OM Digital Solutions today announced the OM-3, a camera that takes the spot between the OM-1 and the OM-5. In essence, the OM-3 is mostly the OM-1 internals and capabilities inside a new gripless body, because, you know, retro. OMDS uses the word "timeless design" to suggest a style link to the past, and doesn't actually refer to function, so not exactly retro. There appears to be no significant new features or abilities, with the impression that it's OM-1 electronics in a new body. One difference that isn't getting mentioned is that the EVF has been downgraded to 2.36m dot (from 5.76), the eyepoint has increased, and that the OM-3 is not dual slot. I found a few other small differences from the OM-1 Mark II, as well, but mostly things that looked more like firmware updating than functional differences.
Again, the OM-3 is a camera slotted between between two existing ones, so that tends to restrict what is done, otherwise the new body might hurt sales of the existing ones. That said, if you can handle a flat front body, the OM-3 is pretty much an OM-1 at a lower price (US$2000 versus US$2400, though the OM-1 Mark II is currently on sale for...wait for it...US$2000).
Along with the OM-3, OMDS also announced redesigns of the 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8, and 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS. These redesigns don't change the optics, but do add weather sealing in modern OM-clad housings.
________________
Commentary: Here's a puzzle: how do you create a "retro design" camera when your modern cameras are not all that removed from what you originally did?
When I first heard the rumors that OM Digital Solutions was going to make a retro camera, my first thought was "don't they already make those?" The OM-5 in panda cladding looks an awful lot like an old film SLR. It's really just the back (screen and controls) that screams "digital," and I'm not sure how you avoid a screen and additional controls for a digital camera. (Yes, I know there are a couple of examples of that, but they don't strike me as fully usable, general purpose cameras.)
Interestingly, Olympus seems to be using the 1972 OM-1 film SLR as its target for aesthetic design. Too bad they missed the 50th anniversary ;~). Just saying you're doing "retro" is no longer really a big thing, and not much of a marketing message. OMDS made a big mistake in not doing using that 50th anniversary, where they could have built a fuller, more compelling story behind the marketing efforts. "It's the 53rd anniversary" doesn't have much of a ring to it, after all.
Yes, I'm a contrarian when it comes to so-called retro designs. I have been since the Nikon Df, and later Fujifilm and Nikon models. There's a reason why camera user interfaces modernized: you can control more, and do so more quickly. The so-called "dials interface" retro cameras, with dedicated ISO, shutter speed, and aperture dials, tend to force you to work more slowly, They also usually leave off all the step savers and shortcuts to the more complex interactions you'll need to make with the camera at some point.
Sure, three dials make the camera more simple in one aspect (exposure). But really, is that the thing you need so much control over these days? Dials are bit like a comfort blanket for those that learned how to photograph 50 years ago. To the young, they're a fad complication that will pass soon.
But the OM-3 doesn't even have those dials. Instead we have the more modern Mode dial, plus the digital Pen's front style "creative" dial. Moreover, the original film-based OM-1, while it did have dials, had two of them at the lens mount (shutter speed on the camera side of the mount, aperture on the lens side), which was itself a bit of a modernization (for smaller lenses with the camera held normally it moved the control of those two parameters to the fingers of the left hand without moving the hand).
In essence, OMDS is doing a strange thing with this new model, squeezing the current OM-1 innards into a changed and slightly simplified body and trying to wedge that between the OM-1 and OM-5. I'm not sure that there's room there for that. Moreover, the body that needs some love is the E-M10, which still hasn't had it's OMization. Still, perhaps the "newness" of the "timelessness" may trigger some additional buying by a few. I'm unconvinced as to why I'd want the OM-3 over the OM-1 Mark II, though.
Then there's this: in producing the OM-3 they've taken the hand grip off because, well, old film SLRs didn't have one and they're trying to make this look like a film SLR. Handgrips, even the modest one on the OM-5, are useful, though. So what we have OMDS doing here is removing or redesigning useful things just for looks.
Meanwhile, the three "new" lenses are really old optical designs in new housings, something they were committed to having to do in the process of moving from Olympus branding to OM branding.
It feels to me like Olympus got stuck in a museum with the OMDS transfer. The preservation efforts continue, but it doesn't seem like innovation is in the building any more. This marks the second year in a row we've gotten essentially a no update update.
