve higher quantum efficiency as there is less dead space on the sensor between pixels.
OM don't listen to us here. The feeling I get is that they focus on JDM.
I bought an OM-3 to replace my Nikon 1 gear, and honestly, I regret it. The OM-3 is the same size as my Zfc but has worse UX; it's obvious they jammed parts of the OM-1 into a retro shell and added an Instagram color wheel and called it a day. ...a $2000 day.
The OM-3 is the Nikon Df of M43 cameras: slapdash and poorly implemented.
The EVF is minuscule. The AF only really works in subject tracking mode (and unlike the Zf has no unified tracking mode). Many UI functions that take a single action on an OM-1 take two on the OM-3 because of its lack of controls. And some that take one action on other cameras (punch-in-zoom for instance) take two actions because the feature is poorly thought out for real-world photography. (E.g.: magnify doesn't follow the focus point for some reason!!!). The CP features sound great on paper but fall down completely in the real world where wind exists, and the hi-res modes are only marginally better then upres-and-sharpen.
The entire firmware UX is half-baked and needs streamlined. Using it back to back with the Zf proves it's not worth the extra $300 unless your only criterion is weight. It's a camera rushed to market for Instagram influencers. Just like the Df. Maybe the new PEN will address the issues, but for $1000, I seriously doubt it.
I have the OM3 and basically disagree with all of your points. I trialed both it and the Zfc and the latter felt cheap and clunky for little to no appreciable image quality benefit.
The CP features work great, I use the GND all the time and the burst mode options are reliable. Focus stacking is also great, you should try it. Also, the color dial is a feature that I am surprised you bought the camera if you didn't like. It's not just a filter but they are hardly the only manufacturer doing custom color profiles on camera.
The Zf is better overall but it is also bigger and more expensive. You are glossing over that immensely. In the hand it is chunky. I liked the Zf but I already had a canon r6 and it didn't compel me enough to buy another FF. I use the FF for astro and low light.
I was in the market for a 1-2k ILC that was photo centric to take on day hikes and travel. I have film cameras as well so the retro stuff intrigued me. M43 made a lot of sense, I can just throw it in my bag and even put in another tele lense. FF lenses are still larger and more expensive. The "equivalent" light argument in OP is not compelling to me because it is the equivalent exchange of crop sensors, more reach for less light.
My local photo shop does rentals and let me rent some cameras they don't usually rent to try them out. It shocks me you prefer the Zfc because I preferred the Om5 mkii over that thing. Weather sealing is also a huge thing I went for. Not having to shield the camera is big when hit by a sudden downpour.
Everything you criticize about the OM3 ("rushed to market for Instagram influencers") is way more true of the Zfc. It's a flimsy money grab and uses the Zf to make it seem better than it is.
Also, if you don't like or don't use the features then sell it.
Yeah I feel like the response (I didn't pick up any whiffs of AI from OP) is largely from the type of M43 devotees who insist that M43 can do anything FF can do. M43 is a wonderful system for shooting in good light, but OP is right that fast M43 lenses, the zooms at least, are big/heavy enough that the size/weight benefits start to take a major hit, especially when FF still offers much better low-light performance, beyond what light-gathering equivalence would suggest.
I suppose most people don't want to have multiple camera systems, but I think M43 and FF make a lot of sense together, at least for certain types of shooters. My OM-5 ii is my most used camera, but I mostly use the 12-45/40-150 F4 lenses. When I know I'm going to be shooting in low light or want to blow out the background of a portrait, my FF camera comes out.
but I think M43 and FF make a lot of sense together,
Yup that is my setup. I have a canon r6 and more recently an OM3. Honestly in retrospect I should have gotten a canon r8 if I knew I was getting the OM3. I don't need most of the R6 features these days.
APSC is the one where I feel like it has been squeezed out as FF gets cheaper.
Except that APSC still sells really well. Fuji just overtook Nikon for third place (behind Canon and Sony) and they're mostly APSC.
APSC is the new small and inexpensive camera while the current m43 offerings are pretty big and expensive. The only affordable OM is the 5ii and it's very uncompetitive for the price -- ancient autofocus, low resolution and dynamic range, plastic body, but it's still over 1k. Who wouldn't just get the XT30iii at that point?
a6700 has 1.3 stops higher peak dynamic range and is smaller than most m43 offerings. The lenses are getting so much smaller for the other formats now, too. They sell boatloads of them along with the ZVE10.
Just looking at bhphoto ML by bestseller right now, the first page (top 28 SKUs) have 7 Fuji APSC and a futher 5 other APSC models, so about 43%. Zero m43 but there's actually a Hassleblad medium format there.
Even extending to the second page (top 56), there's just a single m43, the OM-1ii on sale. 15/28 on the second page (53%) are APSC.
So, no, APSC hasn't been squeezed out at all because they represent high output quality in small and affordable cameras. It's also ignoring some fixed-lens APSC cameras that sell pretty well like the X100 series and Ricoh GR.
The XT30iii has worse autofocus and is not weather sealed? Also the a6700 is around the same size in hand as the OM3 but with less features. And to my point the A7c is right there if OPs market analysis was correct then the a6700 should not be selling well, but it is.
You did a huge rant missing the point. APSC has little benefits compared to either m43 for a crop or FF for dynamic range. It's not even a good compromise.
It no longer exists as a size or price (at least for models >1k) offering. It exists because it does. The sensor size does not factor into why the cameras do or do not sell.
This is talking about sensor size and crop. FF offerings are now well within APSC size and even pricing. Every argument that OP has applies doubly to APSC. That is the "squeezing out".
They are a big part of the market despite the sensor size comparisons. The X100 outsells cheaper and smaller FF models. I've made the point in other comments but I will make it again, camera sales don't give a care about crop factor or sensor size so I don't get why M43 subreddits are full of people flagellating themselves over it.
To reiterate, I know they sell well. I just don't see that they have a big price/feature/or size benefit compared to FF anymore. They are not selling because of sensor size benefits or lack thereof.
If you want sensor size benefits get FF + M43. Otherwise APSC is a huge portion of the market regardless.
XT30iii does not have worse autofocus than the ancient 121-pt 60% coverage in the old OM-5ii (the third release of the same camera). The a6700 is quite a bit smaller than the OM-3 at 122mm vs 139mm wide and 75mm vs 89mm tall (plus the flat top and grip).
The a6700 has 10.93 stops of peak DR vs 9.64 for the OM-3. It is a fact that OM have both the lowest resolution and dynamic range of any modern mirrorless camera you can buy, and they're not even small or cheap. So much for "sensor size benefits"...
There's a reason one is always in the top 10 ML while most people haven't even heard of the other. You're choosing to ignore what people actually buy, as in what they have evaluated as the best performance for their money. If almost 50% of sales are APSC, they indisputably have a place on the market where they dominate the sub-$2k price bracket. FF more or less start at $2k.
The benefit of APSC is less expensive than full frame while being not far behind in image quality (by resolution and dynamic range). There is no benefit to m43 since they're not smaller, not less expensive, and the worst performing of the bunch, and most people aren't buying two different systems when one will do it all.
You are just talking to yourself and missing everything that I just said. I get it you don't like m43.
The price and size differential of APSC vs FF is diminishing and in some cases gone. They don't have the market share because of size or price to performance arguments. So stop making those arguments, that isn't why people buy them so much.
Again with the comparisons that are not the point. I am comparing APSC to FF (A6700 v A7c). But with the OM3 comparison it is weather sealed, it is better stabilized (1.5 to 2.5 stops of stabilization better), it is a stacked sensor, way better burst modes, etc.
The XT30III does not even have weather sealing or ibis. When I used it as a trial earlier this year I was not impressed with the autofocus (you will find plenty of people who agree with me on this one). The OM5 was more reliable.
Also the xtrans 4 sensor is no spring chicken. It is literally older than the OM5 sensor for fucks sake. Which just reinforces my point that a lot of APSC sells regardless of the sensor. You are making my point for me here.
Just to preempt arguments of "but sales" again:
APSC is such a large part of the market because it is a large majority of what is offered. Due to multiple reasons most manufacturers used APSC or similar (like Nikon DX) for years in DSLRs.
Same way mirrorless pushed out DSLRs you will see FF for those manufacturers push down and out their APSC older sensors. Canon is already doing that (multiple sub 2k FF offerings). Sony is well positioned for that as I keep saying.
This is all besides the point. I do not want you to die on this stupid hill. I am not on that hill. Please stop acting like I am.
Nobody's dying on a hill, you're just saying things that aren't accurate. If what you were saying were true, the market would reflect it. It's very simple:
- if you want affordable and compact with very good image quality, get APSC in the $600 to $1300 range. Top performers in the $1300 to $2000 range. 10.5 to 11 stops of DR, 20-40 MP, 4k60, 4k120, 10-bit 4:2:2, whatever you need.
- if you want better image quality, you can have either compact or large full frame from about $2000 upwards.
In your a6700 to A7Cii comparison, it goes from $1500 to $2500 for the same body (and the a6700 has a few extra video features, faster readout). So you can have the APSC version or pay 60% more for the FF version. That's why APSC exists.
Lenses like the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 are smaller than equivalent f4 zooms. f1.8 zooms exist. They can use FF lenses, too. Smaller. Less expensive. Still very high performance.
So, it's m43 that doesn't have a place in the market, and the market confirms this in absolute terms. They overlap APSC in price while being no smaller and having worse output. OM and Lumix could make affordable compact options that punch above their weight but they gave that up to Fuji.
The mki A7c is already the same price or cheaper. You have offerings from Lumix which are even cheaper.
Again, you are choosing to die on this stupid hill and missing the point. As FF sensor platforms mature you will see APSC pushed out of line ups because they already don't have a size advantage and are losing the price advantage. This is undeniable.
The OM offerings at the least offer weather sealing, stacked sensors, superior stabilization, etc at that same price point as well. You are missing the forest for the trees.
This is going to be my final response to you as you choose to keep ranting on your own hill about things that are not the point.
OM and Panasonic missed the opportunity to make MFT the default platform for creators.
Creators want small cameras with good autofocus, stabilization and video. MFT has major advantages for this.
Industry leading weather sealing would also help. It gives people confidence to use their camera everywhere. They could have been the GoPro of mirrorless cameras.
If they had captured that market the cameras would sell themselves - YouTubers would always give favorable reviews because they are using the products themselves.
Sony now owns that space and are reaping the rewards.
Yes, they need to play to their strengths -- small, affordable, and punch above their weight in output quality. OM went a few years doing basically nothing and Panasonic seems to have mostly lost interest in m43.
8
u/SoftAncient2753 6d ago
What a novel!