I’ve just written an OM System OM-5 review on TechRadar, and it made me think a lot about how much change we expect, how much change we need and what we actually value in a camera. Well, what I actually value in a camera, at least.
The OM-5 was launched quite quietly, and I can see why. It’s basically a fairly modest update of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 III, a camera I liked so much when I reviewed it that I bought one. With my own money. That’s a heck of a thing for a journalist to do.
So with the OM-5, OM System (the new Olympus camera brand name) has rebranded the OM-D E-M5 III with the new corporate logo and dropped in a few new features just to make it look as if something has happened, including the Live ND filter from cameras further up the range (though only up to 4 stops, which doesn’t seem enough), improved stabilization and a handheld 50MP high-res mode.
It’s not a lot, and it’s certainly not enough to justify upgrading your existing OM-D E-M5 III if you have one. There’s not much technical advancement on a camera already a few years old, so the obvious thing to do is complain, right?
Well, no, that’s not right. Because the rate of change of a camera is not an indication of its quality or performance or suitability or desirability. Camera journalists (alas, I am one) make a big hoo-hah about technological advancement without any appreciation of whether a product is in itself good or not.
And the OM-5 is good, just as the OM-D E-M5 III was good before it. It doesn’t have to have a million new features to be good. It was right then, and it’s right now.
For a start, it’s a pocket-sized camera with serious features and performance. It has (still) probably the best in-body stabilization of any mirrorless camera and, despite what the MFT haters say, the quality of its images is within a whisker of APS-C cameras, but with a camera and lens combination that’s smaller and cheaper and lighter.
This is the often-overlooked feature of Micro Four Thirds cameras. The fact that the cameras are smaller doesn’t matter, but the smaller lenses are a huge factor. I reviewed the OM-5 with a 12-45mm (24-90mm equivalent) f/4 lens a fraction of the size of any equivalent for a full frame camera, or even APS-C. I also tried out the OM System 40-150mm f/4 Pro telephoto, which is (a) small and (b) optically excellent.
So my point is this. As a technological advancement, the OM-5 looks like a lazy retread. As a perfectly designed travel camera, it’s just the best. There is nothing like it. And if that sounds like a contradiction, maybe it’s time we. took a long, hard look and what we expect from a camera.