Revealing Question

Image courtesy CameraSize.com, used with permission

Thought experiment only: If you could have one or the other to shoot with, financial considerations removed, which would it be for you?

By the way,

Weight of GFX100RF: 26 oz.

Weight of OM-3 with OM System 20mm ƒ/1.4: 26.2 oz.

If you're tempted to make a comment regarding fruit, just go ahead and ignore the above question and go ahead and tell us whether you like apples or oranges better.  :-)

I feel your answer reveals a lot about you. I just don't know exactly what.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Steve Biro: "The Fuji. And I say this as a current Leica Q2 owner…and former Micro 4/3 shooter."

jp41 (partial comment): "I'm currently not impressed with the new OM3. I reached out to OM Systems to request a repair for my Pen F, but they declined, stating that the OM3 is its replacement and that they only support one product cycle. I would lean towards the GFX100RF."

Merle: "I agree with jp41 on the concern for OM Systems' long-term support. Not only will they not repair the Pen F, but they don't import the parts so nobody else can repair them either. If there was a way to get mine repaired in Japan, I'd send it there, but I imagine it's the same story."

Rod S.: "The GFX100RF. For me, there's no contest. Its small size and light weight would enable me to carry a handheld camera in addition to my normal kit and still get images with nice resolution and clarity. The GFX 50R, which I have, is a bit too bulky—with its lens—to include in the pack. But the GFX100RF would sneak in.

"My real camera—for architecture—is a Phase One IQ4-150 digital back on a Cambo WRS 1200 technical camera with a set of Schneider Apo-Digitar lenses. The IQ4-150 is like a compact never-ending box of super-high-resolution instant film, only better. Once you get accustomed to clarity and resolution there's no going back. It's amusing for me to read comments from people who don't own a 100-MP camera saying 100 MP is too much. Nope, not for me. High resolution makes a successful photographic image even more realistic and life-like, and therefore better, than it was before. "

Bob Johnston [no relation to Mike]: "For me it would be the OM-3. Notwithstanding the cropping capabilities of the Fuji, the restriction of not being able to use longer or wider lenses would rule out the GFX. If you have to crop to get a longer lens perspective it rather defeats the object of having all those pixels. Having said that, Fuji have created a bold and innovative design and I wish them a huge success with it. In my opinion they are the only makers designing cameras that offer anything new."

Stephen S.: "It's often said that a weakness of Micro 4/3 is difficulty achieving shallow depth of field, and that it's a strength of medium format. With the GX100RF, as soon as you crop it to 35mm-equivalent, Micro 4/3 will have shallower depth of field with the inexpensive Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8. By the time you crop to 50mm-e, the Fujifilm is at ƒ/5.68-e, so an ƒ/2.8 zoom lens for Micro 4/3, at ƒ/5.6-e, will have shallower depth of field. When the GFX100RF hits 63mm-e, it's only got 20 megapixels, which matches the OM-3, and the OM-3 will have shallower depth of field with even an ƒ/4 zoom lens! Shallow depth of field isn't everything, but I think it's an interesting comparison."

Bill Giokas: "Because of the ability to change lenses I would go with the Olympus."

Kristine Hinrichs: "I chose the OM3 and have been using it since the day it was released. I like the slightly smaller profile and have a great selection of OM lenses. I also think the OM IBIS is a deal maker; a large sensor can’t compensate for a blurry image."

Clyde Rogers: "I love the vibe of that Fuji...I'd love to try it out for a few months and see if it grew into something for me. I have the OM3, and my primary lens is the 20mm ƒ/1.4. What I'd miss most with the Fuji (based on reviews) is the amazing speed of the OM3. Not the useless-to-me astounding frames per second rate, but the virtually instantaneous focusing and shooting. The OM3 with 20mm ƒ/1.4 is shapely, easily held, compact, well balanced and light. The controls I need are easily accessed, the IBIS is excellent, and the lens is sharp without any harshness. It is a seriously powerful quick handling camera. If I had to choose one, it would be the OM3."

Patrick Cooney: "I'd love to have a GFX100RF to play with. I already downloaded a RAW file from DPReview and worked on it in Lightroom. I was very impressed, both by its detail and dynamic range. But do I really need one? No. In fact my current Micro 4/3 collection of lenses and bodies are beyond perfectly adequate for my photographic needs."

Gary Mortensen: "I'd definitely go with the Fuji—I do my best photography with fixed lens cameras, like my X100VI."

Andrew L: "I feel like everyone is going to say the Fuji, mainly from pure format envy—I will say that if it were a question of buying them with my own money, and these were the only two choices, I would go for the OM3 and some nice Pro lenses. I'd spend the rest on travel to use the kit in new....

"Oh, who am I kidding? I want medium format."

psu (partial comment): "If I were to go dabbling with newer cameras that I have never bought into before I'd probably try Sony first...the already mentioned A7CR for example. The focus systems on modern Sony, Nikon and Canon cameras are really a lot nicer to use than anything else. They allow you to pick a thing in the frame and tell the camera to just keep that thing in focus no matter where it, or the camera, moves. Great."

 

Comments

[Rob de Loe]

The GFX 100 RF because I shoot GFX and am spoiled by the images my 100S makes. It's ridiculously chauvinistic of me, but I can't imagine using a tiny M43 sensor.

Having said that, my real answer is "neither" because the 100 RF doesn't make a lot of sense for a tripod guy like me.

[David Lee]

The Fujifilm. For sure.

[Keith B.]

I would pick the Fuji, because at 100MP the photos would stand a chance of looking different from all the 24x36, APS-C, and m4/3 photography that is now most commonplace. I would not look forward to the long processing times for 100MP files on my nice but relatively feeble M1 Mac Mini, however.

[Ken Bennett]

Disclaimer: I have a GFX system, a complete X system, and an X100vi. (Been shooting all Fuji since 2013.) I like Fuji gear and enjoy shooting with it. But.

I am finding it quite amusing to watch the influencers tie themselves in knots trying to wave away the lack of IBIS. “Oh, it has the same leaf shutter as the X100vi so it doesn’t need IBIS, you can shoot at 1/40th sec handheld!” Et cetera.

These are the same folks who fawned over the X100vi when it came out because it had….. um, IBIS.

In any case, if I have to choose between the two, I’d take the Olympus. A fast lens and stabilization adds a lot of flexibility. If I had to spend 5 grand on a point and shoot, I’d get the Leica Q3 for the same reasons.

[Bill Tyler]

The OM-3. A lot of my photograph is wildlife and macro. For those, the fixed lens on the Fuji would be a huge handicap. If it were landscapes, I'd make the opposite choice. Apples or oranges depends on the season.

[Josh Hawkins]

I’m going Fuji. I’ve never handled either but rangefinder style design is always my preference and I have friends who use and love Fuji so I’m guessing I will too.

[William Lewis]

More tempted by the Fuji but I really would rather have a Q3. I almost exclusively shoot landscape but would find the f/4 lens and lack of stabilization limiting.

[Wayne]

What sort of shutter speed do you need to realize the benefits of 100MP? It's gotta be way faster than 1/focal length.

[jp41]

This size comparison truly captivated me. Imagine offroading on a motorcycle and stumbling upon an awe-inspiring landscape—how incredible would it be to have this camera with you? It’s like carrying a super compact view camera capable of producing stunning prints at 38.8 inches wide with 300 dpi quality. Add a one inch border and there's more than enough resolution for a 40 inch wide frame with zero interpolation.

I'm currently not impressed with the new OM-3. I reached out to OM Systems to request a repair for my PEN-F, but they declined, stating that the OM-3 is its replacement and that they only support one product cycle.

I would lean towards the GFX100RF.

[George Bishop]

I would try both to find out which I preferred from an ergonomic perspective. I'm an olympus user but I would prefer the flexibility offered by the larger sensor, however whichever works best for you is best for you. Also working without having to swap focal lengths is an advantage;I keep 4 bodies each mounted with a different prime so I don't have to fiddle with swapping lenses. Hate zooms, had dozens of them, going back to the earliest Nikons, don't like working with the extra size and weight. Still own a couple of the earlier Fujis but was disappointed by the lack of IBIS compared to the olympus, also find the handling of the Olympus suits me better.

[Ken Owen]

I'll take the OM with that lens. They're cuter.

[Nigli]

Definitely the Fuji, for the resolution.

In reality, neither, as I tend to shoot a lot at 24mm eq. Who knows, maybe they'd make a 'wide' version.

[Nick Reith]

I suppose the missing part of the question to me is whether the shooter is compelled to use the Olympus with only the 20mm lens and all considerations regarding lens interchangeability are to be put aside.
In other words is it to be also considered as a fixed lens camera only.
In that case I would take the Fuji.
If lens interchangeability is allowed then possibly the Olympus, purely for that reason.

[Gary]

Neither. My Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx satisfy any desire for a fixed lens without spending a great amount (and they have IBIS). And the Olympus sensor is, forgive me, too small.

[Jan Peter Onstwedder]

if I had to choose between those two and could not have anything else, it would have to be the Olympus as I could not live with 28mm equivalent for what I shoot. Most of my images are 24mm or wider, or 70mm or longer, so the 'normal' range doesn't appeal to me.

[Omer]

A few years ago when Sony was leading the mirrorless sector one of its executives said it was Fujifilm that concerned them as a competitor.

I like both Fuji apples and Sumo mandarins but yeah, that GFXRZL-OZ100B950 or whatever does look nice. But it is too much shine for me. Now. Give it a couple of years. Maybe.

[Tex Andrews]

The Fuji, which I just preordered (Sorry! Not through you or another deserving internet site...but I had to support my local camera shop.). It's a type of camera I've been waiting for for a decade. Oly makes great cameras, and in the 'OO's that's what I shot. But in 2010 I made the leap to FF (Sony A850) when it became affordable, and in 2014 the jump to medium format, 645Z, when it became "affordable", in an excruciating way. I've never looked back. Still using my Z professionally and now a complementary K1mkII for ultrawide. I've seen what the file difference is with my own eyes.

I can now better deal with the limitations of the Fuji than with the limitations of the Oly.

[Robert Roaldi]

Being an m4/3s shooter, the OM-3 would fit with how I normally take pictures. But maybe forcing myself to use the Fuji might be better for me, make me shoot in a different way. Be fun to try. It's hard to make this kind of decision in isolation though since I already own m4/3s bodies and lenses. It's always tempting to try something different.
If I owned no bodies or lenses, I might go for the OM-3 because I would suppose that it would be more flexible. But that would be making the value judgement that flexibility is good for its own sake. I don't know if that's true.

[JL]

Fuji all the way, have the x pro 2 and promised myself I'd buy the medium format if I ever had the cash (i wont), I like the fujis, never used the olly, but if money isn't an option I'll take both thanks

Only down side of the fuji is also a serious plus, the fixed lens....

Anyway love the blog, been lurking for years, thanks

[You're very welcome, and thanks for reading. All best, Mike]

[Dogman]

Neither.

Sorry. I've owned an OMD (first edition). While the quality of the images surprised me, I was not pleased with the handling. As for the Fuji, I'm not into the high resolution image game.

I know. I'm not cool. I'm okay with that.

[G Dan Mitchell]

Both lie outside the range of my preferences and needs.

The GFX100RF sports impressive technology — primarily its “small” size for a camera using the miniMF 100MP sensor. The MFT OM is more versatile, and for many (most?) people would provide excellent results for the kinds of handheld, small camera shooting that the GFX is geared towards.

That is the issue for me with the GFX. Yes, it has a “better” sensor. Yes, it is remarkably small for a miniMF camera. But it is targeted at (wealthy) photographers looking for something “small” for handheld shooting. As such, the 100MP sensor is going to waste for the most part, particularly since it lacks the IBIS that would improve camera stability and allow it to take advantage of that resolution for such photography. And only an f/4 lens? With such a wide angle of view? (The jury is still very much out on the IQ of the remarkably small lens, too.)

Give me the XT5 with a nice, small prime instead of either of these for my street/travel photography.

[Robert]

Without any doubt, the Fuji. I have no interest on the Olympus whatsoever.

[robert e]

If I'm limited to just one or the other camera, I choose the more limiting camera.

What does *that* say about me? ;)

Now the question becomes: which is the more limiting camera? ;)

[Albert Smith]

I'd choose the Oly because of the same reason that I still use a Nikon D700/D300 pair and older Fujifilm bodies... I don't need, don't want and can't use high megapixel files. 12mp are fine on my Nikons and if I need to splurge, 24/26 on my Fujis.

I've never NOT got a shot for lack of megapixels, so why clog up storage or processing?

[Bruce Bordner]

Please stop. You're a good salesman.
This is a secondary, toy camera. A beautifully designed, useful camera but you will always want something else after your $4900. But such a great carry-around....?
I keep looking at the internal reversed lens design and the case shape makes me want to touch it...
If I ever do touch one my wife will curse you forever.
Just a warning.

[Stephen S.]

For Gary, who thinks the OM-3 sensor is too small compared to his GRIII cameras, let's look at sensor height:

OM-3: 13mm
GRIII: 15.6mm
GFX100RF: 32.9mm

[james wilson]

As a landscape photographer I would not buy anything that could not go wide.

[t_h]

OM-3 would give me a lot more "smiles per mile" as they say in the car biz. The review by Andy Westlake at Amateur Photographer includes a sharp, handheld 10-second exposure. Not a typo - 10 seconds. I love OM's natural color profiles plus the ability to adjust midtones in-camera. I shoot JPEG (with raw as a backup, but rarely edit) so SOOC output is a factor for me and I would put the color dial to good use. I love 40mm as my standard and MFT has two nice options in the Lumix 20/1.7 Mk II and the OM 20/1.4. There is a tiny but brillliant flash available in the Olympus FL-LM3.

jp41's comment about customer support does concern me, so I'd likely wait until there is a substantial discount. I have an OM-5 in the meantime.

The Fuji is very interesting in many ways and there are certain types of photos I take that a medium format 100MP sensor would be ideal for, but I'm not a commercial photographer nor a serious enough amateur to think about spending this kind of money right now. I once said that about full frame and now full frame is within reach, so I guess medium format will be too, eventually.

[Jim Arthur]

I’d have to go with the big-boy due to its superior interface. The Fuji’s 5.76-dot OLED EVF and 3.2 inch 2.1-dot tilting LCD sound ideal and it has some semblance of a grip. I really hate low resolution EVF’s which is one reason why I still shoot with a DSLR (6D). Now as far as fruit goes….I do love apples and peanut butter but a cold, sweet orange drizzled with Hersheys Special Dark Syrup is the crack of the fruit word, especially for a sugar addict like me. If you can add chocolate to something it automatically wins!

[Bernard Schneider]

Both? The Fuji certainly ticks a lot of boxes for me. But as a current Olympus/OM System user the OM-3 is a no-brainer to replace my Pen-F and OM-5. But I would choose it with the 12-45f4 Pro instead, a combo which is still around 750g. And the 17f1.8 in my pocket.

[Stan B.]

That comparison is absolutely, 100% insane... I actually checked the date upon seeing! Fujifilm!!!

[Kenneth Tanaka]

If I could only have one…I’d definitely choose the Oly. I’ve only owned one Oly some years ago and was not at all a fan of its menu/control system. But I would have to choose versatility over resolution unless given a specific assignment. And nearly any ILC wins that point over the fixed-lens single focal length camera with ease.

[Jacques Raymond]

The GFX100RF checks most of the boxes and I will borrow one from my local camera shop for a spin as soon as it becomes available. For now the EOS R - RF 50mm f/1.2L and the 5D4 - EF 28mm f/2.8 IS still do it for me.

[Ricordo]

Fuji for me. People now think my Instax camera is/looks like the GFX and I am accorded much more respect.

[AN]

The Fuji is supercool, but it's the wrong focal length for me, and I'd end up using a crop most of the time, so the camera would be kind of a waste. The OM-3 with 20mm lens would be a much more sensible choice for me.

[James]

The Fuji. That one is easy. Much like Ken Bennett, I have a X100VI, an X-T5 and X Pro 3 + lenses, and have left a deposit on one of these in silver. I am completely an unequivocally happy with Fuji. I have been using Fuji cameras since I sold my Nikon gear in 2011. I can't remotely think of a situation where I would use a different brand. I am very excited about getting this camera. It checks so many boxes but especially the leaf shutter, built in ND, and the aspect ratio control. The beautiful thing about this camera is encourages you to do your photography in camera and not on the computer.

[SteveW]

The Fuji because my current system is the X-T5 and a 35mm f/2 (which is 25.6 oz and the heaviest I want my camera to be). The GFX100RF would expand by a lot what I can do with the X-T5/35mm combo, that's for sure.

[Michael Korak]

The Fuji would be my choice. I have been using a Canon EOS 5Ds for over 5 years. Love it and its ability to give me a BIG file then crop to the subject matter I wanted. I have become a one-lens kind of guy, harking back to my Leica M6/35 Asph.Summicron. All I really use now is a 35/1.4 L IS...too heavy. No longer have the need for a slew of lenses.
Fuji has the weight, file size, and fixed lens would suit me just fine.
ALSO;
I am allergic to oranges :-))

[Bahi]

The Fuji. I do sometimes go to 24mm equivalent (12mm on my Micro Four Thirds camera) but there's something very appealing about the Fujifilm's high-res viewfinder and sealed, all-in-one design. 28mm equivalent is probably wide enough, and longer focal lengths still get decent resolution.

[Dan deakin]

You should put a Q3 and an x100vi into the options available … that would be interesting.

[Christoph Geiss]

The OM-3. Same weight, greater versatility.

[Shaun]

The Fuji, despite the fact that it's either a hand held jpg shooter using the film simulations, in which case a X100F or newer would seem to be a better choice; or a tripod mounted landscape camera, to take advantage of its massive resolution. It doesn't seem to be the best choice for any specific type of shooting, but it's such a beautifully engineered and unique concept camera I'm intrigued, and want to try one.

[John Krumm]

Financial considerations removed, definitely the Fuji, but purely because it's a new experience for me. The sample images look really good, and I owned both 4/3 and Micro 4/3 products for a long time. Plus, I'm generally a "stopped down" shooter, usually at f8 in full frame, and I imagine with medium format, I would stop down even more, so have no worries about the f4 lens. My hands can sometimes shake due to some meds I take, so I would have to take care to use higher shutter speeds or brace the camera in various ways.

The truth is, I would enjoy both. I really appreciate the robust IBIS of OM Systems, and with the smaller format I would likely have more keepers. If you want sharp photos easily, shoot micro 4/3, that has been my experience. For more of a challenge (but with some reward in ultimate image quality), use larger formats.

[James Meeks]

I would go with the OM-3 due to weather sealing, interchangeable lenses, computational features and I just don’t need that many pixels.

[terence morrissey]

Bigger is better!

[ASW]

What if I love apples and oranges and bananas!

If someone offered me that amount of money I would gladly take it, toss it into the hungry mortgage bucket, and keep shooting with the well-used Nikon D700 and D300 I've been using for a decade. Both were purchased used but in excellent condition and still work like the day they were produced, which is now close to 20 years ago.

[Andrew Eckert]

This is a tough one! My main cameras are a Fuji GFX 50R with 50mm f/3.5 and an Olympus OM-D E-M5 with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II. So, right off the bat, the Fuji lens is a little wide for me; I'd prefer a fixed 50mm. But I think I'd still go with the Fuji and just get better acquainted with a wide-angle. I prefer Fuji's control interface and I'm sure I'd prefer the output even if I don't need 100 MP. The 35mm lens of the 100RF makes the the aspect ratio dial more appealing; I'd probably appreciate the 7:6 or 1:1 crop modes more. Anything but 4:3 can feel a little too tight with my 50mm on the 50R, so the 35mm on the 100RF might be just right at a different aspect ratio.

[Dillan]

I'd go for the GFX. I shoot landscapes more than anything else, and I bet it'd be a very nice camera for landscapes. I have to admit, I've been enamoured with the GFX cameras since their inception. They're just out of my price range. 'Tis a pity!

[John]

Considering that I already have a GFX100s and various MFT cameras and that I hardly ever use the Fuji (or other fixed lens cameras I own), I guess the versatility of the OM3 is my real preference. But my heart wants that new Fuji, even though my head knows I wouldn’t use it much.

[Eric Brody]

Neither for me, thanks. I had an Olympus OM system years ago and loved the IBIS but found unacceptable noise even @ base ISO. I've also had Fuji's, even one of the earlier X100 V's which while it had decent IQ, the lack of either zoom or interchangeable lenses led me to sell it. I ended up with a Sony RX100 which is nice but which I rarely use. I keep thinking I should try the newest X100 VI but they're impossible to find.

Frankly, who needs 100 MP in a "street" camera? And while the Olympus is a nice system, the sensor is just too small for me, though it is clearly enough for many people.

I'm a Sony A7R V shooter and find that 61MP, while a lot, is a sweet spot. My largest prints, and yes, I print often, are in the 16x20 range and they're detailed enough for me and my highly critical friends. A highly respected colleague who has real gallery shows and who actually sells prints, and who uses a Nikon D850 looked seriously at the 100 MP GFX system. He looked at the GFX files and while they are excellent, they were not "better" enough to justify the cost and size of the GFX system.

I hope Fuji sells lots of these and doesn't get into the supply issues they've had with the X100 VI.

Me, I'm happy with what I have, a nice camera, nice lenses and lots of time to make photos.

[Richard Alan Fox]

The Fuji for sure.
For many years I carried a Plaubel Makina 670 loaded with 220 tri-x as my daily shooter, wonderful 6x7 negatives from a camera that closed flat as a book.
The only thing stopping me from ordering a black one is the price.

[James]

Uh. You got me. I like the Olympus colors more, but I really want a hand grip.

(I feel like I am the one aging Millenial who has a dedicated camera who hasn't gone for Fujifilm. I just can't with how the colors render. Fuji and Oly have very highly regarded color profiles, but they're very different, at least to my eye.)

Ugh. Sigh. Colors. The Oly.

Price no object, right? Well, then I guess I'll throw in a hand grip.

[Dan Khong]

My old school instincts tell me to go with the prettiness of the SLR look that I grew up with. Then you have to spoil it all by telling me that they both weigh about the same. Now my itchiness is prompting me to "only live once" by owning a MF digital.

[Mike Fewster]

I'd have thought the Sony A7CR would be a more likely alternative than the Oly. 62mp FF sensor. Smaller than the Olympus and only a fraction heavier. And with AF that blitzes the Fuji and the Olympus.
Huge range of lenses available for the Sony. Just pick one of the smaller lens options.

[Bear.]

Q2 owner and lover, so Fun for me...

[hugh crawford]

Large sensor and leaf shutter for about a third of the next least expensive similar camera? Fuji for me.

I don't know anything about the OM, other than Olympus spun off the cameras and went back to the microscopes and endoscopes.

You know, a leaf shutter lens for the interchangeable lens Fujis wouldn't be all that difficult, and I would buy one.

[psu]

I am a grump and am not impressed with either one of these.

If I were to go dabbling with newer cameras that I have never bought into before I'd probably try Sony first ... the already mentioned A7CR for example.

The focus systems on modern Sony, Nikon and Canon cameras are really a lot nicer to use than anything else. They allow you to pick a thing in the frame and tell the camera to just keep that thing in focus no matter where it, or the camera moves. Great.

Even the tiny sensor Sony RX100VII (from 2019, note) focuses better than my flagship OM-1 body which while new has not really developed much from when it was the flagship E-M1 mark whatever ... and certainly never learned how to focus the way I want.

[DA]

Fuji.

When I started with film, not really that long ago, but before digital really came along, I eventually wound up moving to medium format via Rolleicord and then Rolleiflex. I fell in love with them and I stopped caring about lenses altogether. I had a saying that I happily repeated, that if I could not shoot it with the Rollei then it was not worth shooting. That, of course, was completely personal to me and nobody else.

I feel the Fuji would bring me closer to that Rollei ideal, especially being able to choose the square format, as well as trying out the wide options. At least that's what my dreaming brain tells me.

[Ken]

I can't imagine ever wanting either camera, but if those were the only choices, the OM because of interchangeable lenses. If I want wide-angle, the Fuji is not wide enough. And for everything else (I typically shoot telephoto), the Fuji focal length is one I almost never use.

But choice is good and I am sure that the Fuji will appeal to its target demographic.

[jim r]

Ever the contrarian, I'd take either one - to swap for an S9 :^)

[Simon Griffee]

The GFX100RF, which I’d then sell and use the money to go on a trip to Japan with my X100VI!

[Kodachromeguy]

That is a challenging choice! I plan to rent the Fuji when it is available. But if I were to spend that amount on a fixed lens digital camera, it would probably be a Leica Q2 or Q3 (I know, I know, they are "overpriced," not worth it, etc., etc....).

[Miguel Tejada-Flores]

The OM-3 in a hearbeat.
Why?
Because I still miss the Pen F I owned and used briefly. And because I always wanted one of the Olympus OM film SLR's. And because with the right (smallish pancake-y) lens, I could easily stuff it into a large jacket pocket.
It may say OM SYSTEM on it... but for me, this digital camera comes wonderfully and dangerously close to the old Olympus Pen ethos... which the Pen F embodied in such a cool way.

[Ricardo]

The Fuji. The OM-3 is a miss for the price and size. This needed to be a PenF2 and it’s not.

The Fuji brings something truly new, high res EVF, one lens convenience and TILT, not FAS, LCD which is imho more important for street

I would have to try the Fuji to make sure but the elongated body of the OM-3 made it very tiring for me to press the shutter and even have my finger angled in such away I often enough would shoot 1-2 more shots than I wanted. I tried one twice (rented it).

Had the OM-3 be a PenFII in size or EM5.2 in size, i would have gone for m43rds here but because it’s not, if I have to have a similar size, the Fuji hands down.

I feel the Fuji will push me to think in different ways particularly that x-pan crop format.

[Arg]

Having ONLY 28mm-e to shoot with, FULL STOP, is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion for anyone who uses their (only) camera for a wide range of applications. The deal is broken before the boxes are even opened for consideration.