One Serious Sentence

[Comments have been added.]

-

Man, I wish I had a dime for every minute I've spent trying to keep up with Olympus's perambulations, permutations, and perfidies over the years. I wish I were better at it, but the more I read, the more confusicated I get.

Boiled way down: big accounting scandal in 2011, when its own CEO became a whistleblower; smaller, but still big, bribery scandal in 2016; and then, after 84 years, Olympus Corp. exited the camera business in 2020 after losing boatloads of money for, like, a decade. Olympus Corporation prospers but no longer makes cameras. The camera and lens division, under new ownership, became OM Digital Solutions (OMDS)...but continued branding the cameras and lenses "Olympus." Now, if I read everything right (every document seems larded with branding blather—example below—which further confusicates me), the company is still called OM Digital Solutions but, because nobody can remember that name—I can't, anyway—it is branding its "lines of interchangeable lens cameras and lenses, compact digital cameras, audio products, binoculars, and other services" (what else does it do? Isn't that everything?) with the name "OM System."

Better. I can remember that. I think. "OM System" used to mean the lineup of compact film SLRs (OM-1, OM-2, OM-3, and OM-4, plus variants) and its matching manual-focus lenses (it was a beautiful, and beautifully complete, system, but autofocus, which it didn't have, doomed it prematurely). But I can adjust. I think I still have enough brain cells left.

Small problem: when I Googled the new brand name, I got an Argentinian company called OM Systems (note plural s), or Om Systems (it's not clear) that "provides broadcast equipment to the audiovisual industry." Hmm, isn't that frowned upon, to pick a name that's already taken? It seems close enough to the same business space. You can't re-use names for thoroughbred racehorses; I thought companies were more or less the same way. They must have thought of this, though.

In a way, we have Leica, or, more precisely, Leitz, to thank for the new brand name. What? Well, Olympus wanted to call its first compact SLR the "M-1" back in 1971, but Leitz, which made Leicas, or more precisely Leitz's lawyers, said, hold on there, hoss, our cameras are called M's. So Olympus added the "O" and the cameras and lenses became OM. (But then Leica GmbH did not object when Canon more recently used the name M6. I cannot pretend to understand.)

And here we are. From the OM System press release about the name OM System:

“Break Free”

Time does not stand still.

It does not take excuses or do repeats. The sun won’t ask for your permission to set, a smile comes and goes, and a Falcon [sic] won’t wait for your go-ahead to take flight. When a moment comes, one that makes you feel, you should be ready to capture it.

Since the bird is a falcon, Falcon-capital-F made me think of the Star Wars spaceship, although that's probably not what they meant. And how is it breaking free when you're doing your best to remind people that you are still who you, or rather someone else, used to be? In the video, "Olympus and "Maitani" come together to make the OM. Isn't Maitani...you know, dead?

Anyway I think part of their probation should be that they only tell us the plain facts in plain language and leave all the other stuff out, but I'm just being selfish.

Mike in the role of critic

Of course, the bottom line is, we still love the OM System (the OMDS brand that makes Olympus-branded cameras that aren't made by Olympus, not the old line of manual-focus film cameras...oh, never mind). Because a lot of us either use the cameras and lenses, or used to (I used to), and they have always made great stuff, and still do.

That last sentence is serious.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Photography, The Definitive Visual History by Tom Ang. This is a book, like several others I know of (I'm looking at you, Q.T. Luong) that can't exist—it's too much work to put it together. Which makes it all the more amazing that it does. A brightly-lit shop window for the attractions of photography, a whirlwind tour of people, cameras, and pictures. The author still has time to be an accomplished travel photographer.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Once you're at Amazon, anything you search and buy will be credited to TOP. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dillan: "Thanks for making me feel better about my lens collection!"

Grizzlymarmot: "The capital F in falcon is directed towards bird enthusiasts. Capitalization of bird names is as much of a passion as optics for them. It was as subtle as the iridescence of the Common Grackle.

Mike replies: Oh, okay. I didn't know that. Thanks.

Alicia King: "Mike, my husband is an avid reader of yours. He recently called my attention to the discussion of bird names related to whether to capitalize falcon or not. I have worked in the field of bird education and conservation most of my career. The rule is that when addressing a family bird name, such as falcon, it is not capitalized. If you name the specific falcon as in Peregrine Falcon then yes it would be Falcon (if you include Peregrine). Another example—eagle. If you say Golden Eagle or Bald Eagle the e is capitalized. If you say eagle or eagles it is not capitalized. Re grackle: Common Grackle is correct, but grackle used alone is not capitalized. The American Ornithology Society and many birding organizations and others are clear on the capitalization of bird names and falcon is not capitalized until it is a specific type of falcon. So I agree with you that the Falcon is a specific name—but not of a specific bird, so maybe it is the Star Wars spaceship.  :-)  "

Mike replies: Thanks Alicia! Interesting that you're coming from a position of deep expertise and I'm coming from a position of near total ignorance, yet I managed to hit the answer that agrees with you. In pool we call that a "fluke," i.e., a great shot that was pure luck.  :-)

David Smith: "I'm appalled by how flimsy many lenses (and other gear, bodies included for that matter) of 'recent' manufacture are. Everthing's made of plastic (excuse me, 'polycarbonate'), irreparable, disposable. I can remember when you could give a lens a bit of a knock, and it would keep on ticking, albeit with dented filter thread, probably fixable. I gave up on 'modern' gear when my plastic fantastic Rebel Ti coughed up a metal screw that blew away the door latch."

Mike replies: I remember a Leica rep who was discussing why Leica lenses cost more. He took a 50mm Summicron off an M camera and flung it like a bowling ball across the floor, where it skittered along until it whacked into the baseboard. He walked over, calmly picked it up, clicked it back on to the camera, and said, "you go on taking pictures."

s.wolters: "OM System. It was only after a couple of days before the penny dropped. The name and logo were already used in this publication. It’s from 1984 (not 1985) and you can get it elsewhere for as little as ten euros. I used Canon FD at that time and later Nikon (D)SLRs but somehow this book, the photos and the whole ‘Olympus culture’ it was breathing always appealed to me. Open this book at random and any page will want you to go out with your camera. With the choice of the name OM System I hope the new company also wants to bring back a similar kind of exclusivity. Or at least they should if they want to survive.

"Leica is a good example. You can recognize them in every small detail in their branding communication. The smaller you are, the more coherent your presentation must be. Otherwise you’ll stay unnoticed. The clumsy video with Japanese managers speaking blah blah in bad English is not a good start. But the first OM System branded product seems as good as ever."

Bill Tyler: "If the gauzy rebranding video means that the product line will continue, that's all I care about. I love the system under any name."

Comments

[John Krumm]

And you might have seen the new "smallish" OM System 20mm f1.4 they announced today,just to tempt you.

Someone posted a link to this funny review on DPR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5HsQPqMTbc

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

I agree. I hope they will rise again, with an much upgraded sensor particularly. Olympus (and sometimes Panasonic) and Micro Four Thirds has been my favorite system since its very first camera. (Which they sadly have failed to really follow up on, a really compact street camera.)

Eolake

[Robert Roaldi]

A rose is a rose is a rose.

[Bahi]

That new 20mm’s specs should be right up your street. They’re spot-on for me. Currently above my budget and a bit bulky but I’d love one for the trusty GX8 one day. And a GX10, perhaps, on a day that’s even further into the future. Just one stop better low-light performance and a one-stop improvement to stabilisation.

I’ve had trouble with the build quality and tolerances of Olympus Micro Four Thirds lenses (three lenses, all new, all with badly misaligned elements) but I’m guessing that the Pro line is better built. The current 25mm f/1.8 is a stellar lens if you can snag a well made example.

[robert e]

It might calm people down if they let it be known that "OM" should be pronounced "Ohhmmmm..." in a very drawn out exhale, preferably while sitting in lotus position.

How perfect would it be if they hire the band Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark (or OMD, who are also still around) to record a theme song to go with the rebrand? Perhaps with the title "System"?

By the way, I very much appreciated the "reprints" from the archives. You've published so much great stuff that deserves better than relegation to the internet's dusty attic or my dusty memory.

[Ilkka]

Interesting point about the M1 and M6. I also don’t understand but I try to. Maybe Olympus was considered serious competitor to Leitz in the 1970s when the Leicaflexes were not doing well and the M1/OM1 was a small, high quality mechanical camera, very similar to the principles of M Leicas. While much later when Canon started it’s purely beginner amateurish EOS M series, it was not considered any threat to Leica, which by then had several different systems of its own that were doing well. By the time the EOS M series started to get a bit better, Canon basically dumped it and started to copy the Leica SL with much better success with the new R line. Not to forget that Leica moved from M to SL and then R, before coming back to SL.

[Hélcio J. Tagliolatto]

How amazing system the OM was!

http://jamesmoh.blogspot.com/2015/08/remembering-mryoshihisa-maitani-and-om.html

[Peter Croft]

Wow, I have a copy of the OM System Lens Handbook mentioned above and the price on Amazon shows as A$466.52. Only one left in stock. I think I'll put mine up on eBay.

But why OM Digital Solutions? Knock the last word off, it's meaningless, a computer era buzzword. Just call it OM Digital.

I have an OM2SP and a few lenses, plus a lot of the fantastic, for its time, flash system. So compact, so well designed. A couple of the big names produce very similar equipment now, but it looks so bulky in comparison and costs a mint. Much as I dislike the copyists from that giant country, they do make affordable gadgets.

[Tom Burke]

Mike, do you know any way by which non-US readers can connect to their local Amazon (e.g. amazon.co.uk) and still have the connection from your site recognised and rewarded? The link in the post takes me to amazon.com, which gives prices in US$ and talks about shipping costs to the UK - but it doesn't offer an automatic switch to the UK site. Obviously I can connect independently to the co.uk site, but that would lose the link to TOP.

[Unfortunately, due to my troubles with Amazon in the Summer of '20 (nobody's fault, it was due to COVID-19), I am no longer an affiliate of Amazon UK. Wish I was. Maybe I should try applying again. --Mike]

[Gerard Geradts]

Leitz didn't sue BMW either for their M1....M whatever cars.

[Leitz sold Leica in 1986; the first M car was 1978 or '79. Presumably no one would confuse a car with a camera? I assume that's it, although, as I say, I don't know about these things.

Fun factoids: M originally stood for "Motorsports," and supposedly the red in the M logo was the color of Texaco, which BMW was trying to attract as a racing sponsor at the time the original colors were developed. Some of the people involved in picking the colors confirm this, and some deny it. In any event the Texaco connection never came about. --Mike]

[Anton Wilhelm Stolzing]

I don't care - I want the new 20 mm F 1,4! If I am not wrong, this is the ideal lens for the dark season of the year.

[Christopher Crawford]

Quote from Bahi's earlier comment: "I’ve had trouble with the build quality and tolerances of Olympus Micro Four Thirds lenses (three lenses, all new, all with badly misaligned elements) but I’m guessing that the Pro line is better built. The current 25mm f/1.8 is a stellar lens if you can snag a well made example."

The pro lenses have the same total lack of even the mist minimal quality control. I love the Olympus cameras; I have serious health problems that make carrying heavy gear hard,and when you have a good lens from Olympus, the image quality is superb.

The problem is that most of the lenses are severely decentered. I gave up buying them online. When I want a new lens, I drive the two hours it takes to go to the nearest bricks and mortar camera store and they bring out every copy of the lens and I test them and pick the good one. On average, I have to reject eight lenses to get one that is built correctly. The rest have decentered elements that cause one side of the image to be soft and the other side sharp. Some were so bad that the bad part of the image looked like something from a Holga. If the lens is a zoom, you better check it at EVERY focal length, too!

I have the Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 Pro, the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro, 45mm f1.8, and 60mm f2.8 macro. Of these, only the 45mm f1,8 is an inexpensive lens. It is disgusting that lenses costing $1000+ like the two pro lenses are built so poorly and have absolutely NO quality control.

[Jim Metzger]

Slightly off topic but related to your commentary on Leitz lens durability, I was at a talk by Steve McCurry and Jim Richardson that was hosted by Nikon. Their rep was there to answer questions and of course promote the brand.

One of the audience members went over and started giving the Nikon Rep grief for making a camera like the D2X so expensive. "What could possibly warrant that cost"? The rep picked up the camera by the attached 70-200 zoom and whacked it really hard a few times on the table. He said "if you need it, you need it".

[Stephen Scharf]

Then there was that other Falcon, the one that was made by Ford Motor Company,

That's what I thought of when I saw the "peregrine" word capitalized.

I admit it, I'm a motorhead.

BTW, Max was unstoppable in the Mexican Grand Prix yesterday. I think he's gonna do it this year.

[hugh crawford]

Should I pronounce OM “cosmic sound” ?
I’ll let Google explain…