Ade-oh
Well-known
My opinion is based on using the OM system for the last 32 years, alongside Nikon and Leica. I'm sure there are differences in resolving power and so on if you dig down into shooting test charts in lab conditions but as you know very well, Roger, under normal, practical shooting conditions and stopped down from open aperture, a lens would need to be really, really crappy to show much difference in 'sharpness' from Leica or Nikon. This is not meant to be offensive but your opinion - with the added thrill of secret lens testing! - sounds like the testosterone-charged brand snobbery which was rampant in consumer photographic magazines in the 1970's, alongside the topless girls.
As I say, I use Leica, Nikon and Olympus cameras in 35mm and I honestly couldn't tell the lenses apart for 'sharpness'. Distortion, particularly with wide-angles, is another matter but probably reflects the fact that the Zuiko designs are getting a bit long in the tooth now. I doubt they are all that much worse than Nikkor or Leica lenses from the same era.
So why is there such a fanbase for OM cameras and lenses? Because they're small and light, they work, they're reliable - I've never had a problem with any of mine - and, by and large, they're remarkably cheap for what you get nowadays in the secondhand market. Are they better than Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Minolta, Contax etc etc etc? Not in any measurable way, but neither are they any worse: in the hands of a competent user, they will produce excellent results.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'd not argue with much that you said, except that it wasn't 1970s photo magazines: it was a major picture library, and David (the photographer in question) was rather more pleased with the pics he got from a Rollei 35 (when his camera case went missing) than with the ones he got from Olympus. It certainly wasn't 'testosterone-charged brand snobbery': what he cared about was results.
As for the 'secret lens testing', it really was a source I'd trust, but as both they and Olympus are still in business, and I was told in confidence, I don't want to divulge it. As I recall, it was the company doing the testing who said that QC was all over the place.
I should also add that the aforementioned Seychelles shoot was in effect a system test: hard to say whether it was the 2 bodies or 5 lenses that didn't behave, because he wasn't testing: he was just taking pictures. I imagine (I can't recall) that Olympus contributed to the cost of the shoot 'cos I can't imagine why else he'd have been using an untested OM loaner system.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Ade-oh
Well-known
Well, perhaps I've been lucky, but the only duff Zuiko lens I've ever owned was a 35-105 zoom which I had in the mid-80s. It was a stinker, although not much different from a lot of zooms of that era.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Good thing that you realized this and took the time to explain this here.
I thought you're brainwashed by the OM detractors
One thing about this system, either you love it and "get it" or you hate it. Well... then there's always those who don't use it often enough but offer opinions anyways.
Also, there are funny and inaccurate "rumors" floating around like
- Zuiko 35/2 is an inferior lens
- OM bodies are flimsy
- Nikon lenses are *always* sharper
But I invite you to give it a try. It's a system that you just fall in love into the more you use it.
gavinlg
Veteran
All I can say to Mr Hicks is that I've only had good experiences with OM lenses. In fact it's probably one of my all-time favorite lens lines. There's a reason why they're so popular with Canon DSLR users - especially the wide angles - and that's because optically they're great, as well as being tiny in size. If anything this is important because I feel optical problems show up much more on a full frame digital SLR than they do on film. The Zuiko 21mm's and 18mm in particular are quite famous for being only second to the zeiss/contax 21mm distagon in optical performance - which is especially astounding because they're physically tiny - like 1/4th the size of the distagon.
Also, there are a few quirks with the OM lens line - like there are a few optical revisions in most of the focal lengths depending on the date of manufacture. For instance you can get the 'silver nose' zuikos that are single coated and first generation, which went into multicoated 'silver nose' models, which went into the later multicoated models with a black rim, and each of these may have had an optical revision depending on the focal length. The specific information for this is out there if you research it.
In general, the latest model OM lenses are both consistent and very nice optically - modern but not super contrasty like a contax/zeiss lens. The earlier ones (silver nose) are lower contrast again and a bit softer wide open, but they have more of a 'classic' rendering that some people really like.
There's a good thread of images made with OM lenses - many on digital SLRs here:
OM image thread - fm forums
Also, there are a few quirks with the OM lens line - like there are a few optical revisions in most of the focal lengths depending on the date of manufacture. For instance you can get the 'silver nose' zuikos that are single coated and first generation, which went into multicoated 'silver nose' models, which went into the later multicoated models with a black rim, and each of these may have had an optical revision depending on the focal length. The specific information for this is out there if you research it.
In general, the latest model OM lenses are both consistent and very nice optically - modern but not super contrasty like a contax/zeiss lens. The earlier ones (silver nose) are lower contrast again and a bit softer wide open, but they have more of a 'classic' rendering that some people really like.
There's a good thread of images made with OM lenses - many on digital SLRs here:
OM image thread - fm forums
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Roger,
But I'm very happy with my OM kit. And so do many others (but not too many to become a parroting club) because we use it. A lot.
Maybe we're a bunch of low-standard, know-nothings compared to your secret sources, but hey, at least we know personally why we like it.
If you happen to miss it, I invite you to a thread full of OM system goodness right here on RFF:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80528
Lots of photos in there, btw. Not just talks.
tjh
Well-known
I'll second the endorsement of the Pentax MX - excellent viewfinder with a large image and the lenses are very good. One downside is that while there are lots of 50mm lenses and a few others, like the 28, it is hard to find some of the focal lengths.
ferider
Veteran
Unless your OM[12] is in a specific serial number range, you have to get the prism foam removed. Contact John Hermanson for details. It's an easy DIY job, with the right tools.
Regarding Roger's comment on lens quality: I'm a user and hope my photos show this. However, I have tested my 50/1.4 Summilux v2 side by side against my OM 50/1.4 Zuiko, and the Zuiko is at least as good at infinity, and misses the typical veiling flare at close distance wide open.
I found all OM Zuikos that I used optimized for OOF rendition wide open. They typically become bitingly sharp (but at moderate contrast) at f5.6 or so, meaning typical user apertures. I guess if you like them or not depends on how you use them .... Go figure.
Roland.
Ljós
Well-known
For a time I used two Pentax MX as my cameras - fine cameras, I agree. Very good viewfinders, size about the same as OM-1.
Disadvantages: the mirror-slap is quite loud. (With most MX, you can prefire the shutter by flicking the finger at the shutter release. A second press will then fire the shutter. That way I could tell that the sound of the shutter itself was very quiet (it is cloth, like Leica M and OM-1), but the mirror really made a rumble (both MX were serviced and with fresh mirror foam). As for vibration from the mirror slap, the actual pictures never gave me trouble: I have a number of sharp (sharp enough for my taste, of course this is always subjective) 50mm pictures taken at 1/15th)
Metering and metering readout was top-notch, much more clever than Nikon FM2 (the color coding meant you could peripherally "see" whether you were in the ballpark).
Potential weakness: film transport is a bit rough. I think mechanically the OM-1 is a bit better.
The 50mm 1.4 M is very good, very nicely built, too. 50 1.7 M is also incredible, possibly even sharper.
oftheherd
Veteran
As to Zuiko vs Nikon, or others, I haven't used either so I can't contribute from usage, which is one of the ultimate tests. I do remember Modern Photography reporting that their chief lab tester was quoted as saying he could only tell the difference from certain minor color differences. And actually, the two brands were never identifed, but Zuiko and Nikon were strongly implied. Take that for what it is worth or not worth.
I've not heard of many Olympus OM1 users who were dis-satisfied, and it was usually ergonomics, not lens quality. However, for myself, I got into the Fuji system, with its Fujinon lenses. I found the ST901 to be a very easy camera to use, with its aperture preferred autoexposure. There weren't as many made as the Olympus, so they are harder to find, especially the lenses. If you have any like of the Minolta line of cameras and lenses, the XG-1 might be worth looking at, but wouldn't be a preference of mine.
I've not heard of many Olympus OM1 users who were dis-satisfied, and it was usually ergonomics, not lens quality. However, for myself, I got into the Fuji system, with its Fujinon lenses. I found the ST901 to be a very easy camera to use, with its aperture preferred autoexposure. There weren't as many made as the Olympus, so they are harder to find, especially the lenses. If you have any like of the Minolta line of cameras and lenses, the XG-1 might be worth looking at, but wouldn't be a preference of mine.
Thomas-Paris
Member
By those criteria, the Canon FD system would also be a good choice. A nice selection of high quality primes, reasonable prices because they don't fit any modern AF Canon bodies, and nice sturdy, pretty easy to maintain bodies with reliable electromagnetic shutters. The good primes are not small, though.
Jockos
Well-known
I'll look into this when I have the camera here so that I can check the numbers. I hope that it's not rubbish already.
jarski
Veteran
am envious how passionate OM users can be about their choice, vs. others using old SLR systems
Jockos
Well-known
Also I found a nice Brittish gentleman that sold me a 135/3.5 at a very reasonable price, so I guess I'll start with this and the 50/1.8 that comes with the camera!
As for the Nikonists always starting flame wars: all manufacturers have dog lenses, and great ones to, Nikon is not an exception.
As for the Nikonists always starting flame wars: all manufacturers have dog lenses, and great ones to, Nikon is not an exception.
Ade-oh
Well-known
am envious how passionate OM users can be about their choice, vs. others using old SLR systems
I'm sure I'd be the same with any other system, if I had used it for as long as I have the OMs (I'm also a big fan of the Nikon F3 and F5, the Leica MP, the Leica IIIc and the Pentax 67, fwiw). The weird thing about amateur photography is how ready some people seem to be to form judgements based on what equipment people use, rather than the images they create. Most odd!
FrankS
Registered User
Nikonists do not always start flame wars. Some do, as do some adherents to other brands.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
UPI adopted Olympus cameras in 1978 or 1979 but it didn't last long. I knew a number of UPI photographers at the time that ultimately used their own Nikon gear because of durability problems with the OM's under their pretty brutal use.
That said, I really love the OM's. Great cameras.
That said, I really love the OM's. Great cameras.
FrankS
Registered User
kuzano
Veteran
I've waited a long time to hear reference to this....
I've waited a long time to hear reference to this....
I had heard this in reference to the reason Olympus never really pursued the professional market. UPI purchased a significant number of OM-1's and journalists knocked them around like they had been doing with the much heavier Nikon gear. Thanks for the reference.
Even today with the Olympus 4/3 DSLR's, people on their forums are constantly grousing about why Olympus won't take on Canikon in the professional market, because of their superior Zuiko glass.
I've been shooting OM's for years, and am happily shooting Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3. Olympus has remained true to their decision to provide smaller, lighter and still reliable camera's. I treat my cameras well, and have never had problems with any of the digital offerings from Olympus. I can't recall an OM I ever wore out or broke on me.
Thanks again for that post and the verification of an old story told well.
I've waited a long time to hear reference to this....
I had heard this in reference to the reason Olympus never really pursued the professional market. UPI purchased a significant number of OM-1's and journalists knocked them around like they had been doing with the much heavier Nikon gear. Thanks for the reference.
Even today with the Olympus 4/3 DSLR's, people on their forums are constantly grousing about why Olympus won't take on Canikon in the professional market, because of their superior Zuiko glass.
I've been shooting OM's for years, and am happily shooting Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3. Olympus has remained true to their decision to provide smaller, lighter and still reliable camera's. I treat my cameras well, and have never had problems with any of the digital offerings from Olympus. I can't recall an OM I ever wore out or broke on me.
Thanks again for that post and the verification of an old story told well.
Ade-oh
Well-known
I can well believe it: weather sealing on the OM's is nowhere near as good as on Nikon F's, and they aren't as solidly built. Having said that, a good number of respected PJs did use them professionally, probably because of their size and versatility. Don McCullin springs immediately to mind, but there were others too.