getting into the Olympus OM system

M

meandihagee

Well-known
Local time
5:17 AM
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
216
View My Gallery
Hello everybody,

I want to get an OM to see how a prime 28mm feels like (before dropping serious cash on a rangefinder). I always wanted to see what's the deal with the OMs, that everybody hold in high esteem. A few question to narrow down my searches:

- size is important, which is the smallest body?

- what's the best bang for the buck, I don't really want to build a whole system, it's more like a test buy

- what about the viewfinder, which version should I look for focusing screens (a normal split screen will probably do, but maybe there are some gotchas...)

- what 28mm, are there serious differences between the versions regarding optics quality, and also what about sizes - is the 28/2 a lot bigger than the other two?

In conclusion, what's the smallest, cheapest, reliable OM with a good viewfinder? No aperture priority or other features needed.

Thank yous
 
Ha, that's how it always starts - an innocent exploration to try it out 🙂 You will note that the term "zuikoholic" is common lingo around here, yet such terms do not exist for Canon, Nikon, etc. Welcome to the club! Let my try to answer some of your questions (though when I hit submit, I am sure ten others would have done the same...)

All the pro bodies through the years (OM-1/2/3/4) are exactly the same size, and take exactly the same accessories, down to motor drives, focusing screens, half-cases, you name it. Each represents the smallest professional SLR ever 🙂 I cannot make a case for any one if these, they are all wonderful. The OM-1 and OM-3(Ti) are mechanical, and do not require batteries. An OM-3Ti is more expensive than most Leicas, kind of an ultimate. But not worth it (even though I do own one) unless you really are fanatical. I do prefer the 3/4 viewfinders because they have built-in dioptric correction, otherwise an OM-1 is a wonderful gem of a camera, with better ergonomics than the later models.

The massive range of focusing screens offer every conceivable viewfinder experience. Most OM-1s will come standard with a split prism / microprism collar screen. But do try some of the others! Easily found on eBay or KEH.

All the Zuiko 28mm lenses are tiny, having 49mm front mount diamaters. You just need to pick between f/3.5, 2.8, 2.0. All depends on budget, of course. They are all truly superb. Olympus was the master of small retrofocus wide angle lenses, literally nothing compares in SLR-land. I'd go for a clean 28mm f/2.8. Lenses with chrome front rings are old, whereas black front rings are later. No major optical differences from silver to black-nosed, but usually coating differences as technology progressed.

The 28/2.0 is a particularly special and saught-after lens, it will be rather expensive. It's much longer than the other two (which could almost qualify as pancake lenses, they are that small) but still really small. Think of the smallest 50mm f/2 lens for any other SLR system. Unless you need the large aperture, or floating system for really close-up photos, you won't miss much, the other two are really good.

Good luck, and better keep an eye out for a large cabinet to store all the OM gear you will inevitably start accumulating! :angel:
 
I started with an OM-1 a few years ago and have since added two OM-2s and recently an OM-4. The reality is I could happily ditch the add ons and keep the OM-1 ... it's that good! If anything I'd add another OM-1 body!

I have the 28mm f2 which I was lucky enough to pick up very cheaply with an Olympus job lot ... I don't think I'd be paying the prices they ask for them on eBay and I'm not much of a 28mm shooter ... I prefer the 35mm f2.

🙂
 
If you're rather assessing the system, than diving into it full-fledged, my recommendation would be:

OM-1, 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/3.5.
Alternatives: OM-2, 28/3.5

If you don't let yourself get ripped off, you will get a lot of bang for the buck in those lenses. Any single digit OM camera is a keeper, really.
The OM-2 has advantages compared to the OM-1 in terms of battery supply, if you are somewhat depending on an internal meter. Other than that, both cameras are magnificent.

My advise, e.g. regarding a 28/2.0, would be: Fool around with what you buy at first and see whether you enjoy it (you will!). You might even be satisfied enough not to replace these initial buys - unless you need a faster aperture, that is.
 
Warning, OMs are like potato chips - you can't stop at just one.

If it were me, I'd be looking for a clean OM1n and a 28/2.8, or even better an OM2n.
 
Don't worry about the 28/2 since that will likely cost as much as an OM-1 or -2 plus a 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/3.5, if not more. I think you will find either of the slower 28s to be excellent, and the very bright focusing screens of the cameras means you can focus either with no problems.

As between the OM-1 and OM-2, I'd go for the OM-2 simply because you don't have to deal with a battery workaround. And it has an extremely accurate meter, which meters off the film plane. It was a groundbreaking camera, even more so than the OM-1, and remains an impressive achievement. They are battery-dependent, unlike the OM-1.

One of the previous posts mentioned that the earlier Zuiko lenses had chrome filter rings. To clarify, it's just the front edge, not the whole ring, that is chrome (or rather, bare metal finish). So you need to look at the front of the lens to be sure.

The earlier lenses also were not multicoated, I believe. So that may influence your decision, though I can say that I have Zuikos of various vintages and don't see a difference with regard to the coating. The Zuikos that say "Made in Japan" on the name ring are later lenses and are multicoated.
 
A lot of good advice here. From my reading, and ownership experience, the OM2, OM2n bodies have very good longevity -- not subject to some of the circuitry problems of later ones, not needing the battery work-around of the OM1, and a good price point.
 
It took a little bit for me and my OM-1 to get along but now it is my go to film camera. The only fully mechanical camera I like more is the Leica M3 and I gotta tell you, many times the OM-1 wins. The 50mm 1.4 is astounding and I use the 28mm 2.8 often on both my OM gear and my Canon DSLR.
 
Get an OM-1n (notice the "n") if you like mechanical cameras, I won't even bother using batteries.

Get an OM-2n (notice the "n") if you want exceptionally good metering using a widely available battery type (SR44).

As far as 28mm lens, get the f/2.8 and run with it. Forget spending the overhead in obtaining a good copy of the f/2 version. If you have the patience or the money, look for the 24mm f/2 instead.
 
Not everyone prefers the OM. Having used both the OM (1 & 2n) and the F3hp I much prefer the F3HP with a 24mm f2.8. I recommend a comparison of purchasing an OM-2n w/28mm f2.8 versus a Nikon F3hp w/28mm f2.8. Then subtract those amounts from a Zeiss 28mm f2.8 (used) and see if the Zeiss is that much more.
 
Understandable comment. I prefer my Leica M6 when going small or actually most of the time. Most of the time I use a 35, 50 or a large portrait lens and I have found that lenses with the Nikon are better. The weight never was a problem as most of the time I carry one camera and one lens, and only sometimes a second.
 
Abandon all hope you who enter here!
Well, not really, and that said as a user of OM gear for 40 years, since they were introduced.

Your mention of focusing screens is right on. I prefer the plain matte 1-4 or 1-10 w/grid lines but choice is a functional matter for each to decide. Realize however that some screens, especially the brighter 2 series screens are hard to find now days.

I have found that the 28mm f3.5 does a poor job illuminating the sides and corners of the viewfinder, especially indoors, pass that one up and go for the 2.8 version.

Be aware that some OM-1, 1n, and OM-2, 2n models have suffered "foam rot" in the prism housing that has eaten through the aluminizing on the pentaprism, if this has happened and the damaged portion is cleaned off to the bare glass the camera is still useable, but you will see a small effect through the viewfinder, replacement prisms are sometimes available but they are harvested from parts cameras and so supply can be spotty.

Finally, whether you can get along with any particular camera is a very personal choice and so, no matter how much I or anyone else sings the praises of the OM system it is important to at least try to handle several viable older film SLRs before you make your selection. These could include;

Nikon; F, F2, and Nikkormats (various models), FM and FM2
Canon; FTb, FTbn, A1, and F1
Minolta ; XE-7, XE-5, SRT101, 102, 202, etc
Konica; Autoreflex T3 (killer Hexanon lenses, harder to find but worth the search)
The Nikon and Minolta have a goodly supply of used optics available for reasonable prices.

So, as much as I love my OM's if you have the time it's good to do research and explore your options.
 
Be aware that OM's are like crack you will find it hard to stop, I picked up an OM1 with 50 1.4 for £15 and I was going to sell it and get a Canon 50 1.4 (fd). But I thought I should try her to see how she worked, bad move as I now have an OM2, OM10, OM40 and 2 OM20s. I only have 5 lenses for it though, most of the bodies were purchased <£10 for spares. The 50 is a really nice lens and 99% of my 35mm work is done with this little beauty. That being said I still keep my FD Canons and have some Konicas that get a bit of regular use.
 
I have the 28/3.5

no complaints.

I like the OM-1. I shoot an M2 too, and an SRT-101. I ignore the meter in all of them.

if you're not serious about sticking with an SLR (I don't blame you, I like RF better too), I'd just get a 1 and a 28/3.5.

I guess if I was in the market to spend money on a camera and lens, I'd get a 1n and a 28/2. not every OM lens is perfect. there are some really nice ones though, and I think the good ones are really good.
 
Welcome to the OMaholics.

I have several OM1's, a couple of OM10's and an OM4-T.

I do love the system.

Over the past weekend I was playing with them and I noticed this:

My very early OM-1 (pre-MD, with the small pressure plate) is nearly silent on firing and has the smoothest film advance.

With a 50/1.4 on F16 and 1/125 shutter all I hear is a very quiet 'snick'. The mirror is almost silent.

Next are a couple of OM1-MD's which are a tiny bit louder but now you start to hear a little mirror return 'click'

Next the OM1-N is getting louder. On this one you hear the mirror up and down but worse is the metallic 'cling' from the aperture actuation lever. It hits against the lens mount ring making the noise.

The OM1-N is also a tiny bit rougher in the film advance. The lever is not as finger friendly either.

Then we have the OM4-T. It gets a big whammy from the multi-part mirror and the aperture lever makes a noise on both ends of its travel. Certainly the film advance is more 'grindy' feeling.

So, at this point I have to say I enjoy my first-generation OM1 the most. It's almost as quiet as an XA.

These are relative observations, within the family.

How this compares to a Can-Nik-Olta I don't know. I've never had any of those.
 
I sold my Om-4T and lenses when I got my M6T and regret it every time I see ongoing Om thread. Just logged onto KEH and they have a nice silver Om2n and 28/2.8 sitting there tempting me. Not sure I can resist.
 
Hi,

You asked for "... the smallest, cheapest, reliable OM with a good viewfinder? No aperture priority or other features needed... " and so I will agree with some and go off at a tangent.

1, Smallest; that's been answered;

2, cheapest; that's the OM10 that no one mentions but they sell on ebay for the opening bid - if at all. So look for one at 99p or whatever. Get a manual adapter for them and you'll have a pleasant manual or "A" mode camera for pennies. They take 2 SR44's which won't break the bank, either. Later on, when you are truly hooked the OM10 will still be a usable back up...

3, View-finders, problems only start at the extremes or for specialised use. And they are easy to find and change, so personal preferences are important here.

4, Lenses, there are no bad ones but I'd suggest the f/2.8 28mm, too.

5, Snags, I don't like their rubbery lens hoods: nothing else is a snag apart from the hopeless addiction...

6, Reliability; well, they'll all be second-hand and so that's a matter of luck. Buy the cheapest you could live with and get it checked etc by a specialist is my advice. Luckily there's lots of specialists about.

Have fun, it's more or less guaranteed.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom