Pablito
coco frío
that is a remarkable amount of distortion for a 50mm standard lens. Looks like what you'd get from a zoom.
George S.
How many is enough?
Ruben, I'd have to agree with you somewhat and also disagree a bit. Both systems are good build and good quality of lenses. I've owned extensive systems of both Nikon and Olympus. Overall, when I was thinning out my film SLRs, the Nikons went.
I never said that there weren't some so-so performers in the Olympus lineup, I even pointed one out, the 75-150 zoom. Others have said on these forums that its one of their best ever lenses!
What none of us can do is take a limited experience with a few 30 year old lenses and make generalizations about the overall quality of a brand. Unless we've owned the Zuiko lens for 30+ years, no one knows the history of any used lens. Was it one of the so-so lenses to begin with? Was it a victim of sample variation? Was it stored properly by a previous owner? Was it taken apart and put back together by an owner, or a less than stellar repair shop? Were the elements ever cleaned with a harsh chemical?
And I wouldn't call my 30+ year old Zuikos of limited use. I can still use them, albeit without automation, on my current model Olympus digital SLRs. Olympus did abandon the film SLR market, but that doesn't make their lenses useless especially when their "old" SLRs are still going strong.
I never said that there weren't some so-so performers in the Olympus lineup, I even pointed one out, the 75-150 zoom. Others have said on these forums that its one of their best ever lenses!
What none of us can do is take a limited experience with a few 30 year old lenses and make generalizations about the overall quality of a brand. Unless we've owned the Zuiko lens for 30+ years, no one knows the history of any used lens. Was it one of the so-so lenses to begin with? Was it a victim of sample variation? Was it stored properly by a previous owner? Was it taken apart and put back together by an owner, or a less than stellar repair shop? Were the elements ever cleaned with a harsh chemical?
And I wouldn't call my 30+ year old Zuikos of limited use. I can still use them, albeit without automation, on my current model Olympus digital SLRs. Olympus did abandon the film SLR market, but that doesn't make their lenses useless especially when their "old" SLRs are still going strong.
George S.
How many is enough?
The Nikon was ahead in the poll by a 2-1 margin, but now they're in a dead heat!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
BillBingham2
Registered User
While I am very picky about handling of camera bodies I'd look to the glass as the driving force here. While when the FE came out I thought it was not going to last, time has proved me wrong.
For carrying a small kit, three lenses, the OM kicks the FE out of the running. You can pull together a great small kit of EXCELLENT lenses that makes it feel almost RF-like. There are lots of good Zuiko out there, you just need to look.
Which body to you have more glass for?
B2 (;->
For carrying a small kit, three lenses, the OM kicks the FE out of the running. You can pull together a great small kit of EXCELLENT lenses that makes it feel almost RF-like. There are lots of good Zuiko out there, you just need to look.
Which body to you have more glass for?
B2 (;->
tkluck
Well-known
Were it me, I would dump both of them and get an OM-1. I have a boat load of Om gear, acquired after my disastrous discovery of Ebay (lenses, bodies, winders, stuff I couldn't afford 30+ years ago when I bought my OM-1). I find myself using the OM-1 and perhaps 3 lenses. The rest of the stuff sits there.
The OM-2s does have a problem with the circuit board, but they are right , use it while it works and get anohter one if it craps out.
I did run accross a thread a while ago where two computer engineers were talking about how they'd both made new boards for their OM-2s's with newer, better, smaller ICs, etc. Nether was willing to take time out from a six figure job in silicon valley to make any more of them. Apparently the little board isn't hard to make IF you can figure out the equivalent modern integrated circuit...($2 to hit it with a hammer, $200 for knowing exactly where to smack it)
The OM-2s does have a problem with the circuit board, but they are right , use it while it works and get anohter one if it craps out.
I did run accross a thread a while ago where two computer engineers were talking about how they'd both made new boards for their OM-2s's with newer, better, smaller ICs, etc. Nether was willing to take time out from a six figure job in silicon valley to make any more of them. Apparently the little board isn't hard to make IF you can figure out the equivalent modern integrated circuit...($2 to hit it with a hammer, $200 for knowing exactly where to smack it)
Spider67
Well-known
One Aspect of the Nikons: When I got my first SLR it was an FG (Instead of an Minolta X-700)...when the FG was new the prices for Nikon Glass were still stellar so on short sight it was not such a good investment, right now you get the best Glass for affordable prices.....so keep them both for a while and decide later. PS: There is an FE Eulogy on rockwells site...
EcoLeica
Check out my blog!!!
thank you all for your advice, your comments have been helpful. I would love to keep both of them but I know i will not use one of them and cant stand it when cameras are not being used! Luckily my friend gave me his 28mm nikon e series lens today which kinda broke the deal with me. Im gunna keep the nikon!
Cheers
Cheers
EcoLeica
Check out my blog!!!
haha cheers keith! I did look a the poll, didint think it would be so close. It surprised me how much people like the olympus OM system.
BillBingham2
Registered User
When you sell the OM-2S, pick up a 105/2.5. If you watch you can find one at a really good price. From what I remember the 28/2.8 was a fine lens for the money.
I was thinking the sell them both for an OM-1 might be a good answer, but it's hard to beat a good free lens.
The FE is a fine camera. It's longevity has shocked a lot of us old Prongsters (Old Fart Nikon Users).
You've focused on the camera long enough. Go get some film and find your voice, your vision, your view and share it with the world.
B2 (;->
I was thinking the sell them both for an OM-1 might be a good answer, but it's hard to beat a good free lens.
The FE is a fine camera. It's longevity has shocked a lot of us old Prongsters (Old Fart Nikon Users).
You've focused on the camera long enough. Go get some film and find your voice, your vision, your view and share it with the world.
B2 (;->
jarski
Veteran
I voted Nikon.
btw. strange. now when seeing these two first time side by side, Olympus is roughly same size than Nikon. so many people here have advertised the tiny size of Olympus. I always thought its much smaller than any other SLR
btw. strange. now when seeing these two first time side by side, Olympus is roughly same size than Nikon. so many people here have advertised the tiny size of Olympus. I always thought its much smaller than any other SLR
George S.
How many is enough?
The Olympus really IS smaller, and they're definitely thinner, less "chunky" than the usual SLR.
Don't forget that the Olympus in the picture is sitting in a leather case.
Don't forget that the Olympus in the picture is sitting in a leather case.
jarski
Veteran
ah yes, the case. didnt realize its there.
but still, as the photo shows, I dont think Olympus is that much smaller than FE (which I have and like
).Rey
Well-known
It's hard to argue with your decision. I own a full OM-1, 2 camera kit and I have been using it for several years. BTW, I find that the small size makes it an excellent travel kit. A couple of years ago, I latched on a mint FE, with a 28/2.8E lens at a thrift ship and just love it. I have since purchased an F2. In a way, Nikons and Olympus cameras are apples and oranges. Nikons (FE and FG excepted) tended to produce durable, professional-level cameras, i.e., extremely well built and heavy, their lenses, when they hit the mark, are very sharp. The OM series, especially the 1, 2, 3, and 4 are smaller, lighter, and more rangefinder like. Their lenses are also very compact and a bit more contrasty than the Nikons. The OM series was also designed as a pro/advanced amatuer kit. You really couldn't have made a wrong decision here. They are both great.
irq506
just curious
..ah
like with like!
Im a major OM fan but the OM2s is a piece of cr*p. OM1, OM1n, OM2, OM2n, OM3, OM3t, OM3ti. everything else is trouble trouble trouble!!! the speed rings screw up on them. the rubber gaskets screw up, the electronics fritz out ah... and the OM10 is the worst camera ever made!! they use a magnet with which the shutter works but the grease fromt he shutter gets on it and hangs it open, and a week after cleaning it happens again... I dont work on them anymore!
Nikon FE by the way, well there is a glass plate resistor under the rewind crank that is no longer available. thats typically the most repair I see on that one, so unless its mint in a box, choose some different cameras!
like with like!
Im a major OM fan but the OM2s is a piece of cr*p. OM1, OM1n, OM2, OM2n, OM3, OM3t, OM3ti. everything else is trouble trouble trouble!!! the speed rings screw up on them. the rubber gaskets screw up, the electronics fritz out ah... and the OM10 is the worst camera ever made!! they use a magnet with which the shutter works but the grease fromt he shutter gets on it and hangs it open, and a week after cleaning it happens again... I dont work on them anymore!
Nikon FE by the way, well there is a glass plate resistor under the rewind crank that is no longer available. thats typically the most repair I see on that one, so unless its mint in a box, choose some different cameras!
George S.
How many is enough?
" Im a major OM fan but the OM2s is a piece of cr*p. "
Pure baloney!
Pure baloney!
peterm1
Veteran
For me its a Nikon. The Olympus was a fine camera by all accounts (although here too I cannot speak specifically about the OM2s) but they had a reputation for slight fragility in build strength (due to their small size and use of lighter weight metals etc ) compared to the more robust Nikons. I cannot speak for this myself and I would be happy to own an Olympus as they are never the less nicely designed aesthetically.
The other reason I would elect for Nikon is the huge range of top notch lenses. The principal reason I have never bought an Olympus is that (in pre ebay days) I could never find a wide selection of good Oly lenses in Australia. I am not sure why but they seldom showed up in stores. Nikkors on the other hand were always to be found and were (are) fabulous in most cases.
The other reason I would elect for Nikon is the huge range of top notch lenses. The principal reason I have never bought an Olympus is that (in pre ebay days) I could never find a wide selection of good Oly lenses in Australia. I am not sure why but they seldom showed up in stores. Nikkors on the other hand were always to be found and were (are) fabulous in most cases.
peterm1
Veteran
BTW I seem to recall that there were comparatively few big name photographers who used Olympus I think because they were seen as lightweight and therefore not up to the rough handling the pro's dish out. One very well known exception was Anthony Armstrong Jones, Earl of Snowden, Princess Margaret's husband and father of her children. I have a book on travel photography by him in which he extols their virtue (but then again I imagine that he may have been paid to say nice things about the camera too.)
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Trade them both for a nice Pentax.
Chris
Chris
MJFerron
Member
As one who owns both a Nikon FE and 3 Olympus OM cameras I have to say that my OM1n is a complete jewel of a camera. It's the SLR for M6 shooters who need an SLR. Stunning fit finish and quality. One of my ON1n's belongs in a glass case as it's about mint. The other is just excellent and that's my user. Love my Nikon's too but they won't win a beauty contest against the OM's.