fbf
Well-known
Leica M users will tend to like the OM more: small, light, huge finder; the nikon feels more solid but it's big, heavy (relatively speaking), the shutter noise is pretty loud from my experience and it is certainly louder than oly OMs.
So, there. I vote for Oly OM but both are excellent regardless.
So, there. I vote for Oly OM but both are excellent regardless.
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
shot with OM some time, if you like handling, keep it. All other factors are overrated.
nobbylon
Veteran
Go with the Nikon. I sold all my Olympus OM1 gear and some great lenses. I use Nikon digital as well as film and the backward and forward compatibility of the F mount was the decider for me. I use my Nikon autofocus lenses on an old FM2.
gavinlg
Veteran
Olympus anyday - except I'd sell the om2sp and buy either an om1n or an om2n. Either one of those is a nicer camera (imo) than the nikons. And olympus have such nice and interesting lenses - and all of them are so very tiny.
novum
Well-known
"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."
I own an FE and and FM2n and I used to own a pair of F2AS's (bought new in the '70s). A good friend owns an F3HP. So I can compare those cameras somewhat objectively. The FE (spectacular? not spectacular?--dunno about that; it's not a helpful adjective) is a very capable camera and there are plenty of the FE/FM family of cameras out there in great condition, because they are well-designed and well-built cameras. The F2 and F3 were built to withstand a pro's abuses, but FEs and FMs are great cameras in their own right.
I own an FE and and FM2n and I used to own a pair of F2AS's (bought new in the '70s). A good friend owns an F3HP. So I can compare those cameras somewhat objectively. The FE (spectacular? not spectacular?--dunno about that; it's not a helpful adjective) is a very capable camera and there are plenty of the FE/FM family of cameras out there in great condition, because they are well-designed and well-built cameras. The F2 and F3 were built to withstand a pro's abuses, but FEs and FMs are great cameras in their own right.
Ronald M
Veteran
FE have meter parts that go bad that can not be repaired/replaced. FE2 is made differently.
Nikons lenses can be migrated to digital and really nice ones can be had on the cheap.
Olympus made nice cameras in the day. OM1 were best and they cheapened up from there.
Neither is a hockey puck grade camera like nikon F, F2, or Canon F1 original. Hockey puck is a quote from Marty Forescher who owned Profesional Camera Repair in New York around 5 decades ago. Just got to give him credit. He will also tell you there has not been a camera of that quality made since.
Nikons lenses can be migrated to digital and really nice ones can be had on the cheap.
Olympus made nice cameras in the day. OM1 were best and they cheapened up from there.
Neither is a hockey puck grade camera like nikon F, F2, or Canon F1 original. Hockey puck is a quote from Marty Forescher who owned Profesional Camera Repair in New York around 5 decades ago. Just got to give him credit. He will also tell you there has not been a camera of that quality made since.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
If it was between say an OM-2n and the Nikon FE, I would then say too close to call (I own both). However, since it's the OM-2S and the FE, I think the FE winds hands down. The integrated circuits scare me in terms of longevity.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
It's quotes like Al's ^^^^ that free up my time to write on other topics...
Take his advice...that's what I would do in this situation...
bgb
Well-known
NO mate, wrong way go back
Don't think i would have either given the choice ... but both companies make nice lenses.
I would rather have a Nikon F4 or an OM-1
Did you buy them because they were cheap? or because you had a mad attack of GAS
Do you even want a 35mm SLR? how about a nice rangefinder or a Hasselblad?
I hear 5x4 can be fun too ...
Don't think i would have either given the choice ... but both companies make nice lenses.
I would rather have a Nikon F4 or an OM-1
Did you buy them because they were cheap? or because you had a mad attack of GAS
Do you even want a 35mm SLR? how about a nice rangefinder or a Hasselblad?
I hear 5x4 can be fun too ...
pesphoto
Veteran
I know you werent thinking of these as options...look at Konica FS-1(built in motor drive) and the 50mm Hexanon ar 1.7, or 40mm Hexanon ar 1.8 lens. Can't beat the glass for the price.
Last edited:
DCB
Well-known
I voted OM...but not for the 2S. Get a OM2n and enjoy it.
You could always get a 2S, usually cheep, any time.
Peace
You could always get a 2S, usually cheep, any time.
Peace
Vics
Veteran
I voted Nikon because that's what I have, and because every time I've handled an Oly, I found it a bit weird ergonomically.
Spicy
Well-known
is there any way to make a WARNING THIS THREAD IS OLD, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO RESPOND??? dialogue box that pops up before people post to help those who are too careless from bumping threads from a decidedly bygone era?
TXForester
Well-known
I'm partial to Olympus, but there are two other things to consider in addition to circuit failure. Some of the OM2s bodies are prone to battery drainage. The other is subjective. My OM1 has fairly quite mirror slap and my OM2n isn't shabby. When I got a 2s about a year ago, I noticed a difference. It has a clunky sound. I have grown to enjoy it, but my brain is wired differently.
TXForester
Well-known
Yeah. Larger font for the posted date.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I have an FE and it's a fine camera capable of accepting a massive range of some of the finest lenses ever produced. I've also owned OM1n, OM2n, OM2SP and OM4 cameras down the years and, although the range of lenses available doesn't match Nikon, the quality does - if you can find them. I'm not suggesting OM Zuiko lenses are scarce, per se, but they are nowhere near as abundant as Nikkors.
Functionality is much of a muchness, IMO. Both have great ergonomics and I've found both to be extremely robust and reliable. The OM will probably chew batteries faster than the Nikon.
If you can, try both. If you get to shoot with both, using equivalent lenses, I'll be you won't be able to tell which camera took which photo. My advice is to go with the one in best condition which suits your hand and your pocket.
Functionality is much of a muchness, IMO. Both have great ergonomics and I've found both to be extremely robust and reliable. The OM will probably chew batteries faster than the Nikon.
If you can, try both. If you get to shoot with both, using equivalent lenses, I'll be you won't be able to tell which camera took which photo. My advice is to go with the one in best condition which suits your hand and your pocket.
sanmich
Veteran
I personally love thread resuscitation.
and why not? Is the OP question less relevant in 2014 than in 2008?
and why not? Is the OP question less relevant in 2014 than in 2008?
BillBingham2
Registered User
Still a great question no doubt.
Though I am I a Nikon-aholic, my answer hasn't changed, the OM.
First off you need to take the "lifts" off the OM-2, remove the half case then take the picture.
Then you need to take Nikkors and put them next to the Zuiko glass.
Smaller and smaller. To me the OM system has a Leica M system feel to it. I wish they made the aperture ring go the other direction. Focusing is the same direction as the M-series. It would be the perfect combo for those times when you need to reach out longer than a camera length RF lets you.
B2
Though I am I a Nikon-aholic, my answer hasn't changed, the OM.
First off you need to take the "lifts" off the OM-2, remove the half case then take the picture.
Then you need to take Nikkors and put them next to the Zuiko glass.
Smaller and smaller. To me the OM system has a Leica M system feel to it. I wish they made the aperture ring go the other direction. Focusing is the same direction as the M-series. It would be the perfect combo for those times when you need to reach out longer than a camera length RF lets you.
B2
kshapero
South Florida Man
I was a working pro in the early nineties. I had been using Nikon's for about 15 years. Olympus came to me and "gave" me a complete OM4Ti system for a shoot, then asked for it back after an amazing 12 months. Shot a couple of hundred roles with it and some truly great OLy lenses.The 4Ti was very much in size, etc to the Nikon FE2. As a comparison, the 4Ti was no match to the FE2 in ruggedness. But the photo results were just as awesome IMHO.
darya151
Established
IMHO, it's all about the glass. In many ways, glass is a very personal thing. The Olympus OM1 was the very first SLR I had. I liked how compact it was and the quality of the images.
Hold them, shoot with them, explore options, then decide. Enjoy your cameras!
Hold them, shoot with them, explore options, then decide. Enjoy your cameras!