OM System’s Strategy Might Box It Into No-Man’s Land

OM System isn’t willing to sacrifice the performance of its computational photography features in order to increase the resolution of its sensors. That strategy leverages one of the company’s competitive advantages, but it also very well makes it difficult for its cameras to appeal to any photographer.

I spend a lot of time talking with camera industry product planners, engineers, and executives. Much of the time, they want to first set the stage by explaining the philosophy and history of the company or product line so that there is background information as to why certain decisions are made. Often this can feel redundant, but sometimes it provides new information. The latter was the case when I talked with OM System at CP+ in February. There, company executives provided me with a very wide, sweeping view of their product strategy as well as how that had evolved from when they were still a subsidiary of Olympus.

OM System now views its cameras as outdoor and adventure-oriented. Its entire line goes from the sea with the TG-7 into the mountains with the OM-1, the company describes, and all of the areas in between. The idea is that if you’re an adventure-seeker, there is an OM System camera for you.

This is in contrast to how the company’s cameras were positioned when they were part of Olympus. The company describes a much more helter-skelter situation there, where Olympus lacked a cohesive brand identity for its full imaging lineup. One of the benefits of the transition to OM System, the company says, was that it was able to better focus and create products that felt like they had a consistent target user.

However, after hearing that presentation, I was left questioning if what OM System had decided to do would result in enticing photographers. When it said it was hesitant to increase the resolution of its sensors because it would then be much more difficult to maintain the quality of its computational features, I thought about the type of photographer that OM System tends to attract: birders.

OM System is one of the top choices among bird photographers because its autofocus is great, its image stabilization is some of the best (if not the best), and its cameras and lenses are significantly lighter than full-frame options, making it much easier to hand-hold long zoom lenses and hike with them. Birders tend to love Micro Four Thirds, but if OM System won’t increase the resolution of its sensor, then birders are going to start looking elsewhere.

Many will argue that 20 megapixels are “fine” or “enough” for most photography, and that is generally true. However, even with extra throw from telephoto lenses, bird photographers rely heavily on the ability to crop. With such a low-resolution starting point, OM System cameras just don’t provide much latitude for reframing. Bird photographers have been slowly drifting away from Micro Four Thirds for a few years now because the resolution options provided by manufacturers like Sony are just so much better. The lenses are heavier, certainly, and the stabilization isn’t quite as good (but it’s good enough), but the benefits of more post-production elbow room outweigh those downsides.

OM System is the only company that offers in-camera processing of multi-shot images, which immediately addresses the low-resolution complaints of that sensor. However, this isn’t going to be an option for any moving subject like birds, so while it’s a lovely thing to have, it is more of a feature that appeals to landscape photographers. But why would a landscape photographer choose an OM System camera for their work when they could get high resolution with a single shot using Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fujifilm, or — now — Panasonic? The full-frame sensors not only offer better resolution, but they also have better dynamic range and better performance in low light. You would be hard-pressed to find a landscape photographer who would choose an in-camera multi-shot with an OM-1 over a full-frame option from all of the competition. Even considering the addition of Live ND, that’s still not going to be enough to convince many photographers.

That puts OM System in a bit of a “stuck” position. Its competitive advantage is computational features, but those features appeal to the types of photographers who are not interested in the compromises that a smaller sensor has. Conversely, the types of photographers that would take a smaller sensor in exchange for lighter equipment won’t be as interested in those computational features but will instead want resolution.

With this current strategy, OM System is stuck between these two users and ends up pleasing neither of them. It’s a dangerous, unenviable position.

Image credits: Header photo by Jordan Drake. All other photos were captured on OM System cameras by Jeremy Gray.