Is OM they only way?

[redisburning]

as far as variable QC goes I have only some anecdotal evidence to share.

I got a decent deal on a 50mm f1.4 with a very, very high serial number so I bought it despite having a silvernose 50mm f1.4 that I was frankly pretty happy with.

well a while later I actually picked up a canon dslr due to how expensive film processing in Boston is (now I just shoot b&w unless it's a special occasion where Im happy to eat the cost of developing) and I got myself one of those adapters.

well at this point I thought to myself, you know I dont need both of these 50mms, so let's see how much better the MC version is and if it's not too much Ill just sell it since it's worth more and because the silvernose was given to me.

I found center sharpness and color fringing to be superior on the silvernose both at short range and infinity. I was SHOCKED. trust me, I went over the frames over and over and over, redid them, but wide open the silvernose was just better.

good early lens? bad late lens? dunno, as I only had two to look at. anyway I have neither the digital camera nor the latest serial number 50mm anymore. Im happy for that but mostly for reasons other than sharpness.

I love OM cameras. I didnt chose OM, but I loved it the second I put my hands on it. An OM-1 was my first camera, you know, given to me by my grandfather who used it all over the globe including Antarctica. So perhaps I am biased, well maybe not perhaps. I think if you have a modest budget, Id chose it over F and FD.

I guess given an unlimited budget and I couldnt chose a rangefinder, I might go for a nikon pro body with zeiss lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Both OM users and FSU users tend to be extremely defensive of their choices. Maybe it's because they're better photographers than most, and produce better pictures with equipment that many dismiss. But they do seem, sometimes, to protest rather more than others. As I said in earlier posts, I don't wish to denigrate their choices, or to say that the information I have is necessarily better. But given that part of the purpose of this forum to to help people decide whether to buy equipment they don't already own, it's not a bad corrective sometimes to point out that not everyone agrees with uncritical praise of any camera system, be it FSU, OM, Hasselblad, Contax, Leica...

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

Please let's not go attributing certain characteristics based on camera brand/type loyalty! Let's just all be photographers together, using different tools and that's okay.

 

[Ade-oh]

Maybe it's because they're better photographers than most, and produce better pictures with equipment that many dismiss. But they do seem, sometimes, to protest rather more than others...

I suspect it's because of the prevailing attitude on internet forums and in the consumer photographic press that, in essence, 'you can't be a serious photographer unless you use [brand X]' which has never really included Olympus OM (or FSU cameras for that matter). It's a patronising attitude which eventually becomes irksome.

In the 1970s, Olympus OM was the only serious rival to Nikon as a comprehensive 35mm SLR system and, while the cameras weren't as robust as Nikon F's for day-to-day press use, in some professional applications it was way ahead of Nikon - macrophotography, photomicrography and astro-photography spring to mind. Those of us who have used the system for a long period - 32 years in my case - know that it works very well indeed and that the majority of the lenses are comparable with any SLR lens made by Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Leica in the same period.

Or, at least, I thought I did: what a fool I now feel to discover that secret testing by an unnamed camera manufacturer revealed - many years ago - that I was deceiving myself, and that all those pictures I thought were sharp were actually all nasty and soft and fluffy. Will I ever be able to show my face on the internet again?

😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I suspect it's because of the prevailing attitude on internet forums and in the consumer photographic press that, in essence, 'you can't be a serious photographer unless you use [brand X]' which has never really included Olympus OM (or FSU cameras for that matter). It's a patronising attitude which eventually becomes irksome.

In the 1970s, Olympus OM was the only serious rival to Nikon as a comprehensive 35mm SLR system and, while the cameras weren't as robust as Nikon F's for day-to-day press use, in some professional applications it was way ahead of Nikon - macrophotography, photomicrography and astro-photography spring to mind. Those of us who have used the system for a long period - 32 years in my case - know that it works very well indeed and that the majority of the lenses are comparable with any SLR lens made by Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Leica in the same period.

Or, at least, I thought I did: what a fool I now feel to discover that secret testing by an unnamed camera manufacturer revealed - many years ago - that I was deceiving myself, and that all those pictures I thought were sharp were actually all nasty and soft and fluffy. Will I ever be able to show my face on the internet again?

😀

Second highlight: Oh, come on. It was genuine testing by a very highly regarded manufacturer, and the facts that you don't like it or I can't reveal the source are really beside the point.

First highlight: There's sometimes a fine line between 'patronizing' or 'irksome' on the one hand, and 'thin skinned' on the other.

We're all thin skinned at times, but I doubt I'm alone in describing FSU and Olympus owners as being, on average, thinner skinned than average. I've tried to make it clear that I don't really believe this has much to do with image quality, as this is mostly down to the photographer: I have long promoted the idea of the 'quality threshold', above which the photographer counts more than the kit. Olympuses are almost always above this threshold (and before you pick on 'almost always' I'll quote the 43-86 Nikkor -- NO manufacturer always got it right). There's not a lot more I can say.

Addendum: ...but there's one more thing I can say. I've been involved in professional photographic journalism for two to three decades, and professional photography for closer to four. This means that some of the information I've garnered is not always readily available from other sources. Whether you choose to believe it or not, and regardless of the respect (or lack of it) that you may have for my opinions, maybe it's not a good idea dismiss as nonsense everything I say -- or even to dismiss the bits that don't suit your preconceptions. Am I infallible? Far from it. Do I attempt to give honest, informed opinions? Usually, though I'm not always very good at it. But nor is anyone else.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Monz]

Yoshi's Children by *monz*, on Flickr

I bought an OM1 several years ago for very little money, was gifted an OM10 and later bought an OM3 for quite a bit of money. All are great cameras: small, light and possessing a very large and bright viewfinder, especially in the case of the OM1.

The only thing I don't like is the rather fragile hotshoe attachment of the OM1 - they always seem to crack.

Click the picture above for more info.

 

[redisburning]

well, Id seriously consider trading my OM kit for an equivalent M kit.

I dont believe it's the best out there without exception, but if you like good wideangles, big bright finders and small cameras olympus is hard to beat IMO.

and as thin skinned as we may be at least we arent at each others throats like the canon/nikon guys.

 

[John Hermanson]

OM-10: horrible choice if you're at all serious about photography. Tons of factory problems, especially "the first picture you take after camera has sat for a while will probably be overexposed by 5-10 stops". Plastic shutter curtain shafts, lotsa plastic. It was an entry level camera, you can't rely on it. I know, I was at Olympus in NY when they were being repaired under warranty. I suggest high serial number OM-1, any 1N, or OM-2N. John

 

[Monz]

OM-10: horrible choice if you're at all serious about photography. Tons of factory problems, especially "the first picture you take after camera has sat for a while will probably be overexposed by 5-10 stops". Plastic shutter curtain shafts, lotsa plastic. It was an entry level camera, you can't rely on it. I know, I was at Olympus in NY when they were being repaired under warranty. I suggest high serial number OM-1, any 1N, or OM-2N. John

Yes, but the OM10 is cheap as chips (well about £20 in UK) and the Ap Priority can be handy in some circumstances. .. but agree OM1/ OM1N are much nicer.

 

[Ade-oh]

Second highlight: Oh, come on. It was genuine testing by a very highly regarded manufacturer, and the facts that you don't like it or I can't reveal the source are really beside the point.

Roger, the fact that you can't reveal the source or point at a test report or anything of the sort makes your claimed insider knowledge here meaningless. Notwithstanding your - doubtless well deserved - reputation as a photographic equipment guru, your story of the comparative OM Zuiko lens test by a major manufacturer is simply hearsay, and weak hearsay at that. Whether I like it or not is immaterial: there are a whole host of reasons to be wary when a representative of a major photographic equipment manufacturer tells a widely published photographic equipment critic that secret testing has revealed that their lenses are better than someone else's. This is not a dig at you: it's just reality.

First highlight: There's sometimes a fine line between 'patronizing' or 'irksome' on the one hand, and 'thin skinned' on the other.

We're all thin skinned at times, but I doubt I'm alone in describing FSU and Olympus owners as being, on average, thinner skinned than average. I've tried to make it clear that I don't really believe this has much to do with image quality, as this is mostly down to the photographer: I have long promoted the idea of the 'quality threshold', above which the photographer counts more than the kit. Olympuses are almost always above this threshold (and before you pick on 'almost always' I'll quote the 43-86 Nikkor -- NO manufacturer always got it right). There's not a lot more I can say.

I agree with you about the 'quality threshold' but not about where it lies. I would suggest that every modern camera I've used since taking up photography as a serious hobby circa 1978 has been above that threshold, in that in the hands of a competent photographer they could all produce images of first-rate quality. This is most obviously the case with modern high-tech film and digital SLRs, but is equally true of the borrowed Practikas and Topcons I used when I first started.

I know you're scornful of the whole 'Bert Hardy-Box Brownie' scenario but the bottom line is that it's true: if you understand that photography is about light and composition, and know how your camera and lens will deal with it, then you can get tremendous results from apparently unpromising equipment. Olympus OM gear is not unpromising: it is as good as any other kit of its era in most respects, better in some, less good in others. So what? So nothing. In all the years I've been using OM gear, I've read photo equipment journalists opinions telling me that it isn't quite Nikon, and it isn't quite Leica, but I knew that anyway. The fact is that almost all the photographic gear produced in the last twenty or thirty years by major manufacturers has been eminently fit for purpose by anyone prepared to learn how to use it. Hinting that OM users are somehow deluded is really just silly.

 

[wblynch]

OM users seem to be happy in their isolated little world.

I find Olympus users don't go around denigrating other brands, yet I've had to listen to the insults for over 36 years.

Doesn't matter. I love my OM's and have never owned a different brand SLR. Don't need to.

By the way, the half dozen true photojournalists I have known in my life all swear by Nikon gear yet I never knew any of them to take particularly sharp or even well exposed pictures. They were all 'get the shot and worry later' kind of guys. But then I knew them mostly in the Viet Nam war years and most of their pictures went straight to newspapers and weekly magazines.

So, I don't particularly consider photojournalists experts on image quality.

 

[flip]

To OP:
Glad you made a decision. I made the same one and have been content with it, in spite of overpaying. Also, it's nice to know that lenses you get for OM can be used elsewhere as well.

 

[Jockos]

To OP:
Glad you made a decision. I made the same one and have been content with it, in spite of overpaying. Also, it's nice to know that lenses you get for OM can be used elsewhere as well.

Thanks! I'm sure I'll enjoy this little gem until it disintegrates.

Regarding using the glass on other cameras - any suggestions on what adapters are good for my 5DII? I have a cheapo eBay adapter for my Minolta 28/2.8 which goes beyond infinity, but like to get a proper adapter for the Zuikos..

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, the fact that you can't reveal the source or point at a test report or anything of the sort makes your claimed insider knowledge here meaningless.

. . .

Hinting that OM users are somehow deluded is really just silly.

Para 1: No it doesn't. I just means that you choose to ignore it, or disbelieve me, or whatever. That's fine.

Para 2: You are quite right. It would be silly, if it is what I had been saying. But I'm not. I'm just saying that not everyone is equally impressed by OMs, and that anyone considering buying one, on the basis of complete unfamiliarity with the system, might with advantage be exposed to an alternative view, rather than just the OM fan club. They can then decide what they want to do. As far as I can see, the OP has chosen to buy an OM. That's fine too.

The difference between out two viewpoints seems to be this: you don't like my viewpoint, and are doing your best to discredit me. I don't feel any need to discredit you, or even particularly to disagree, but I did feel a need to help the OP make up his mind.

In other words, your viewpoint is fine, but so is mine.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ade-oh]

The difference between out two viewpoints seems to be this: you don't like my viewpoint, and are doing your best to discredit me. I don't feel any need to discredit you, or even particularly to disagree, but I did feel a need to help the OP make up his mind.

In other words, your viewpoint is fine, but so is mine.

Roger, I suppose that in the sense that your claim of arcane insider knowledge is not a valid premise, I am discrediting your argument, although not you. But yes, of course you're entitled to your viewpoint.

 

[flip]

Thanks! I'm sure I'll enjoy this little gem until it disintegrates.

Regarding using the glass on other cameras - any suggestions on what adapters are good for my 5DII? I have a cheapo eBay adapter for my Minolta 28/2.8 which goes beyond infinity, but like to get a proper adapter for the Zuikos..

Hrっm。I can"t help you any more than a google search would as my adapters are for pen and for pen on NEX.

 

[ChrisN]

OM-10: horrible choice if you're at all serious about photography. Tons of factory problems, especially "the first picture you take after camera has sat for a while will probably be overexposed by 5-10 stops". Plastic shutter curtain shafts, lotsa plastic. It was an entry level camera, you can't rely on it. I know, I was at Olympus in NY when they were being repaired under warranty. I suggest high serial number OM-1, any 1N, or OM-2N. John

Oh, my OM10 is offended! I must have got a good one: bought it new in the early '70's; never any problems, hundreds of rolls put through it. 🙂

Mind you, I was tempted by the OM2 you had listed last week; just the shipping cost to Australia killed the deal for me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I suppose that in the sense that your claim of arcane insider knowledge is not a valid premise, I am discrediting your argument, although not you. But yes, of course you're entitled to your viewpoint.

No, it's a premise you refuse to accept. There is a difference.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ade-oh]

No, it's a premise you refuse to accept. There is a difference.

Cheers,

R.

No Roger, it isn't a valid premise because you are the only person who can possibly know if it is true or false.

 

[redisburning]

No, it's a premise you refuse to accept. There is a difference.

Cheers,

R.

No Roger, it isn't a valid premise because you are the only person who can possibly know if it is true or false.

Roger I'm afraid he does have a point.

If you aren't willing to share the source, that's fine. But that being the case it may have been better to not mention it to begin with. While you certainly have an elevated level of clout around here (many, many times what I would ever have) you are asking us to believe a statement which we have literally no way of verifying.

Additionally, if we consider things like Gary Reese's lens tests, user reviews, etc. it does seem at odds with the general consensus as well. Not that it makes your story impossible or even implausible, just harder to accept with as little detail as you provided.

What I dont understand is that we have digital cameras now which essentially means you can test any lens you get your hands on but I dont think Ive seen any attempt to make an update to the Reese lens tests.