How good is the OM-3 ... who has one here?

benlees said:
Oh Keith, "OM this, OM that;" save yourself the angst! A Pentax LX will sooth this Olympus conundrum!:angel:
Click to expand...


LOL ... As good as I know the LX is I've never been a Pentax person for some reason ... 67ii aside!

I think everyone has an ergonomic sweet spot when it comes to SLR's and the OM's just seem to 'fit' for me. Mind you I did see a black LX in the classifieds a while ago that made me look twice! 😱
 
I have an OM-4t and an OM-3
I love both. The 4 gets more use. The 3 has always been my backup. They are both wonderful cameras
But after the EMP, my 3 should still fire with all speeds

I had some problems with the wind mechanism on the 4.
Documented in another thread
Never had a problem with the 3
 
Bought an OM-3 new when I was a college student and had stumbled into an especially well-paying summer job. Still have it, still use it, still love it. Just gotta make sure you don't leave home without some extra batteries, if you want to be sure the meter will be there.
 
I think every hardcore SLR lover gets OM-3 fever at some point in life. Mine hit when they were simply unavailable anywhere. After a couple of years, I slaked my mechanical/titanium thirst with a Contax S2: suitable for my C/Y lenses, and a self-timer. 🙂
 
nikku said:
Hey SReed, next time you're going out in a low light situation, you should try using the OM-2n in Auto mode. That's my go-to low light camera.
Click to expand...

For even wider low light exposure range, try a plain OM-2. Low light capability is as much as 19 minutes, where 2N closes shutter automatically at 3.5 minutes. John
 
I fully endorse the first 3 sentences of kbg32's post, but still have my OM3 and wouldn't part with it.

I use OM1n's too, and find them a little more elegant: but that's partly because the OM3 feels heavier. I'm surprised to read that some find too much plastic in it--to me, it's the most solid-feeling of the whole OM range.

Regards,
D.
 
If I may chime in on something I have no real knowledge of (this is the internet after all), I never really understood why so many people are wary of battery-dependent film cameras. I can maybe understand worrying that the electronics are more prone to failure than the mechanics (whether that's really true or not) but if the concern is that you won't be able to find batteries when you're out shooting in the Serengeti, wouldn't that apply to the actual film as well?
 
D.O'K. said:
I'm surprised to read that some find too much plastic in it--to me, it's the most solid-feeling of the whole OM range.
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to my statement. I was referring to the plastic inside. After even a minor knock from the front (such as falling off a chair) the plastic teeth on the innards of the shutter-speed setting ring can break. This happened to mine. It's tough as nails outside, will survive desert sand storms, rain storms, whatever-storms, freezers, ovens, etc (I refer to the "OM-4Ti Crash Test" 😛 ) - but a less-than-massive knock from the front can put it out of commission easily.

Oh well, all cameras have their weak spots. I guess an M3 could go on firing it's shutter reliably forever, but its rangefinder could be knocked out of alignment quite easily, etc.
 
When you really think about it, an OM-3 or OM-3Ti really doesn't give you practically anything more than owning an OM-4T AND an OM-1. If you have working batteries, an OM-4T is a far more versatile and capable camera. If your batteries die, an OM-1 will do pretty much everything an OM-3 or OM-3Ti will do without batteries, except the 1/2000 shutter speed.

I would love to own an OM-3Ti, but given the sky high prices, it makes alot more sense to simply have an OM-4T and an OM-1 combination. A fraction of the price, more versatile and you have a backup body. Those expensive cameras with mechanical shutter speeds like an OM-3, OM-3Ti, or Nikon FM3a, without batteries are no more capable than your basic, inexpensive OM-1 (except for the faster shutter speeds).
 
I have plenty of battery-dependant cameras (ZI, Bessa R2A, R3A and R4A, ...) but I still prefer the ones that are not battery-dependant because I just know they will work.
I don't always take my camerabag (where my spare batteries are) with me, and I often leave home with just a camera, film and lens. Since I usually don't remember to put a spare battery in my pocket before leaving home, it already happend to me that two led's in the VF of one of my Bessas began to blink (the sign that the battery is at it's end). I could end the day without problem, but still, my peace of mind was gone for the rest of the day while seeing these blinking led's all the time ..

Stefan.

v_roma said:
If I may chime in on something I have no real knowledge of (this is the internet after all), I never really understood why so many people are wary of battery-dependent film cameras. I can maybe understand worrying that the electronics are more prone to failure than the mechanics (whether that's really true or not) but if the concern is that you won't be able to find batteries when you're out shooting in the Serengeti, wouldn't that apply to the actual film as well?
Click to expand...
 
v_roma said:
If I may chime in on something I have no real knowledge of (this is the internet after all), I never really understood why so many people are wary of battery-dependent film cameras. I can maybe understand worrying that the electronics are more prone to failure than the mechanics (whether that's really true or not) but if the concern is that you won't be able to find batteries when you're out shooting in the Serengeti, wouldn't that apply to the actual film as well?
Click to expand...

I think it boils down to at least two aspects:

  • Mechanical cameras work better in really cold temparatures, period. Electronic cameras exhaust their batteries at a frightening pace when you're photographing in -20ºC. Of course, 0.1% of us need that.
  • Mechanical cameras are cool. They are treasured for the same reasons that mechanical wristwatches are, and with the same ceveats (i.e. less accurate than cheaper electronic options).

They may or may not be more reliable. Who knows. My Leica M3 was made in 1960, and is still L-sealed (never seviced). It works perfectly. I have a very old OM-1 (made around 1974) which also works perfectly.

Then again, the same goes for my electronic OM-2n from about 1978 which is electronic. On the other hand, the Canon A-1's / AE-1's I tried long ago were unreliable.

I don't think reliability, or quality of the end result, has anything to do with it (just as with wristwatches, etc). It's simply the uniqueness of an advanced mechanical camera made quite late (1980s, 1990s) that is a testament to Man's mechanical prowess. A certain raw pleasure, that is different to the pleasure we get from pushing technological boundaries.

Many of us here are in the tech industry (software, hardware, etc). I think it is us, especially, that appreciate mechanical, non-electronic cameras. Leave us be!
 
dtcls100 said:
When you really think about it, an OM-3 or OM-3Ti really doesn't give you practically anything more than owning an OM-4T AND an OM-1. If you have working batteries, an OM-4T is a far more versatile and capable camera. If your batteries die, an OM-1 will do pretty much everything an OM-3 or OM-3Ti will do without batteries, except the 1/2000 shutter speed.
Click to expand...

In my case, I sold my OM-4T.
Having the OM-3 and OM-2n gives me the best of both worlds.
 
OM3? Get it Keith!

4210631131_5b0d29a35d.jpg


More info: http://www.flickr.com/photos/monz/4210631131/
 
dtcls100 said:
Don't have an OM-3 or OM-3Ti. But I did purchase some 2-13 and 2-4 focusing screens that I use in my OM-4T and OM-4 cameras. The clarity, ease of focus and brightness is astounding. However, you do have to be a little bit careful in focusing by deliberately going past what you think is perfect focus and then turning back to nail the focus. The clarity is so great compared to other viewfinders (including compared to the 1 series OM focusing screens or other cameras) that you might think you have the focus perfect, only to find it gets noticeably sharper with a little more of a turn of the focusing ring. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find those focusing screens anymore sold separately from OM-3Ti cameras; I paid around $80.00 for my last one (with a custom etched grid) and thought I got a very good deal. I do have some Beattie focusing screens and have tried Lumi-micron screens from the OM-PC, but those simply do not compare to the 2-Series OM focusing screens at all.
Click to expand...


If you ever decide to sell one of those 2-13 screens, please let me know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom