is the olympus OM2 the best analog 35mm camera?

[Yokosuka Mike]

Oh c'mon folks. Everyone gets to vote! There has to be more of you. We haven't heard much from the Canon crowd!

(stir, stir, stir)

Hands down without a doubt in my mind the best SLR ever made is the... Canon F1n!

Works great and tough as nails. I had two F1n bodies and that was all I used for many years.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Doug A]

If we are talking about 35mm SLRs, and if best means what 35mm SLR has consistently produced my favorite photographs over the years, then the best 35mm analog camera for me has to be one of my LTM Leica bodies with a Visoflex reflex housing with ground glass focusing system, mounted on a sturdy tripod. If what we really mean by best is my favorite camera to use then it is one of my pre-WWII Leica RF's. (The newest SLR I ever really got on with is my prism finder Nikon F I bought in 1965.)

 

[Pioneer]

Hands down without a doubt in my mind the best SLR ever made is the... Canon F1n!

Works great and tough as nails. I had two F1n bodies and that was all I used for many years.

All the best,
Mike

As much as I like using my Pentax camera I have to agree with you here. That F1n is one tough hombre!

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I know about those, I'd sure love to have one. What a cool form factor for 35mm!

Yes, seen these before as well. High drool factor. But Rollei had the same concept with the Rolleiflex 2000, and brought it to market. I do wonder who borrowed from whom, or was it just something in the zeitgeist? In any case, the Rollei was not a resounding success, but I'd give it "A" for effort. I did look into purchasing one on a few occasions, but they always seem to be "not working, for parts". I hate to say it, being a Rollei fanboy, but the 2000 may have been a dog.😢

 

[Freakscene]

Yes, seen these before as well. High drool factor. But Rollei had the same concept with the Rolleiflex 2000, and brought it to market. I do wonder who borrowed from whom, or was it just something in the zeitgeist? In any case, the Rollei was not a resounding success, but I'd give it "A" for effort. I did look into purchasing one on a few occasions, but they always seem to be "not working, for parts". I hate to say it, being a Rollei fanboy, but the 2000 may have been a dog.😢

I have one here somewhere, with a few lenses. Amazing cameras but overengineered and horribly unreliable.

A modular 35mm SLR from Olympus would have been very interesting, and, while unlikely to be bullet-proof, anything would be more reliable than a Rollei SL2000F.

Marty

 

[wlewisiii]

Oh c'mon folks. Everyone gets to vote! There has to be more of you. We haven't heard much from the Canon crowd!

(stir, stir, stir)

Had a deep love for my T-90. With the FD 50/1.4 it was an amazing camera. I'd give my current F4 a slight edge over it but at the time? Nothing else like it and bullet proof.

 

[CMur12]

Well, in my opinion, the best 35mm SLR is a medium format TLR! 🤔

- Murray

 

[p.giannakis]

Now this would have been interesting to throw in the mix....Fully modular prototype which became the OM-1, shame, it looks lovely.

View attachment 4853457

View attachment 4853458

Although looking great, I am glad they didn't go down that way. Rollei did with the 2000 and 3003 and there was no market for it.

 

[Godfrey]

vis: Rollei 2000, 3003 ::
I think that the modular film back concept fundamentally doesn't work other than for very specific uses in the small format world. Maitani was right to move to a unit-construction 35mm SLR. Modular film back designs take off in the medium format realm, where they provide broad, general use capabilities that are lacking for the miniature 35mm format.

G

 

[Cascadilla]

vis: Rollei 2000, 3003 ::
I think that the modular film back concept fundamentally doesn't work other than for very specific uses in the small format world. Maitani was right to move to a unit-construction 35mm SLR. Modular film back designs take off in the medium format realm, where they provide broad, general use capabilities that are lacking for the miniature 35mm format.

G

I think you're right--35 mm bodies usually aren't that big so carrying an extra one rather than another film magazine isn't that much of a gain in size or weight. Interchangeable film backs also introduce possible alignment problems along with dark slides to get lost, etc. When I was shooting film professionally I routinely had multiple bodies (sometimes 4) to have different lenses readily available and to always know that I had film loaded if I wound up shooting more than I anticipated. There is also the issue of redundancy--as my long time repair tech once told me, he would much rather have 2 mid level cameras that took the same lenses rather than one pro level one since any dropped camera was usually going to be dead...

 

[Leon C]

vis: Rollei 2000, 3003 ::
I think that the modular film back concept fundamentally doesn't work other than for very specific uses in the small format world. Maitani was right to move to a unit-construction 35mm SLR. Modular film back designs take off in the medium format realm, where they provide broad, general use capabilities that are lacking for the miniature 35mm format.

G

Don't know if you've read this but his interview is interesting about the OM-X, as an Olympus user I probably would have owned one.

Maitani Interview

 

[Leon C]

I think you're right--35 mm bodies usually aren't that big so carrying an extra one rather than another film magazine isn't that much of a gain in size or weight. Interchangeable film backs also introduce possible alignment problems along with dark slides to get lost, etc. When I was shooting film professionally I routinely had multiple bodies (sometimes 4) to have different lenses readily available and to always know that I had film loaded if I wound up shooting more than I anticipated. There is also the issue of redundancy--as my long time repair tech once told me, he would much rather have 2 mid level cameras that took the same lenses rather than one pro level one since any dropped camera was usually going to be dead...

Depends on what you're photographing I suppose, when I was doing Music stuff an interchangable back for 35mm would have been very usable, would have saved me lugging 3 x 35mm bodies around, [On a busy day at a festival I'd be on my feet all day so weight was a consideration] plus lens shutter and focal plane shutter would have been handy for some, especially flash users, personally I would have embraced it but then I'm an Olympus fanboi and like quirky. 😉

 

[Godfrey]

I have owned a lot of Olympus cameras over the years. Always good optics, sometimes a little too lightly built, but excellent designs. I doubt the OM-X would have been a runaway success like the OM-1, OM-2, etc were though. Just like with the Rollei SL2000 and SL3003, the design is complex and has to be very precisely made, which means costly and requiring more thought and understanding in use.

Victor Hasselblad made this interchangeable magazine design a reality with the Hasselblad medium format SLRs, and it works (and was widely copied) in that larger medium-format context. Remember also that, hmm, was it Exacta or Contax??, had interchangeable film magazines for 35mm SLRs and, while they are marvels of engineering finesse, they ultimately were not anywhere near as successful as unit body designs that supplanted them as the 1950s-1960s progressed.

G

 

[Leon C]

I have owned a lot of Olympus cameras over the years. Always good optics, sometimes a little too lightly built, but excellent designs. I doubt the OM-X would have been a runaway success like the OM-1, OM-2, etc were though. Just like with the Rollei SL2000 and SL3003, the design is complex and has to be very precisely made, which means costly and requiring more thought and understanding in use.

Victor Hasselblad made this interchangeable magazine design a reality with the Hasselblad medium format SLRs, and it works (and was widely copied) in that larger medium-format context. Remember also that, hmm, was it Exacta or Contax??, had interchangeable film magazines for 35mm SLRs and, while they are marvels of engineering finesse, they ultimately were not anywhere near as successful as unit body designs that supplanted them as the 1950s-1960s progressed.

G

Probably not, but it does look cool as.... 😉

 

[santino]

Have you tried the 28Ti or 35Ti? I very often get an itch that I want to scratch.

Unfortunately I haven‘t. I think the 28Ti would suit me well since I like the 28 focal length. On the other hand the Contax T is no slouch either.

 

[caila77]

At the local photography club there was a heated discussion between supporters of different 35mm analog camera systems.
In particular supporters of the Olympus OM system and those of the Pentax system.
The subject of the discussion was the Olympus OM2 which is considered by many, including on the web, to be one of the best 35mm analog reflex cameras ever produced. Although everyone knows that it was one of the many truly innovative OMs, I'm asking you: what makes it one of the best 35mm reflex cameras?

I see that the original question is
Missing

 

[Cascadilla]

I have owned a lot of Olympus cameras over the years. Always good optics, sometimes a little too lightly built, but excellent designs. I doubt the OM-X would have been a runaway success like the OM-1, OM-2, etc were though. Just like with the Rollei SL2000 and SL3003, the design is complex and has to be very precisely made, which means costly and requiring more thought and understanding in use.

Victor Hasselblad made this interchangeable magazine design a reality with the Hasselblad medium format SLRs, and it works (and was widely copied) in that larger medium-format context. Remember also that, hmm, was it Exacta or Contax??, had interchangeable film magazines for 35mm SLRs and, while they are marvels of engineering finesse, they ultimately were not anywhere near as successful as unit body designs that supplanted them as the 1950s-1960s progressed.

G

I think later model Contaflex and Contarex cameras had interchangeable backs. 1930's Contax cameras did have cut film or plate backs, but not the post war IIa and IIIa. The Contarex, in particular, didn't exactly put much of a dent in the sales of the Nikon F.

 

[Cascadilla]

Depends on what you're photographing I suppose, when I was doing Music stuff an interchangable back for 35mm would have been very usable, would have saved me lugging 3 x 35mm bodies around, [On a busy day at a festival I'd be on my feet all day so weight was a consideration] plus lens shutter and focal plane shutter would have been handy for some, especially flash users, personally I would have embraced it but then I'm an Olympus fanboi and like quirky. 😉

But how much extra would you have been willing to pay for a camera with those features that was rugged enough to withstand the kind of use that you're describing? I suspect that if it had been truly pro grade (think Nikon F or Canon F1) that body would have been costing almost as much as a Hasselblad or other medium format systems. That would have depressed demand for that body and its lenses unless the lenses were shared by other cameras.

 

[Leon C]

But how much extra would you have been willing to pay for a camera with those features that was rugged enough to withstand the kind of use that you're describing? I suspect that if it had been truly pro grade (think Nikon F or Canon F1) that body would have been costing almost as much as a Hasselblad or other medium format systems. That would have depressed demand for that body and its lenses unless the lenses were shared by other cameras.

As much as it was worth to me at the time, hard to say without knowing the price, my OM-1n, that I still own lasted the course for what I used it for, still have my working F90x that was used also in the 90's, 'Pro Grade' doesn't mean the same to me as it does you, as all it really means is your getting paid regardless of what equipment your using and have a good work ethic and as I was commissioned by Airware [Dr Martens] several times, I must have been doing something right, but it's now OT so....outta here. 🙂

 

[mfunnell]

At the local photography club there was a heated discussion between supporters of different 35mm analog camera systems.
In particular supporters of the Olympus OM system and those of the Pentax system.
The subject of the discussion was the Olympus OM2 which is considered by many, including on the web, to be one of the best 35mm analog reflex cameras ever produced. Although everyone knows that it was one of the many truly innovative OMs, I'm asking you: what makes it one of the best 35mm reflex cameras?

I was, for years (including well into the AF, but pre-digital, era) committed to the OM system, though I never had an OM-2.

I loved my OM-4T and was devastated when mine was stolen back in the mid-1990s 😡 I persisted with my old OM-20 until I spent a lot of time (many trips over many months) negotiating to buy a replacement a couple of years later, when I frequently stayed in Hong Kong, haggling in a second-hand camera shop. I (much) later bought an OM-2sp which I also quite like.

Nonetheless, I think my very favourite film SLR is my Nikon FM3a, which I bought (relatively) cheaply because of the ding in the top of the prism housing:

(For me, it edges-out the F3 and plain-prism F2 which I also have.)

...Mike

P.S. The 'best' 35mm film camera (at least that I own) is the Leica M3 (mine's an older DS model, and I like them best 😃) .. though I will (just barely 😇) allow that others might prefer a different camera (as do I if I want to use longer focal lengths).