Jockos
Well-known
I was looking in to get a film SLR body to have as a second for my Bessa RF, and after reading a bit I was convinced that the Olympys OM 1 or 10 would be a great choice, since they're sturdy, available and affordable.
By browsing about I could find two downsides to the OM system, one that the shutter dial is unreachable (without taking hand off trigger), and the short (85mm) portrait lens is kind of expensive. The 135 seems affordable, but I find that slightly long, and unusable indoors.
What other systems in the same price range should I be looking at?
Cheers!
Joachim
By browsing about I could find two downsides to the OM system, one that the shutter dial is unreachable (without taking hand off trigger), and the short (85mm) portrait lens is kind of expensive. The 135 seems affordable, but I find that slightly long, and unusable indoors.
What other systems in the same price range should I be looking at?
Cheers!
Joachim
tomalophicon
Well-known
You can easily change the shutter speed with your left hand. No worries.
There's a couple of 100mm lenses too. the 2.8 is cheap.
There's a couple of 100mm lenses too. the 2.8 is cheap.
Lflex
Lflex
if you are attracted to the OM series due to the size, a viable alternative is a Pentax MX (manual mechanical), or less expensive ME Super or perhaps an ME which would be equivalent to the OM10. The 50/1.4 is fantastic and relatively inexpensive. Can't talk for other lenses
ruby.monkey
Veteran
If you need a good + cheap 85mm then try a Nikon. The 85mm f/2 Ai-S works well and is reasonably priced, as (it would seem) is the older 85mm f/1.8, which can often be found converted to work with AI mounts if necessary; and the 105mm f/2.5 in any guise is an absolute corker.
Ultracheap would be any good M42-mount camera plus an 85mm f2 Jupiter-9, if you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of a stone-age aperture mechanism.
Ultracheap would be any good M42-mount camera plus an 85mm f2 Jupiter-9, if you're willing to put up with the inconvenience of a stone-age aperture mechanism.
Last edited:
Jockos
Well-known
I'm having a very difficult time with this precise action on the Bessa. I blame it all on the super ergonomic DSLRs!
Jockos
Well-known
The Pentax MX seems to have a better suite of lenses, altough the shutter speed dial is akwardly placed. Thanks for the tip, I'll look more into this one!
tomalophicon
Well-known
Give them to some poor kids and move on with your life.
gavinlg
Veteran
The shutter speed dial around the lens mount is meant to be changed with the left hand in the 'lens cradling' position, and myself and many other people feel this is possibly one of the best positions for a shutter speed dial ergonomically. You can even tell roughly shutter speed you're at without having to look at the dial - the two tabs positioned in the middle of the mount and you're at 1/30th - the lowest speed you should technically handhold at - very clever.
Otherwise, the 85mm is pretty sought after and has a somewhat legendary status. You'll find it will be smoother and more creamy in rendition than pretty much any other 85 out there.
Jockos
Well-known
Huge misstake on my part - I mistook the film speed dial for the shutter dial from the images on the web. With the shutter dial at the lens mount, I figure it will be very smooth handling, perhaps better than the 5D with dial on the back of the body.
Jockos
Well-known
Settled for an OM1, will be prowling the 'bay for a short tele.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Always felt the shutter speed location on the OM's and Nikkormats was the most logical location for such a dial. Of course, I also thought the dimmer switch for car headlights located on the floor under the left foot was also the best location, not on a stupid stalk near the steering wheel. 
Seriously, changing the shutter speed on an OM is effortless with the left hand cradling the lens.
Seriously, changing the shutter speed on an OM is effortless with the left hand cradling the lens.
gavinlg
Veteran
Good choice, you won't be disappointed. I had a pair of OM's and after using them for a while alongside an m6, I sold the m6. OM's are great.
Be aware of viewfinder rot on the OM1's.
Jockos
Well-known
Is this rot something I could prevent or fix? I consider myself to have sufficient skills for minor repairs as I CLAd a few small non interchangable lens rangefinders and a some FSU lenses.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nikkormat. Similar layout to an OM, with a wider range of better lenses, more reliable, and probably cheaper. Or buy a real camera: a Nikon F.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
gavinlg
Veteran
gavinlg
Veteran
John @ www.zuiko.com services om1's with new prisms (can get them from om10's etc) for really reasonable prices. At some point I'll buy a nice om1n, and arrange for the seller to send it directly to John for a full overhaul. This way you get a basically new OM, and it still ends up being rather cheap.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Matus
Well-known
I have spent some time choosing a compact manual focus SLR system (did not buy yet) and indeed the OM is a good alternative. But finally I somehow drifted towards Contax. Aria is compact, light and relatively modern and the f2.8 versions of 28, 35, 45, 50, 85 lenses and the 100/3.5 and 80-200/4 are reasonably (for me) priced and not too heavy. The deciding factor were the lenses as I prefer higher contrast.
I actually had OM1-n once for a while and the viewfinder was just staggering. The only way to get a bigger one is to get a 645 SLR.
I actually had OM1-n once for a while and the viewfinder was just staggering. The only way to get a bigger one is to get a 645 SLR.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Interesting, this. OM lenses must have VERY variable QC. The ones I've tried (not many, and long ago), and the ones my friends have tried (that I've seen real pics from, not web) and the ones I've heard of manufacturers testing (unfortunately I'm not at liberty to say who did the testing), have all done quite badly. And yet there is a ferocious fan base on the web.
This leaves only two possibilities. Some people are completely wrong, and the lenses are either all brilliant or all rubbish, or QC was variable.
The chum who shot glamour for a week in the Seychelles with OM kit (on loan from Olympus) and found that out of 5 lenses, only one met his standards of sharpness (and more importantly, his publishers' standards of sharpness), is somone I'd be inclined to believe. That doesn't mean I disbelieve those who sing the praises of their OM kit: just that I know that their opinion is not universally shared, so either they're wrong (unlikely) or QC is wobbly or different people like different lenses and have different standards of sharpness.
Cheers,
R.
This leaves only two possibilities. Some people are completely wrong, and the lenses are either all brilliant or all rubbish, or QC was variable.
The chum who shot glamour for a week in the Seychelles with OM kit (on loan from Olympus) and found that out of 5 lenses, only one met his standards of sharpness (and more importantly, his publishers' standards of sharpness), is somone I'd be inclined to believe. That doesn't mean I disbelieve those who sing the praises of their OM kit: just that I know that their opinion is not universally shared, so either they're wrong (unlikely) or QC is wobbly or different people like different lenses and have different standards of sharpness.
Cheers,
R.