OM System will probably get two sets of responses to the OM-3. One will be that it looks amazing, just like the original OM1 and OM2 film SLRs, and is a retro camera with all the charm needed to challenge the legendary Fujifilm X100 VI. The other will be that it’s ‘just’ another MFT camera, without even a new sensor, and too big and too expensive. So who’s right?
The looks are pretty spectacular. I think it definitely does matter what a camera looks and feels like, and how you feel about it when you’re out shooting. The OM-3 definitely harks back to the era when I started out in photography, with compact, unfussy design and the classic silver-black color scheme. I am, if I’m honest, pretty bored now with the bland plastic boxes that mirrorless cameras have become.
I can also see why many will complain that the MFT format is too small, that it’s no good in low light and that you can’t get shallow depth of field. All of those are wrong, but the Internet is a place that polarizes opinion and amplifies misinformation, so I guess we’re stuck with that.
It does seem a little curious that OM System should have used its latest high-speed stacked sensor in a camera you wouldn’t normally use for action photography, but it does also bring much improved video capabilities, so the OM-3 can now compete with all the latest hybrid cameras for mixed content creation.
I am a long-time MFT user and I shoot professionally with an OM-1, a PEN E-P7 and a PEN-F. I also shoot with full frame Canon, Nikon and Sony gear but I keep these for personal projects – it’s my MFT gear that I rely on for paid work. But that’s another story.
So you might think that I would immediately rush out and put my name down for an OM-3? I might still do that, but there’s one thing holding me back – my PEN-F. I would only get the OM-3 for its retro vibes, and I just happen to think that the PEN-F does that better. I might change my mind the moment I lay my hands on the OM-3, but right now it’s another Olympus classic that’s stopping me.