Do you feel that the OM bodies are robust?

[jett]

I originally had an OM1n but it broke one day...I think the film advance jammed or something...I don't remember. It was under keh.com warrantly and so I returned it.

Well I wanted to get a Nikon because of the hype about robustness but now I am feeling that my F is a bit clunky...I might get an FM or go back to OM.

Ofcourse any camera can fail and I probably just had a bad first impression.

Do you feel that OM's are on par with FM's in terms of durability? I know I can buy bodies for cheap these days but having one durable body is better than a bunch of backups for the times when I travel. I'd rather travel with extra cameras that are somewhat different and complimentary (like a RF).

 

[mfogiel]

If durability is your concern, hardly anything will beat a Leicaflex SL ( but it is very costly to repair), or the MF Nikons, like F1,F2 and F3. Personally, I prefer the F3, but if you want to avoid electronics, than F2 is your game. These cameras will outlast my nephews. I have a couple of OM's, but they do not nearly feel as robust in any way.

 

[lam]

I guess it's hard to say robust without knowing what is the 'benchmark'.

To me, my OM-2n feels pretty robust. Same as to say my Leica R3 is robust.. Heavy-ish, weighted, which I cannot say of the FM/FE.. Those as reliable as they may be don't have the same 'robust' weight and feel (film advance) as other cameras, which is neither a good or bad thing, just a different take.

 

[Godfrey]

Olympus OM-1/OM-1n bodies are reasonably robust but not up to par with Nikon F, F2, or FM2n. Few other 35mm SLR cameras are...!

G

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I used a pair of OM-1s for press work in the late '80s. They stood up to having 20 rolls a week put through them, so my impression is that they're pretty tough little cameras.

 

[Gerry M]

I have OM1, OM2N, OM4T, F2A, F3HP, FM2N. I really like the OM's, but I think these Nikons are a bit more robust.

 

[ferider]

I've used OMs for many years and just recently started using Nikons. Just came back from a 2 week trip to Africa with F3 and FM. The F3 feels built like a tank, but it's much larger than OM1, OM2, or FM.

Not sure if the difference in robustness - if really there - matters at all. In the end, you'll have a back-up body when it matters, and all these cameras can still be fixed today. The biggest practical difference in use for me (between OM1 and F3 + FM) is noise, my OM1 is much quieter than both Nikons (all three cameras CLA'ed).

I suggest to forget the qualitative robustness and decide based on noise, camera functionality and lenses. The F3 is in practice more functional, than, say, an OM2 of the same period (easy double exposure, possible use of WLF, lens aperture in VF, etc.). You can buy some Nikon lenses that simply don't exist for OMs (35/1.4, 85/1.4, for instance). Then again, many Zuiko lenses are much smaller than similarly spec'ed Nikkors.

Roland.

 

[jky]

From what I remember, I thought my old Om2 was quite robust. However, if I wanted to go somewhere/do something that may involve rough use, I always grabbed my F3.

For the uses you describe, I wouldn't hesitate on an Om.

 

[dabick42]

OMs are small, light,dainty and reasonably long-lived if nurtured gently.

Nikon F series are big, heavy, muscular bruisers that will likely outlive a Sequoia redwood.

I used an OMIn and OM2n for several months in the 1980's and they gave me problems. I've been using Nikon F's for 50 years with no faults or need for CLA.

Simple choice to make for me, but YMMV.....

 

[Rodchenko]

Whereas the only Nikon I've ever owned was nothing but trouble, and my OMs worked perfectly every time.

 

[grapejohnson]

i will sing the praises of the canon new f-1 forever
solid brass. cheap, great lenses.
second day i owned mine, i took it to a cave and i slipped on ice twice, landing directly on the camera. only thing that happened was some dirt in the ASA wheel and a nick on the film advance. incredibly resilient camera with replaceable/interchangable parts everywhere
and cheaper than a leicaflex (with lens at least).

the nikon FE is also a great camera which can take a pretty good deal of abuse. my best friend had a beer explode in his camera bag and after a little cleaning the camera came out on top, and is still in use.

 

[Chris101]

Manual Nikons have a lot of metal in them, and so they feel very robust. But I have had trouble with any mechanical camera that I use enough (even Leica M), and they are all quite fixable. So unless I am using a camera for carpentry, their robustness is close to equal for any of them.

 

[CameraQuest]

when the OM1 came out one of the main US news services switched to them. after a couple of years, they switched back to Nikon due to reliability.

Even so, the OM's should be considered reliable, well built cameras for every day use.

Stephen

 

[f16sunshine]

Considering all them still going were built 20-30 years ago.... it's easy to say yes they are robust.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I own both F, F2 and OM1 OM3 and OM4 and don't feel the OM are as strong as the F but I think it is only perception because I had very few problems with both systems and they even seem to have the same weak parts. The OM1 had a rather weak flash mount but then the F had a completely non-standard system, so it is a bracket for both. I got a weared down elicoid in a Nikkor lens once and one broken f-stop ring in a Zuiko lens another, that's about all the problems I ever had, so the real data says they are pretty comparable. The F feel stronger because of weight and size in my opinion.

GLF

 

[Keith]

The defining question for me would be how often has the OM been used in combat zones? I know the Nikons have been used plenty but never heard much about Olympus.

 

[mugent]

I was trying to find a working OM4ti a few months ago, I got a couple, both had faults, both faults were electrical I think. They were just probably coming to the end of their lives...

 

[mfunnell]

Both my Nikon F and Canon New F-1 feel like they've been chiseled out of raw granite. But my two most-and-hardest used cameras are an OM-4T and a Pentax MX, both of which look pretty beaten up. I beat up my own OM-4T and ran a lot of film through it over a lot of years (the MX was bought used/beaten, but works just fine) - and I haven't had a moment's problem with it - aside from dead batteries (there's a reason why all the stray corners of all my camera bags have multiple sets of suitable batteries).

...Mike

 

[redisburning]

you're going to hear a lot of stories, and that's fine.

my two OM cameras tagged along in endless military plane rides, motorcycle rides and several trips to Antarctica. I have a third OM (a second 1md) that was clearly used a lot but I cant precisely call up that camera's original owner and ask.

the single digit OM cameras are fine enough for hobby photography. in this area, it's hard to imagine any manual pro camera actually wearing out. a few parts here or there, sure, but not outright failure.

the Nikon cameras get a lot of hype for reliability. I believe that statistically, they probably are more durable. Nikon definitely had the best pro program back in ye olde days too.

personally I found reports of their feeling of robustness exaggerated. what can I say, I own a fair amount of high end old stuff and I know not to associate weight with quality too closely. I have always been MUCH more impressed by Leica than any of the Japanese companies.

ymmv.

I have an OM-2SP that I have previously and do now use as my primary camera. I have a 2-4 screen in it and use it with my 50/2 macro. the nikon equivalent is an f3, k screen and zeiss 50/2. larger, heavier, significantly less sophisticated metering and there isnt much between the two lenses (they are together the pantheon of super highly corrected, fast ~50 macros).

Ill take my combination, thank you.

 

[jwicaksana]

The body feels alright, but the electronics on both my OM2n failed without warning.