Why is the OM system so beloved among the RFFers??

[sparrow6224]

I have noticed that among RFFers, the by-far most noted and favored SLR system mentioned is the OM. I have a Nikon SLR set and a Minolta and recently added the OM3 because one came along at a good price and because so many people here love OMs.... although purists seem to favor strongly the 1 series over all later varieties. I'm just getting to know it but have been interrupted by the long awaited capture of a Canon P and 50/1.4 so I'll be getting back to the OM sometime up the road.

SO what is it about the OM?

In my usual OCD way I immediately went about obtaining all the major primes: the legendary 24/2.8; the respected 28/2.8; the hardly-mentioned 35/2.8; accidentally, sort of, both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8; the 100/2.8 and the 135/3.5. And I'm angling for the 85/2 because 85 is one of my favorite focal lengths.

This is too many. What are people's opinions of these lenses? Which are the real killers?

 

[Keith]

Waiting waiting ... ah here it is! 😀

Great question for a thread and one that's easy to answer for me at least. I have a couple of Luigi cases for the M body ... excluding the porky M5 of course and that sellout digital thingy! :angel:

An OM body slips into that M case like it was made for it ... aside from the strap lug holes of course. Ergonomics play a big part in how much I like a camera and lets face it the Leica M feels better in the hands than almost any camera made ... the OM, aside from the lens mount, has virtually the same dimensions as the M2/M3/M4 etc. Maitani must have really liked the dimensions of the Leica IMO and it reflects in his design.

In an SLR the OM-1 is the the nearest thing you can get to the holy grail of rangefinders ... being of course the M3 which deservedly or not has near god like status here at RFF 😛

Like peaches and cream, 'taters and gravy, gin and tonic (tanqueray of course) etc etc ... these two cameras belong together. If I was only allowed to keep two cameras it would be my M2 and my OM-1 without hesitation.. 🙂

 

[hans voralberg]

Wow you need a therapist! One of the most impressive thing about the OM system is the viewfinder 🙂 and the lens are petite, smaller than most other brands

 

[damien.murphy]

I'm mainly an Leica M and medium format black and white shooter. I don't have an slr, but at times one is appealing if only for telephoto and macro lenses, and when I do get an slr it will likely be an Olympus OM3/ OM4. What I like about these models are the compact size, and the spot metering system which would be perfect for my b&w shooting. Of course, it doesn't hurt that prices for Olympus OM kit are much lower than many of the alternatives, although the OM3/ OM4's seem to hold a decent value.

 

[gavinlg]

Small, reliable, huge viewfinder, good ergonomics and controls, good lenses, quiet, aesthetically attractive, low prices.

Satisfying to use.

 

[wintoid]

Don't like the bodies, although I reckon I should have invested in a Luigi case before selling up. Don't want my shutter ring on the body though.

50mm f1.2 OM lens is my all time favourite. The 28/2 and 24/2 were very good. Didn't find a 35mm lens which I liked much. Never tried the 40 but it's overpriced.

 

[shyoon]

Size and viewfinder.

The biggest advantages however, also become it's downfall (for me, personally). If I want a small camera with a massive viewfinder, I'd much rather use a rangefinder than a compact SLR.

 

[Ade-oh]

In this case, size does matter! having had an OM1 as my first proper camera, I also like the ergonomics, although I admit they aren't to everyone's taste.

The prime lenses are first rate, IMHO, though I'm not so sure about the zooms.

 

[amateriat]

The OM series was an exercise in minimalism which resulted in a camera that was every bit as useful as its larger counterparts (with a lens system that mostly matched), and while the thing doesn't handle exactly like, say, an M3, it does have certain similar virtues making it about as pleasant to use. (And, like the big boys, you can stick on fast motor drives, flash, different focusing screens, etc.)

I rarely shoot with SLRs anymore, but when I do, it's with an OM-2n. Solid camera.

OM-2n, Sigma 21-35, VariMagni Finder: ersatz
view-camera mode, as I normally use it.


- Barrett

 

[RichL]

The OM1 was my first slr love. It is a small solid no frill camera. About a year later it was replaced in my heart by the PEN F which has occupied that niche ever since.

 

[Lilserenity]

Well I'm not going to beat around the bush, I'm not a poor person but by no means the wealthiest either, so the OM system allows me to invest in lenses that would be expensive for my M2 (I have a 50mm and 35mm) in the quality I demand.

I have an OM2n, I like it for its size. Without the lenses and the mirror box, the OM2 is smaller than the M2, it's also lighter but no less sturdily made, it's been dropped plenty of times and taken in, once on a hard cold tiled floor in McDonalds! I like the layout except the shutter speed dial which on my copy is quite stiff but this may be due to the lack of use, besides, if you have Av mode, I just use it and use my exposure diligence with the compensation dial where need be, that covers most eventualities.

I also like it because it is seemingly simple on the outside, similar layout, a very positive shutter release and a viewfinder that just knocks your socks off. I pity the people using some of the DSLR viewfinders today, they suck compared! But if you don't know better or get used to them, I guess that's fine, but the OM's is much better, less clutter too (no focus point shadows etc.!)

It's reliable and its exposure system is superb for long exposures.

I love the lenses, I only have three but it makes for a very small system that I can carry about in a small bag. Again I hate the idea of an SLR backpack or whatever, I just want to shoot and go, not muck about with pouches and zips and nonsense, if I am in the moment I just want to shoot. My favourite lens is the 28mm f/3.5, slow by appearances but very versatile and sharp at f/3.5. I have been able to hand hold this beauty down to 1/30th reliably and with such good ISO 160-200-400 films these days, that has seen me shooting in fading light with this slow lens. The 50mm is good (f/1.8 MIJ) and the 100mm f/2.8 is fantastic. At that focal length, using the M2 with a 90/100mm would be a pain compared to the pleasure of the Zuiko 100m f/2.8. It's also small for an SLR lens.

I could go on but I won't.

In fact this year I think I have shot with it more than my M2. In total with the three lenses I have spent about £175 on this bundle and for me, I have absolutely no desire for a DSLR (but then I don't shoot sports or fast action long telephoto wildlife etc.)

My next lens will probably be a 200mm f/4 as I want to be able to photograph the red squirrels on Brownsea Island, and the bonus is that the lens is affordable, good quality and small for a 200mm!

If I get another lens after that, I will likely go for a 21mm f/3.5, but before that I want to get a second backup body, the OMs are just treasures!

Vicky

 

[Mackinaw]

I'm actually not a fan of the camera, too small for my big hands, but I really admire the camera's designer, Yoshihisa Maitani, for breaking all of the rules when he engineered this thing. An absolutely brilliant design.

Jim B.

 

[dee]

I bought an OM1 when they first came out , and unlike the smooth feel of a Leica M , it just felt ' spiky ' with lots of sharp fiddly controls .
I part exed it for a big old fashioned Minolta SRT !
My all time fave SLR has to be the Contax RTS , so maybe I don't do small !

I love the ' atmosphere ' of Rokkors, even on 4/3rds digital too - the Zuiko 50 was maybe too gritty sharp for me !

Just don't ask what I mean by this , but it's interesting that I love vintage lenses on my M8 together with an old syle CV 35 f 2.5 Color Scopar , so maybe I am outside the usual perception .

 

[Keith]

A match made in heaven ... like Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers.

But which one's Fred and which one's Ginger? 😀

 

[nrb]

My first camera was an OM10, and I like the size and ergonomy of the OM range.

 

[Neare]

The zuiko lenses as well are... good to say the least.

 

[former member]

I finally picked up a working Olympus OM-1n on the third try. Picked up some lenses in a trade. It's a nice camera. I prefer my Nikons.

 

[ChrisN]

The focus ring turns the right way. And the aperture ring is where it is supposed to be - out in front of the focusing ring. Same as Leica.

Just don't ask about the shutter speed dial!

 

[Ade-oh]

Just don't ask about the shutter speed dial!

Having started out with OM's, it's the natural place for me!

When I have a few quid spare, I'm planning to buy a Pentax MX with the 40mm lens, to see how it measures up to the OMs. Way back when I bought my OM1 in 1979, it was a choice between that and an MX.

 

[kshapero]

In the early 90's I had an OM 4ti with 3 beautiful Zuiko lenses and that awesome F280 flash. What kit! The only time stuff of mine was ever stolen and it wasn't even mind. It belonged to Olympus. Olympus OM's, Nikon FM/E's and Pentax Mx's, always cool in my book.