Help me decide! Nikon or Olympus

Help me decide! Nikon or Olympus

  • Nikon FE

    Votes: 97 53.3%

  • Olympus OM2S

    Votes: 85 46.7%
  • Total voters
    182
Voted Nikon FE...

I have owned most Oly OMs in the past.. great body, sturdy, will last a long time... but the FM/FE is similar in these regards.

I don't like the f/stop ring being just 2 small tabs, and not long enough, and in odd placement when wide open... It is not a Focus Tab for crying out loud!

When I was ready for another Film SLR, I chose the Nikon FM in the 1980's, and now I have a Nikon FE with 4 great Nikon lenses...
24mm f/2.8 Ais, 50mm f/1.8 Ais Long Nose, 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S N/Ai, 100-300mm f/5.6 Macro Ais.. The glass is great for both...
 
I am a long time Olympus OM user (30+ years) with over 35 OM Zuiko lenses and a ton of other OM equipment and also own a Nikon FM3a and Nikon FE2 and several highly regarded Nikon lenses (17-35 f2.8, 28 f2.8 AIS, 105 f2.0 DC) as well as MD-12 motor drives and a Nikon SB800 flash. While I do not own an OM-2S or Nikon FE, I have handled and used them in the past. So I am pretty familiar with both systems.

Both systems are excellent in my opinion, being well made and durable. They both were plainly built better than the Canon A series cameras, with which I am also quite familiar. The advantages and disadvantages are as follows:

OM Advantages/Nikon Disadvantages:

1. Noticeably smaller and somewhat lighter.
2. OM-2s has TTL flash metering with a dedicated OM flash, the Nikon FE does not. (Nikon FM3a and FE2 have TTL flash metering)
3. OM-2s has spot metering in manual mode.
4. OM viewfinders offer better coverage (97% vs. 93%) and are brighter than FE viewfinder. If you get a rare OM Series 2 focusing screen, the OM viewfinders are much better than Nikon FE, and are meaningfully better than Nikon FM3a with newest K3 screen.
5. OM Motor Drive 1 and 2 offer five frames per second film advance with OM-1, OM-2 and OM-2(n), OM-3, OM-3Ti, OM-4, OM-4T, OM-4Ti, while Nikon MD-12 only offers 3.5 frames per second. However, OM-2s only goes to 3.5 frames per second.
6. I prefer OM viewfinder display, as it is obvious from the display as to whether the camera is in manual or automatic mode. With Nikon viewfinder display, one can more easily overlook the camera being in manual mode and think it is in auto mode.
7. I prefer OM handling, as I think shutter speed dial around lens mount is more intuitive and natural. However, many people would disagree with me.


OM Disadvantages/Nikon Advantages:

1. OM-2s frequently has a meaningful battery drain problem even when camera is not in use. Nikon FE is very good with batteries, if you make sure to turn meter off.
2. OM Zuiko lenses (except very common ones) are less common than many Nikkor/Nikon lenses.
3. If you upgrade to a Nikon FE2 or Nikon FM3a body, you get a far superior flash synch speed of 1/250 (and get TTL flash metering with dedicated Nikon flash), vs. OM being only 1/60. This higher synch speed makes those cameras far more useful for fill flash and freezing movement indoors. I recall Nikon FE has a flash synch of 1/125, which is better for fill flash, but no TTL flash metering.
4. Nikon allows you to use cheaper alkaline batteries, Olympus requires more expensive silver oxide batteries.


Both systems offer some outstanding lenses, with OM being generally more compact. The lenses of both systems can be easily adapted to Canon dslrs, but only Nikon can be used on Nikon dslrs.
 
The thing you have not said, is what do you need an SLR for? Generally, Nikon bodies are better, but Olympus lenses are better than Nikon. None can reach Zeiss or Leica glass. Ideal would be a Nikon F3 with one of the Zeiss ZF lenses or an adapted lens from Leica R.
Recommended would be: Zeiss Makro Planar 50 or 100, Leica Summicron 50, Macro Elmarit 60, Summicron or Elmarit 90 or Apo Macro Elmarit 100. You can also adapt some older Zeiss lenses from the C/Y line - a nice one is the 85/2.8 Sonnar.
 
The OM 50/2 is better than either 50 Summicron-R.

Also the 60ME isn't as good until f5.6.

Zeiss 50MP is better, granted. It is also newer. 60 Planar is much, much worse except near MFD.

I have an F3HP with 50MP, I also have OM-2sp with 50/2 Auto-Macro. The former is far inferior in use, if a bit better in the results. I wouldn't even consider an FE series but that's me.
 
I hope op is still not pondering about this :)

But gotta agree that these resurging threads have some charm in them. Yesterday someone bumped 10 year old Voigtlander 75/2.5 thread and enjoyed looking through pics that were still available in it.
 
I would decide based on what lenses you have for each, or what lenses you realistically expect to have for each.

These days I think of 35mm bodies as film backs.

oh, good grief. I just noticed this is a 7 year old thread...
 
8 years ago I did not have this problem, even 2 years ago the world was fine, I was a Nikon user and collector, analog and digital. (F301, FM, FG, FA, Nikkormat FTn, EL, F801s and D70s/D300).

But then I got my first OM-2n. and I got some more Nikons (F501, F90x and finally F3 and F) and more OMs (OM-2, OM-10, OM-1n and finally OM-2SP).

It's not a question Nikon or Olympus. I love to use them all.

But if I need a quick decision to take a camera for a foto walk most time a take the OM-2n or the black OM-2 with winder.

Hannes
 
I have both. Oly for me, to catch the FE in the poll ;-)

They are both delightful but I like the Zuikos I have better and Maitani's design philosophy.

Frankly if (8 years ago) both were kept by the OP they'd have had time to cherry pick the absolute gems from both lens stables...I know I have!
 
jmilkins said:
Frankly if (8 years ago) both were kept by the OP they'd have had time to cherry pick the absolute gems from both lens stables...I know I have!
Click to expand...

Yes, time is valuable asset to see good deals come by. Been also slowly getting Nikkors during this time. Because of other gear have handled the actual photos, they haven't seen much action but am getting there.

Good 20 and 28 are still in shopping list, then I won't need anything except restraint :p
 
If it had been another Nikon, then I would opt for the other Nikon (especially the FM series). But among these two the OM 2s would be the best (make sure that there are no foam deterioration issues in the finder).
 
Two weekends ago, I pulled out my OM-1 and shot a roll of Tri-X. If I answered this question then, I would have said get the Olympus. Yesterday I pulled out my recently purchased F2 and shot a roll of Eastman-XX 5222. Now, I'd say get the Nikon.

Next week, I imagine I'll like something else and will recommend that.

Jim B.
 
I did the change diagonally, from OM to Nikon AF.
I have an OM-1 but it jammed a few months ago. I shot 35mm sparingly and having a Fuji 6x9 I thought I'd do fine without 135 and I still dont have too much cash.

Before the summer I began to see midrange AF Nikons for quite low prices. I live near the sea shore and wanted a 35mm "battle camera" for the beach, so I grabbed an F80. I even dared to do some, almost Nikonos, carefree shooting turning decent results with the 28-80 kit zoom (kids, it's not the gear! It's the photographer!) and I just grabbed a 50 1.8D for a good price.

I should really fix that OM1, nowadays prioritizing the resources for film. Beautiful classic.
 
Huss said:
Get rid of both. And get either an Olympus OM2N, or a Nikon FE2.
Click to expand...
Disagree. This is one time I agree with Ken Rockwell. The FE (not the FE2) is as good as it gets. Read his review. I have found that Oly OM's don't age as nicely as Nikon's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom