OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

I got a broken OM10 in the post today with a Pentax whose 50mm I wanted. Put new batteries in and she works perfect :) cost me a fiver for the pair. Not sure if I will keep it though, its not as nice as the OM1.
 
Just got back. I took the OM4-t and 35-70/3.5-4.5 along with a 50/1.4 and the 85/2.0

I barely used the primes but have learned I don't particularly like the 35-70. The lens is fine but I prefer fixed length lenses.

I also have finally admitted to myself that I don't like the OM4-t. I guess I'm a manual kind of guy. I really wish I had taken my old standby OM1 with a 28mm and 50mm.

Later this spring I'm gonna sell that OM4-t.
 
Wow, i just got my new (to me) Zuiko 50 F1,8 in the mail and it is small..
I know everybody says zuiko lenses are small but i did not realy beleve that because i only had the 35-70 F4...
The serial number is 886443 is this an old or new version and what does that say 'bout the quality..

Btw have you guys heard about the digital OM Called OM-D?
 
The OM-1N is dirt-cheap these days and it wouldn't cost that much more to get the CRIS MR-9 adapter. You likely could buy both for around $50 plus whatever it costs to ship. I always keep an OM-1N in my bag as a "backup," but I use the OM-2N far more often. Just keep a couple of extra batteries handy.
 
Today on my way back from shooting I stopped at a local thrift shop and found an Olympus OM-2n (Black body) with the 50mm 1.8 lens, case and hot shoe...
It was all dusty and the mirror was locked up (dead battery?) Looked to be in decent shape...I did not buy it since I know very little about them...the price is $50...
 
Well, I bought the highly sought after 50's, a MIJ 1.8 and greater than 1.1 million 1.4. Funny thing is that both came with OM 1 rear caps from the sellers, which means I now have 3 of those??? I will probably sell these new 2 on the cheap in a few days.
 
A great way to get the MIJ 50/1.8 is buy an OM-G. Because the OM-G came along late they most all came with the MIJ 50 . And most people aren't interested in the OM-G. Keep your eyes open and pick one up cheap.
 
135formatuser said:
Btw have you guys heard about the digital OM Called OM-D?
Click to expand...

Oh, we wish. I would pay $5000 for a proper digital OM body (same build quality, same form factor). This (if it will be called "OM-D") will, of course, just be a cheap marketing stunt by Olympus, for a Micro Four Thirds camera.

Even though I am already upset with Olymus, I will be highly upset with them if they actually use the name of an incompatible older system for a newer system, purely for nostalgic reasons. There is no use in mounting your OM lenses on a camera with a sensor only a quarter the area of a 35mm piece of film. They really have no right to call a micro four-thirds body "OM-D".

We shall have to keep on dreaming about a digital back (one could easily be made!) for our OM cameras :)
 
Chris101 said:
Didn't Olympus tout the E-1, and then the Evolt 420 as 'digital versions of the OM cameras'?
Click to expand...

I sure hope not, since they are nothing like an OM whatsoever - in spirit or in physical resemblance. The only digital cameras that are in the spirit of the OM cameras are the Leica M9 and the Fuji X-Pro 1, in my opinion. I'm keeping an eye on Fuji...
 
Up till now Ive been using 2x1.5v silver cell batteries and chewing through them regularly probably because most of them have been sitting in warehouses for years and then on shop shelves for even longer but recently I sent my OM2n for a tune up and it came back with a single CR-1/3n 3volt Lithium battery.
Wish I had know that sooner. Doh!
Thought I'd share.
 
philosomatographer said:
There is no use in mounting your OM lenses on a camera with a sensor only a quarter the area of a 35mm piece of film. They really have no right to call a micro four-thirds body "OM-D".
Click to expand...

You probably (maybe obviously) never use a 4/3rd system.
Yet you speak of it as though it's a very bad system.

Have you ever seen a result from OM 300/4.5 in front of an m4/3rd camera?
I would call being able to put the equivalent of a 600mm that is sharp wide open with Image Stabilization in a backpack while hiking all day long... useful.

And Olympus does have the right to put OM label anywhere, even on toilet seats, if they produce those. :)
 
shadowfox said:
Have you ever seen a result from OM 300/4.5 in front of an m4/3rd camera?
I would call being able to put the equivalent of a 600mm that is sharp wide open with Image Stabilization in a backpack while hiking all day long... useful.
Click to expand...

That is an argument about pixel density.

If you just made a full frame sensor with the same pixel density as a m4/3 sensor you could just crop the center 25% and have the EXACT same result.

so no, having a smaller sensor is not more useful in this regard because it's not doing anything you couldn't do yourself (very easily, I might point out).

of course, the converse is not true. you cannot uncrop a m4/3rds sensor to get a wider angle.

I think that all you've demonstrated is that even if you have used something it does not necessarily imply that you know what you're talking about in regards to it.
 
redisburning said:
That is an argument about pixel density.

If you just made a full frame sensor with the same pixel density as a m4/3 sensor you could just crop the center 25% and have the EXACT same result.
so no, having a smaller sensor is not more useful in this regard because it's not doing anything you couldn't do yourself (very easily, I might point out).

of course, the converse is not true. you cannot uncrop a m4/3rds sensor to get a wider angle.

I think that all you've demonstrated is that even if you have used something it does not necessarily imply that you know what you're talking about in regards to it.
Click to expand...

Oh, which camera is that? what brand, what model, and how much, and how big? care to share some pictures for comparison?

I think all you've demonstrated is that talking in the realm of theory is easy to do, even when you don't have practical experience.

And why the negative attitude? is talking about gear that personal to you? :)
 
Last edited:
redisburning said:
so no, having a smaller sensor is not more useful in this regard because it's not doing anything you couldn't do yourself (very easily, I might point out).
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that...having a smaller sensor is a lot more useful, if you're out hiking all day--because it will be in a much smaller camera! If we're talking digital, I'd much rather take a m4/3rds camera hiking than a "full frame" anything! I have a stunning 11x14 print hanging in the dining room that came from a photo I took with my E-P2 while on a hike through the Gap of Dunloe.
Since I'll never go larger than 11x14, the quality is good enough for me, while the portability and useability are excellent.
 
So far no Olympus OM has a digital sensor. And I wish they would keep it that way. OM-D is an insult to Maitani-San.

An Olympus XA or Stylus (MJU) is a full-frame camera, yet quite compact.

No reason on Earth that a compact camera could not have a 36x24mm sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom