Roger Hicks
Veteran
Silly prejudice? This from someone who refers to 'large American hands'?
I never liked Olympus personally, but that was based on ergonomics that didn't suit me, a viewfinder I didn't like, and (limited) acquaintance with indifferent lenses.
More to the point, I know that I wasn't alone, in London, in the late 70s. Status consciousness? No: most of us wanted reliable cameras with good lenses and access to hire lenses (which is of course a self-reinforcing circle). The Micro Nikkor sold an awful lot of Fs and F2s, for AV production.
Besides, Leica users aren't going to buy Nikons for status -- it's sort of a meaningless concept, really -- and surprisingly many of the professionals I knew in London in those days had at least one M.
By the same token, although some used RBs or Pentax 67s, Hasselblad was THE professional rollfilm SLR, and Sinars were THE professional 5x4s, though those with taste and discrimination preferred Linhofs and a few eccentrics used Arca-Swiss. Oh: and most of us had an MPP for 5x4 on location.
Cheers,
R.
I never liked Olympus personally, but that was based on ergonomics that didn't suit me, a viewfinder I didn't like, and (limited) acquaintance with indifferent lenses.
More to the point, I know that I wasn't alone, in London, in the late 70s. Status consciousness? No: most of us wanted reliable cameras with good lenses and access to hire lenses (which is of course a self-reinforcing circle). The Micro Nikkor sold an awful lot of Fs and F2s, for AV production.
Besides, Leica users aren't going to buy Nikons for status -- it's sort of a meaningless concept, really -- and surprisingly many of the professionals I knew in London in those days had at least one M.
By the same token, although some used RBs or Pentax 67s, Hasselblad was THE professional rollfilm SLR, and Sinars were THE professional 5x4s, though those with taste and discrimination preferred Linhofs and a few eccentrics used Arca-Swiss. Oh: and most of us had an MPP for 5x4 on location.
Cheers,
R.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
+1, F100 with a couple of Nikkor AF zooms (best in class) and Leica M for primes and manual focus
Zooms will be interchangeable between f100 and d700 and ergonomics will be quite similar.
Ade-oh
Well-known
My grandfather was a relatively well known Fleet Street press photographer in the 40s-50s-60s and when I became interested in photography as a kid in the very late 70s, my mother (grandfather was dead by then) fixed me up on a few days out with old friends of his working the Fleet St news beat. By then I was a dedicated 'Amateur Photographer' reader and was convinced that all the pros used either the Nikon F2 (or new fangled F3), or the Canon F1, or Leica Ms: professional cameras. As it turned out, most of the press guys I hung out with back then - I suppose we'd call it 'work experience' now - used the 'amateur' Canon A-1 because it had a 'program' mode and they didn't need to mess around with settings. I'm sure that was the reason for the supremacy of Canon EOS over Nikon F4/5 in the last days of film too: quick and foolproof. Build quality, 'Image quality' and so on just didn't matter very much, provided you came back with a useable picture.
Olympus cameras weren't terribly popular with press photographers because they weren't very automated but they worked perfectly well, and I have no memory that they were shoddily made. The one I bought - used - in 1979 is still going strong after a couple of overhauls, and the lenses seem fine too. I've owned a couple of Olympus clunkers over the years - a 35-105 zoom and a crappy early 135mm tele spring to mind - but everything else has been fine, and some bits of OM kit are really exceptional: the OM-4ti springs to mind.
I'm rambling a bit here, but what I'm essentially saying is that 'changing systems' is not going to improve Keith's photographs, it's just going to give him a reason to buy gear. Not necessarily a bad thing and he is obviously drawn towards the idea, but it doesn't amount to much more than that.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
My own stupidity and indecisiveness aside this is an interesting thread ... I've really enjoyed reading some of the posts! 
"Foggy Old Guard" ... you kill me Frank!
People here seem to know me better than I know myself which is a worry ... so I can safely say that there won't be a wholesale ad for my OM gear appearing in our classifieds in the immediate future! I probably will grab the next cheap F3 I stumble over though because I do have a hankering to try one just to know what all the fuss is about. In the meantime the D700 will have to live with the two ZF's and the fungusy old Nikkor zoom and I may get a Leitax adapter so I can see what the Zuikos do on the big Nikon.
Please continue on!
"Foggy Old Guard" ... you kill me Frank!
People here seem to know me better than I know myself which is a worry ... so I can safely say that there won't be a wholesale ad for my OM gear appearing in our classifieds in the immediate future! I probably will grab the next cheap F3 I stumble over though because I do have a hankering to try one just to know what all the fuss is about. In the meantime the D700 will have to live with the two ZF's and the fungusy old Nikkor zoom and I may get a Leitax adapter so I can see what the Zuikos do on the big Nikon.
Please continue on!
Field
Well-known
Nikon vs. Olympus...
Everyone here seems to like the OM stuff. It might be consumer stuff but... if the light OM-1 is as functional with a better light meter than my F, well the last thing is the lenses. Several people here and other places claim the lenses are better. Do I know personally? No.
Tell you what though look on Ebay and try to price out a set of lenses for OM gear. Then do it for Nikon. Then realize you can pick up Nikon gear all over used. Nikon is WAY CHEAPER. I got a 24mm f2.8 nikkor for $75. The cheapest 24mm Zuiko is $175 on Ebay, so $150 is about the price they sell for anywhere else you look. Zuiko stuff is way expensive with the exclusion of the 50mm.
I have an FE too and I doubt the OM's have as much mirror slap. The F might be loud but you can just about feel the FE slapping through the light body.
Everyone here seems to like the OM stuff. It might be consumer stuff but... if the light OM-1 is as functional with a better light meter than my F, well the last thing is the lenses. Several people here and other places claim the lenses are better. Do I know personally? No.
Tell you what though look on Ebay and try to price out a set of lenses for OM gear. Then do it for Nikon. Then realize you can pick up Nikon gear all over used. Nikon is WAY CHEAPER. I got a 24mm f2.8 nikkor for $75. The cheapest 24mm Zuiko is $175 on Ebay, so $150 is about the price they sell for anywhere else you look. Zuiko stuff is way expensive with the exclusion of the 50mm.
I have an FE too and I doubt the OM's have as much mirror slap. The F might be loud but you can just about feel the FE slapping through the light body.
bgb
Well-known
I don't have much to compare the OM with but every time i look in the viewfinder i get the feeling i might fall into the camera ... it's so big and bright
Maybe it's not the absolute quality of the gear but how you feel when using it?
Maybe it's not the absolute quality of the gear but how you feel when using it?
zumbido
-
Get a Kowa Six kit. You can use those lenses on your DSLR...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sometimes I have to ask myself how Olympus got so far ahead with the actual size of the finder on the OM series. It was never the brightness of the finder of my FM3A that disappointed me and by SLR standards it's right up there even with the stock screen ... it just seemed small!
I've been watching F3's on ebay over the last couple of days. The cameras that crop up in Oz seem to go for silly prices and the bargains from overseas cost another $50.00 to get here! A real 'dog' went for well over $100.00 on Oz eBay the other day and really nice ones spiral up into the hundreds!
bgb
Well-known
I think the OM is a bit like Dr Who's Tardis ... so much bigger than it seems from the outside.
I'm getting the new rff softie for mine and as many lenses as i can find
The only F3's i have seen for sale here in NZ recently have been too expensive or rather beat up ...
I'm getting the new rff softie for mine and as many lenses as i can find
The only F3's i have seen for sale here in NZ recently have been too expensive or rather beat up ...
back alley
IMAGES
what will nikon do that om won't already?
afa systems go they are night and day...remember that oly made the om as a slim counter to the ever fattening line-up of the other big manufactures.
afa systems go they are night and day...remember that oly made the om as a slim counter to the ever fattening line-up of the other big manufactures.
peterm1
Veteran
All of these systems will produce good results. What I have learned as a photographer (amateur) is that its the photographer not the camera that makes the difference.
But as they say "the other mans grass is always greener" and although I am a long term Nikon SLR user, from time to time I find myself wondering what it would be like to own a Canon SLR just for a change - we all love variety.
I cant therefore hold out that swapping systems will improve a person's images per se. What it may do (for a time) is to engender more enthusiasm due to the novelty factor. And more enthusiasm equates to more iimages made and hence more keepers.
Having said that it should also be said that the other thing about the Nikon system is that it has basically kept the same mount from the inception of its first SLR. Most Nikon lenses can therefore still be used on even the latest cameras (sometimes with slight modification to meet the AI specification depending on the specific lens and camera.) What this means is that there are many many more options to try than are available with most, if not all, other systems. This can lead to GAS. But it can also provide stimulation and fun for a long while as you try different lenses.
In the end its a very personal choice. I dont think I will change to a Canon from Nikon for example although i do own some old Canon bodies and FL mount lenses which I shoot from time to time. But if I owned an Olympus I might well be tempted to change to Nikon.
But as they say "the other mans grass is always greener" and although I am a long term Nikon SLR user, from time to time I find myself wondering what it would be like to own a Canon SLR just for a change - we all love variety.
I cant therefore hold out that swapping systems will improve a person's images per se. What it may do (for a time) is to engender more enthusiasm due to the novelty factor. And more enthusiasm equates to more iimages made and hence more keepers.
Having said that it should also be said that the other thing about the Nikon system is that it has basically kept the same mount from the inception of its first SLR. Most Nikon lenses can therefore still be used on even the latest cameras (sometimes with slight modification to meet the AI specification depending on the specific lens and camera.) What this means is that there are many many more options to try than are available with most, if not all, other systems. This can lead to GAS. But it can also provide stimulation and fun for a long while as you try different lenses.
In the end its a very personal choice. I dont think I will change to a Canon from Nikon for example although i do own some old Canon bodies and FL mount lenses which I shoot from time to time. But if I owned an Olympus I might well be tempted to change to Nikon.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Spot on.
We often mistakenly decouple objective quality from our own subjective view about handling/niceness.
That's how gear opinion wars got started :angel:
Film SLR's are so different from one another, it's perfectly okay to try different brands with legacy of designs. I have an opposite view when it comes to RF's though.
I pretty much have tried them all via buying and selling. And I made a choice to keep OM, Nikon, and Contax. Because these three offer different feel when I use it. And I kept coming back to them.