Help me decide! Nikon or Olympus

[EcoLeica]

Hey all, thought i might pick your brains in regards to my new purchase. I am now a owner of a near mint Om2S. I also have a Nikon FE and now im utterly confused. Which one should I keep?! and no keeping two is not an option as one will end up not being used which is not the fate I want for any camera. So lets get your opinion Nikon or Olympus..let the people decide!

 

[pagpow]

Hey all, thought i might pick your brains in regards to my new purchase. I am now a owner of a near mint Om2S. I also have a Nikon FE and now im utterly confused. Which one should I keep?! and no keeping two is not an option as one will end up not being used which is not the fate I want for any camera. So lets get your opinion Nikon or Olympus..let the people decide!

Were the Oly an Oly 2 or 2N, or 1, or 1N, I would say Oly. But the 2S and some other Olys use integrated circuits. When these fail, there is a problem with replacement. This is documented in some threads here, I believe, as well as on Oly websites. And borne out in my own personal experience and that of family members.

So -- within you choice, I would say Nikon.

Otherwise, trade for one of the repairable Oly models and go Oly.

Full disclosure, I have, and have had various Olys, no Nikons.

 

[Al Patterson]

I'd probably be biased and tell you to keep the Nikon, as I've never had any Olyumpus products. Why not put a few rolls through each, make your own choice, and report back to us? It would be fun to compare the poll results to your personal choice.

But then again, I'm on the road and have too much time to watch RFF these days...

 

[ruben]

I own the OMs and no Nikon.

Nevertheless there is no question at all for me that each Nikon lens you have, you will be able to mount in every Nikon camera, backwards or forwards in time.

OM gear in general is very compact. But overall I made a strategic economics mistake going Olympus instead of Nikon.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[GeneW]

You'll find more used lenses available in F mount, and more places that can do repairs to the body.

 

[nome_alice]

keep both. you have two hands, no reason to let one go unused.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Trade 'em both in for a nice F2.

 

[Pablito]

I never understood threads like this. Why let "the people" decide? You have to use it. You decide. Which fits you better?

...and what's so bad about one sitting unused for a a while? It's just a thing, it won't get lonely. Also, these days these things are worth so little. An FE with lens in great shape can be had for $60-80 on eBay if you're patient and careful. So it's not like you're going to pay off a month's rent by selling one of them.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Both, IMHO, are not spectacular. I agree that in the OM series the OM-1 & OM-2 (MD or N) are preferable. As for the Nikon I'd go with a F3hp. The Nikon F3 has the advantage of many available lenses, ruggedly built, and if I am not mistaken the lenses are available at lower prices. It also has the advatange of a removable prism which I like and do use for low angle shots & it does work well in places (trains) where you want to photograph without the subjects realizing that they are being photographed. The OM series are nice cameras & very small.

 

[Fred Burton]

These are both great cameras. OM's will break. FM's will break. I've owned a number of both and have had both break. But I can't imagine worrying about whether either will be repairable. You can buy either so cheaply they aren't worth having repaired. Use the one that feels best in the hand and handles they way you want!

 

[jonmanjiro]

Why did you buy the near mint Om2S, when you already own a Nikon FE?

If you can tell us the answer to that question, we can help you decide 😉

 

[EcoLeica]

I kinda just snapped it up on a impluse buy of a local auction site for around $30 USD...didnt think about the purchase too much i guess

 

[Rayt]

Oly lenses are great. Try a few and then decide.

 

[George S.]

Agree. The Olympus lenses are second to none. The small size and light weight of the camera and lenses will also be a plus. Any of the 50/55mms, 1.8 1.4 1.2 , and just about any f/2 or 2.8 lens (28, 35, 40mm) are quite sharp with great color rendering. The 35-70 f3.5 zoom is a fine fine lens. The common 75-150 zoom is so-so.

 

[ruben]

Agree. The Olympus lenses are second to none. ......

Sorry, this is a gross mystification. Ceirtainly there are some outstanding lenses, but there are so-so too. Thus for example the non MC version of the 50 f1.4 I own is of the lowest quality. Or perhaps there are quality control issues here too ?

Nevertheless other lenses, not being outstanding nor bad - are convenient for their small size. There is a lot of test data about the Zuiko OM lenses, which I recommend to read. Maitani was a genious in making Olympus bigger than its real size, but the day came in which the real company size kicked Maitani out.

Therefore if you want to pay for a compact camera and lenses that you know beforehand are of limited modularity in time - go Olympus. If you want to invest in lenses mounting decades back and forwards - it is Nikon.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[wlewisiii]

For what you asked, Nikon.

I'd rather tell you to sell both & buy a Canon T90 instead but that's not what you asked... 😉

William

 

[Chris101]

I don't agree with your philosophy of not keepng both. I went on a night shoot last evening armed with a Nikon FG sporting an 85mm f/1.8 and an Olympus OM1n with it's 21mm f/2 affixed. I much prefer changing cameras to changing lenses in an active shooting situation where the best pictures will happen with the lens off my camera. The Oly makes a perfect wide angle shooter because the viewfinder is big enough to get a decent magnification.

And the FG is possibly the most underrated Nikon of all. I got mine for $30.

So I would like to re-suggest that you keep both - at least until such time as you determine that you really like only one of them.

 

[Rayt]

From experience go for the 50mm and 90mm macros and f/2 wide angles. They are really tops. The 55/1.2 is supposed to be outstanding but I haven't even seen one.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dr. Nasse of Zeiss -- a man who knows a thing or two about lenses -- owns (and is still adding to) an Olympus system.

Equally, thirty years ago a friend of mine was loaned an Olympus system (by Olympus!) for a glamour shoot and found that out of 5 lenses, only the the zoom was sharp.

I'd go with those who say, 'keep both'. Having the Olympus lying around won't cost you much, and you need to ask yourself if it is worth the effiort of trying to sell it for the tiny amount you'd see back. Speaking from personal experience in similar situation, AS SOON AS you sell it, you'll see bargains among the best Olympus lenses on the market, and you'll regret selling it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Strange. This is the first time I have ever heard ill of Zuikos.

(I've used them for a quarter of a century.)

Dear Richard,

I've heard good and bad in roughly equal quantities, but the odd thing is, people always seem to be very enthusiastic or very dismissive: rarely does anyone say, "They're good lenses, but not remarkable" or "I had them, and they were OK, but now I use ________." From my own (very limited) experience, taking a few shots with friends' cameras and no more than two or three lenses, I couldn't see any reason either to praise them to the skies or to damn them. The only Olympus I own, a Pen W, has an extremely impressive 25/2.8, but then, that's not a hard lens to design for half frame.

Of course, given that people always tend to complain longer and louder than they praise, the fact that I've heard 50/50 probably speaks in the Zuikos' favour.

Cheers,

Roger