I'm reading all of the announcements and articles and watching the YouTube videos this morning. The comments reveal that many people are missing the point of this camera entirely, which I fully expected.

I personally don't care that we're still "stuck" at 20 megapixels; m4/3 just isn't well suited to high-resolution sensors. Personally, 20-something megapixels is my sweet spot. Plus, we have the 2x crop factor working in our favor if the desire for more resolution is to provide more room to crop in post. But the reality is that many buyers expect - and have been expecting - a resolution bump for several years now, and megapixels have become the equivalent of horsepower in the automotive world. When your competition keeps upping the ante - whether it's based on legitimate need or just bragging rights and a better-looking spec sheet - the perception that you're not keeping up will impact how people receive the product.

I will say that OM System is its own worst enemy when it comes to pricing. The OM-1 Mark II's regular price is $2,400, but it has been on sale for $2,000 for so long that everyone now thinks of that as the normal price; they'll never move another Mark II for $2,400. You can still buy an original OM-1 - which is just as good a camera for most people as the Mark II - for $1,400; that's $800 off its original price. Within the year, the OM-3 will be on sale for $1,600 or $1,700, and everyone knows it. OM System should have just introduced it at that price and kept it there long-term; at least they wouldn't be getting beat up on the cost.

I have an OM-1 Mark II and a PEN-F, so I have no need for an OM-3, but I pre-ordered mine this morning. I opted for the kit with the 12-45 f/4 PRO, which is a gem of a lens and a bargain for $300; it's on sale right now for $800 and normally sells for $1,000. Much like the PEN-F, the Fujifilm X100VI, or any other number of cameras, the OM-3 isn't a need; it's a want, and as such, any logical objections - real or perceived - get removed from the equation.