... Journal Entry
There are a shedload of vehement micro four thirds haters out there who would like nothing more than to see the format die, but there is one excellent MFT camera that even the supporters of the format love to hate. They should know better!
A vociferous and aggressive cabal from the full frame format crowd in particular seem threatened by MFT for some strange reason and cannot refrain from hammering away at anything and everything and indeed everyone associated with the format. Strangely though, they are ably aided and abetted in this by a lot of the MFT community itself when it comes to the OM System OM-5.
Now this is nuts because this is a great little camera. I have owned and used one for well over a year now and can vouch for how good it is in its role as a lightweight, carry everywhere, weatherproof, powerful, highly capable camera for walkabout photographers like me snapping the things they encounter around them. It is brilliant!
So what was the problem when it was launched then? Well, expectation management; what the MFT community were really hoping to see was in essence a mini-OM-1 and what OM Systems gave them, to howls of anguish, was "simply" an upgraded OM-D E-M5 III. What was mostly overlooked was that in many ways this new camera was a "mini OM-D E-M1 III +" with loads of flagship computational functionality cleverly shrunk into a small package (the same body shell as the old E-M5 III). In the rush to hate this camera this was and is still mostly ignored.
What made things worse, this new 'OM-5' was the first camera from OM System that did not have the Olympus name on the front (unlike the OM-1 which was the last camera where the Olympus name was allowed to be carried over) but rather their own OM System badge and the shock of this was psychologically difficult for most everyone. There were howls of grief and, though unavoidable, it hurt the OM-5 a lot and OM Systems failed to manage this well, indeed at all. Even the recently released OM-1 II (the upgrade to the much loved OM-1) is now also branded OM System and this still caused fleeting comments of regret on the passing of the Olympus name, so you can imagine how tough it was for the little OM-5 being first.
So there was huge disappointment for many, especially after the "kerpow" impact that the then still recent OM-1 caused when it was launched, as the OM-5 limped onto the market without proper positioning, with the new brand name and giving out all the wrong messages. Punters demanded to know: Where was the new sensor from the OM-1? Where was the new menu system also from the OM-1? Where were the AI subject tracking modes from the OM-1? Where was the improved handling and ergonomics from the OM-1?
Surely this much expected new camera should have been, as mentioned before, a mini-OM-1 maybe called an OM-3 say? OK, maybe not as highly specced as the OM-1 obviously (smaller buffer, not as fast, single card slot etc, etc) after all this is a mid-range camera, but never-the-less recognisably part of a new stable of cameras, not visibly what everyone took it to be and what OMS launched it as - just an upgrade of the old Olympus EM-5 III. The marketing of the OM-5 was lamentable and a big misfire, and as a result many reviewers had a real go at the camera and taking their cue from this a great many of the MFT community followed suit and piled on in.
Which was sad, as this seemingly born to be hated camera was and continues to be a great and powerful little machine. If you're in the market for the best walkabout, adventure travel, all weather, highly portable, highly capable camera that's crammed with great tech as well as flagship computational functionality, at a mid-range camera price point, then the OM System OM-5 is it. Hate it? No, I love mine and use it a lot often carrying it in preference to my OM-1 II for its compactness and portability. But it remains greatly misunderstood to the vast majority out there and hammered at every opportunity by those who have never used one and seem to deliberately misunderstand it; it's a great shame!!