CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I've owned and used Olympus from about 1980. The OM-2 was the first camera to offer OTF flash, a major feat in the day. I was a Nikon (and Leica) user at the time and my company bought me an OM-2n outfit to photograph resin (using a microscope). Today I still have an OM-1n, OM-2n and a very well worn OM-4Ti I bought from this forum a number of years ago. First, most Olympus lenses are not that sharp compared to Canon, Nikon or Leica. This is when I was shooting Kodachrome 64 and projecting it on a large screen. However the ergonomics of the camera and lenses negate the small difference in sharpness. The raison d’etre of 35mm is small. If you want sharp get a 5x7 camera, or at least 120.
Most OM-1meters do not work, or at least I've been unable to find one. Plus they take the dreaded mercury battery. I just use mine as a meter less body.
OM-2
OM-3 same as the OM-1 with a spot meter and ridiculously expensive.
Original OM-4 was prone to battery drain issues new. People that had them would only put batteries in when shooting. OM-4T never had the issue. I shoot mine but find the spot meter too distracting to use and much prefer the OM-2 needle over the little blinking bar graph of the OM-4.
One thing about these cameras today, they're cheap, cheap, cheap.
I agree with every word - it was my needle sticking and now it isn't. I just wish the glass was a smidgen sharper, but what cameras and lenses for the money.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I've owned and used Olympus from about 1980. The OM-2 was the first camera to offer OTF flash, a major feat in the day. I was a Nikon (and Leica) user at the time and my company bought me an OM-2n outfit to photograph resin (using a microscope). Today I still have an OM-1n, OM-2n and a very well worn OM-4Ti I bought from this forum a number of years ago. First, most Olympus lenses are not that sharp compared to Canon, Nikon or Leica. This is when I was shooting Kodachrome 64 and projecting it on a large screen. However the ergonomics of the camera and lenses negate the small difference in sharpness. The raison d’etre of 35mm is small. If you want sharp get a 5x7 camera, or at least 120.
Most OM-1
OM-2
OM-3 same as the OM-1 with a spot meter and ridiculously expensive.
Original OM-4 was prone to battery drain issues new. People that had them would only put batteries in when shooting. OM-4T never had the issue. I shoot mine but find the spot meter too distracting to use and much prefer the OM-2 needle over the little blinking bar graph of the OM-4.
One thing about these cameras today, they're cheap, cheap, cheap.
A few points: at one time in the 80's Olympus caused a sensation when an independent tester said that the Zuiko lenses on them were the best he'd ever tested.
OM-1's would be about 45-50 years old by now and can easily be modified to take silver oxide batteries when going in for a routine service. You just have to remember that buying anything secondhand of that age is iffy but - luckily - there are still people around who specialise in Olympus cameras.
OM-2's; see my previous post. My favourites.
OM-3's are rare and that is why they are so dear; same applies to any rare camera. Look at the Hermes Leicas...
OM-4: hmmm, some years ago I read about the battery problem and was baffled as my one never suffered from it. I guess it's like the Leica Digilux 2 and M9 problem and only affected a few. As they were discontinued about 20 years ago they should have all been sorted out by now.
The OM-4's exposure system is wonderful but you have to RTFM.
Sharpness, unless you print posters all the time it doesn't matter. (And you shouldn't be using 35mm film.) At 12 x 8 no one will notice unless you use a dodgy enlarger or a poor scanner etc. Most people seem to print 10 x 8 anyway and that mean cropping away the edges and so, again, what does it matter? As for 5 x 7 prints, you can get away with a lot...
The last point is that very few people use tripod and so I guess that means the majority don't care about sharpness and so on.
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Nikons are not bullet proof; ask Don McCullin. I think that he and Jane Bown use Olympus OM's and that's a good enough recommendation for anyone...
Regards, David
Regards, David
svinao
Member
I have looked at Alpa cameras and indeed they look amazing. I wonder about their practicality though. Looks like you have to detach the back like older Leicas to load the film, and I see some have CDS meter cells on the front, so not TTL metering. Their 40/2.8 seems decent, I'm not into macro stuff and most samples on flickr are macro, but it looks fine.
I am not after the sharpest lenses. I've extensively used vintage cine lenses on digital and film, they are never as sharp as some SLR glass, for example zeiss or leica R, but I've enjoyed them for soft and pleasant rendering, I enjoy the 'mandler glow' or the 'cooke look' which I think is a combo of mitigated but not completely corrected spherical aberrations with overall decent sharpness. Ultra sharp lenses are not for me. I've shot the leica R summicrons wide open always bot for the shallow DOF but for that 'mandler glow' and overall softer rendition.
In that regard I really liked the pictures I saw from the Zuiko 40/2. I wish it was less expensive though.
Looking at pictures online and evaluating all the combos, I've decided to go with one of these:
OM4 ti with zuiko 40 2
pentax lx with 43 1.9
fm3a with ultron
I'm not quite sure how to proceed from here. All three are beautiful cameras (Nikon's pentaprism cover is kinda ugly tho, but I can live with it), comparable specs. I guess I'll try to look up how they display information in the viewfinder and look into ergonomics and serviceability.
Really appreciate all the suggestions here.
I am not after the sharpest lenses. I've extensively used vintage cine lenses on digital and film, they are never as sharp as some SLR glass, for example zeiss or leica R, but I've enjoyed them for soft and pleasant rendering, I enjoy the 'mandler glow' or the 'cooke look' which I think is a combo of mitigated but not completely corrected spherical aberrations with overall decent sharpness. Ultra sharp lenses are not for me. I've shot the leica R summicrons wide open always bot for the shallow DOF but for that 'mandler glow' and overall softer rendition.
In that regard I really liked the pictures I saw from the Zuiko 40/2. I wish it was less expensive though.
Looking at pictures online and evaluating all the combos, I've decided to go with one of these:
OM4 ti with zuiko 40 2
pentax lx with 43 1.9
fm3a with ultron
I'm not quite sure how to proceed from here. All three are beautiful cameras (Nikon's pentaprism cover is kinda ugly tho, but I can live with it), comparable specs. I guess I'll try to look up how they display information in the viewfinder and look into ergonomics and serviceability.
Really appreciate all the suggestions here.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Pentax LX is a magnificent camera. I shot a lot with a pair of them through the 80s into the 90s. Small and light, and paired with the 43 would be quite a nice kit I suspect. Not sure on repairs on an LX, but mine never needed anything done to them over 15-16 years besides from stupidly dropping one.
And the exposure meter is excellent.
And the exposure meter is excellent.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is hard to fail Nikkormat, not to mention F2.
Jane Bown, not Bowen. And F2 would not be as good match as Olympus to her purse.
James24
Well-known
There's a simple solution, given that your budget is 'pretty much unlimited'.
Buy all 3 and try them out, then sell the 2 kits you don't like. You probably won't lose much, if anything, if you buy carefully.
My recommendation would be a Nikon F2 with DE-1 and DP-12 (F2AS) finders and 50/1.8 AIS pancake lens.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
With pretty "much unlimited budget" buy all three kits, use them to compare for real, then sell two to keep one. Write results with photos and post them here. Google will give you everlasting glory.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Apologies for all the snips; do a search and you'll soon - no doubt - find instruction manuals as pdf's for all of them and then do a bit of reading.
If you've money to spare have a trial of the Pentax 40mm alongside the longer one.
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I wasn't failing the Nikons but these days I don't think being tough is a sales point and DM went over to Olympus after the Nikon F incident, didn't he? I don't know for sure.
And most comments about durability are stories about when it happened once to someone. I reckon you need to put a film in 200 identical cameras, take a dozen shots and then drop them all in lab condition on to a concrete floor and then carry on using them and develop the film etc. I don't think anyone's done that yet. Only doing it to 200 cameras would give accuracy of about + or - 5%, IRC...
Thanks for the correction; it's force of habit as a colleague at work had that surname. Old habits die hard...
Regards, David
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Ta Da;
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1981-PEN...011999?hash=item3d99a9439f:g:YOYAAOSw3d9d6N2Y
Regards, David
PS Yes, I know it has the wrong lens on it but...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1981-PEN...011999?hash=item3d99a9439f:g:YOYAAOSw3d9d6N2Y
Regards, David
PS Yes, I know it has the wrong lens on it but...
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Post of the month!
Orthogonal
Established
People generally love the FM3a's looks but to be honest I agree. If you're like me you might find the FM2n or (my favorite) the FM2/T more appealing. Really robust, smooth, and the mirror assembly is an improved iteration of the F2's - everything the Contax S2 should have been
Huss
Veteran
It feels a little strange. Big heavy body with tiny lens (unless you get the current much larger version).
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Agreed. In addition (my personal choice); the F6, although in production, is not as straightforward as an FM2/3/a/T or an F2. If I'm working with a one camera/one lens (which i commonly do).... its a straight mechanical camera.
JeffS7444
Well-known
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
If it is good enough for these guys, it should be good enough for most.
Andre Kartez with an OM2
Erich Lessing with an OM2 too:
Plus a profile photo of Bruno Barbey using an OM4
Huss
Veteran
I need the Swarovski edition. This one is too subtle.
aizan
Veteran
You can find the meter display layouts in the manuals on Butkus. All of those cameras are great in the hand, so you can toss a coin and end up with something you’ll love.
Rangefinder 35
Well-known
In the past I hve used Nikon FM2, F5, Contax RTS, Leiac M4 and M6, and my humble opinion is that when it comes to durability Nikon F5 is unbeatable. However, when it come to lenses and the sheer looks Contax G2 is the one. That's my favorite camera. and the lenses are superb, and sell for my less than Leica's...