>>4364064Eh, having used both, the OM-5 is much better than the 5.2. The biggest downside is the all plastic design that ruins compatibility with the capture clip, which would otherwise be such a good fit for that line. The sensor is much better, the IBIS is noticeably better and it can do HHHR, which I use pretty much all the time for landscapes. I haven't used the 5.3 but I've heard it's pretty similar to the OM-5.
I think the high end, heavy and expensive lenses Oly was pushing and OM continues to push are dumb though. I'd like more like the 1.8 line, or like the 20mm f/1.4 (optically not great but form factor and speed wise) or 12-100mm f/4. The f/4 pro line is great in general, as silly as f/8 equivalent "pro" lenses sound they are sharp, small, all metal and weather sealed. It's basically all I want from the system.
The rumored 50-250 f/4 lens had me more excited than the 50-200 f/2.8, which had to be pretty damn big with a 77mm-ish front element, likely bigger, and would probably be heavier than the 40-150mm f/2.8. An f/4 in that range would be a lot better for the system, especially if it had IS, and could be about the size of the 40-150 f/2.8.
There's current, dubious rumors of Sigma helping out with new lenses for Oly, and they have a good track record when they actually make MFT designs like the 75mm f/1.8. If that materializes I'd be happy. You're right about OM though, generally speaking, but Sigma is a glimmer of hope at least.
