ChrisN
Striving
Of course, just by the position of your hand on the barrel of the OM1, you can determine what your shutter speed is. It takes a bit of practice, though. But it's a nice excuse to pic up your camera and play with it.
Steve - brilliant pair of photos! 10/10!
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
The best lens they ever made was the 24mm PC. Just revolutionary. I use mine often.
Brian Levy
Established
I had a OM-1 when it came out as well as an F and FT and after trying my best, I decided of the 2 systems, I preferred the F/FT better. Glass in each was very good to excellent but the F series just felt better in the hands and an outfitted kit was so much smaller.
Finally traded the systems and since then have not had a 35mm slr preferring simply to use the 35mm back on my Bronica ETRS when I needed something more than a 35mm rangefinder/viewfinder.
I did really like the Olympus glass compared to other glass from the Japanese companies and when it came to buying a dslr, it was an easy choice to go with an Olympus. The glass seemed just as good as back then even with the kit zoom lenses.
Finally traded the systems and since then have not had a 35mm slr preferring simply to use the 35mm back on my Bronica ETRS when I needed something more than a 35mm rangefinder/viewfinder.
I did really like the Olympus glass compared to other glass from the Japanese companies and when it came to buying a dslr, it was an easy choice to go with an Olympus. The glass seemed just as good as back then even with the kit zoom lenses.
Last edited:
stewmander
Established
If I come across a deal I just might go for it =P Are there any differences between the OM-1/1n/2/2n etc., other than the specs I can find online?
RFluhver
Well-known
Here's part of my Olympus collection. Only yesterday did I finally manage to connect the F280 to that OM4-Ti when I found the right cord!
That's an OM2n with the 135/2.8. The rest are 50/1.4, 35/2.8 and f/2 version, a 28/2.8 and an 18/3.5. I am still looking for a 21/2. Today, I'm going to pick up an XA4.
Why do I love OMs and old Olympus? Because of their quality and small size. Just take the XA, for instance. That thing can take some pretty amazing pictures!
That's an OM2n with the 135/2.8. The rest are 50/1.4, 35/2.8 and f/2 version, a 28/2.8 and an 18/3.5. I am still looking for a 21/2. Today, I'm going to pick up an XA4.
Why do I love OMs and old Olympus? Because of their quality and small size. Just take the XA, for instance. That thing can take some pretty amazing pictures!
Last edited:
Sonnar2
Well-known
Why RF fans like OM SLR? That's easy.
Small, odd cameras and good optics. Like Leica.
From my personal oppinion the OM system has had the chance to come out of their small niche if Olympus would have decided to arrange the controls in the usual way, like Pentax/ Nikon did. At least in Germany, this always counted as a "con" to Olympus in the eighties.
What they did right was keeping the size in mind when developing the lenses. The lenses were amazingly small for the speed.
Small, odd cameras and good optics. Like Leica.
From my personal oppinion the OM system has had the chance to come out of their small niche if Olympus would have decided to arrange the controls in the usual way, like Pentax/ Nikon did. At least in Germany, this always counted as a "con" to Olympus in the eighties.
What they did right was keeping the size in mind when developing the lenses. The lenses were amazingly small for the speed.
Last edited:
dtcls100
Well-known
I'm glad that Olympus decided not to arrange the controls the "usual" way. For example, the putting of the shutter speed dial around the lens mount simply makes more sense, as it allows the left hand to properly support the camera while allowing the adjustment of the aperture and shutter speed settings, while the right hand is ready to trigger the shutter. Putting the shutter speed dial near the shutter speed dial requires one to take one's finger off the shutter release to adjust shutter speeds. The whole point of the OM system was to challenge the camera conventions that didn't make sense. Once you get used to handling an OM, you realize that Olympus and Maitani were absolutely right in placing the shutter speed dial around the lens mount.
Richard G
Veteran
I too find the OM body almost too small for comfort and I like the feel of a Nikon. But the thought that went into the OM2n is just marvellous. For instance, with the camera turned off you can take a shot in bright light with full automatic metering. The only limitation in the OFF position is that it won't program a shutter speed longer than 1/30s. I also like the shutter speed ring on the lens mount. The compactness of the lenses is staggering. I saw on the net my next lens, the 100 2.8. Hardly bigger than a 50.
chrism
Well-known
Well I visited keh.com yesterday, and will soon be able to reassess what it was that made me lust after my brother's OM-1 so much in 1974. Impossible for me to buy then, and so cheap now.
Chris
Chris
Sonnar2
Well-known
No RF camera has it there, and most RF cameras are far better in terms of ergonomics than SLR. The PEN F was better too in this aspect, than the OM1.
Camera history was long enough to find out which position for the speed or ISO/ASA controls were best, and buyers aren't stupid by millions. If 50 makers and their buyers choose it this way and one maker with a smaller market part than the other choose it that way it is very unlikely that he is right. And producing a product 20 years that way without correcting the initial decision is what most people call odd.
dtcls100
Well-known
The problem with your reasoning is that most makers and buyers never made a real "choice" as you suggest because: (1) most camera makers do things the way things have already been done (i.e., follow the herd mentality); and (2) most buyers have never tried an OM themselves. That's the very point about what made the OM-1 so revolutionary and great -- a demonstrable willingness to challenge established convention and replace it with a better, more rational design. Most people who thought the OM shutter dial design as odd have never tried an OM personally or never really gave it enough time to get used to it after using conventional designs. Those people reflexively equate something different than what they are used to as "odd" or "wrong." Thank God that such narrow mindsets don't universally prevail, as there would never be any real innovation then, which requires thinking outside of the box.