Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, either I'm a liar and it isn't true, or I'm telling the truth, and it is. If you want to go on calling me a liar, you're welcome, but it doesn't advance your argument very much.
Also, your logic is shaky. A premise need be neither true nor demonstrable in order to be valid, thus, "If the moon is made of green cheese, it would be big enough to feed a lot of mice for a long time." The premise may be demonstrably false (as the one Olympus QC isn't, because you can't prove I'm making it up) or weak (as you believe this to be, perhaps because you think I'm lying, though why I might feel the need to lie about something so trivial is another question again).
Finally, no, I'm not the only person who can possibly know if it's true or not. Several people in the company might remember it (it was a long time ago) and so would some of the others to whom they communicated their findings. What you mean is, you don't know it's true, and you aren't prepared to take my word for it. Which is fine. Why am I continuing this argument? Because I dislike weak arguments even more than you dislike unsupported statements.
Cheers,
R.
Thomas-Paris
Member
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.
Out of curiosity: does that mean you think they're probably fine, generally, given their age? Or do you think yours is fine, because you haven't mistreated it, but better to be very wary on the used market? From what it sounds like, there were QC issues, the things weren't generally the most robust in the world, and they were inexpensive, so probably got treated badly. But that's just second-hand, and though I've been tempted by the size, I've never seriously considered getting into the OM system.
Incidentally, I have two cameras that I think are on opposite ends of that dichotomy I posed: my Zorkii 3M has clearly been babied during its life. It's in great shape, but it took a lot of looking to find one that worked so well. My Canon AT-1 has been through hell, abused (having been left in a trunk in Death Valley for 6 months in the 70's was the worst of it, but not the end of it), and generally treated like the cheaper stepsister to the AE-1. Got the AT-1 and AE-1 from a relative in the 1990's, and it's hilarious how they're both in great condition. That little all-manual Canon is one tough little SLR. I imagine it's a lot easier to get a good AT-1 used than it is to get a used Zorkii. (and yeah, I'd love to have a nice Leica setup, besides the Zorkii, but I'd rather use the money on other things...)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlighted portion: You are absolutely right about that, but it's too late now. I certainly wish I had not mentioned it. But if you think it's a worthless statement, just ignore it. It's not that important. It's something I was told many years ago about a (relatively) minor camera brand, concerning a model that is no longer in production. I really don't mind if people say to me that they don't think it's worth giving much weight, or indeed any weight at all, and I'm not all that fussed if people call me a liar, though (as noted above) I have to ask myself why they think I would make up such a thing. To make myself sound clever? I'm not that stupid: trying to look clever almost always backfires.
Cheers,
R.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Roger, if you want people to believe your assertions of fact, even in a trivial controversy such as this, you really ought to be prepared to back it up with evidence. The logical argument that you have proposed is, in effect, 'A therefore B', whereas the example that you have given is 'If A therefore B' where the truth of A is immaterial. To prove A therefore B, A needs to be true and, in this case, you can't back it up. What you are actually trying to tell us is that some years ago, a camera manufacturer secretly told you that they had tested their own lenses and they were better than a rival manufacturer's lenses. I'm not suggesting that you're lying (though I won a small bet with myself when you claimed that I was) but it is, as I've suggested previously, a more or less meaningless claim, both on your behalf and that of the mystery manufacturer, unless it can be supported with evidence.
Are you sure you aren't being a little thin-skinned about this?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You have put your finger on the nub of the problem. I care less about you (or anyone else) believing me, than I do about upsetting the source of the information. As I have said elsewhere, if you don't want to believe me, don't. If you think I might be telling the truth, do. How difficult is that?
Also, you're putting words into my mouth, and inaccurately at that. What I'm actually saying is that a good few years ago, a manufacturer told a number of journalists that when it came to QC, Olympus OM-series kit in production at the time was at the bottom end of all the ones they tested: not just their own. He told us, furthermore, with the usual sort of proviso along the lines of "but don't tell anyone who says so." This sort of thing is quite common in journalism and indeed in many other fields of life.
To reiterate: I don't care if you believe me or not. Either you don't, in which case you are calling me a liar, despite your protestations to the contrary, or you do, but you'd like some proof. As I have said, I am not going to provide the latter, nor yet the name of the company in question, so it's a simple choice of whether you believe what I'm saying or not. I really don't care either way. Some will believe me: some won't. Journalism is like that.
No, I don't think this is being thin-skinned. It's trying to conduct a logical argument with someone who creates his own definitions of premises and tells me that I 'have' to do things, which patently, I don't.
Cheers,
R.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Roger,
In the field of writing and journalism which I work in, making unsupported statements derived from a manufacturer's PR briefing is generally regarded as a bit of a death-knell for one's career.
Anyway, never mind. You're entitled to your opinions about Olympus OM quality control in the 1970s and 80s even though, as you say, you have little experience of using the equipment. My own experience has been that the cameras and lenses are robust and reliable. In their day, they were state of the art and they are still highly usable, good fun and, for the most part, excellent value for money. I'd suspect that items suffering from initial QC issues will have generally gone to the wall in the many years since they were manufactured, leaving what's still with us as being of reasonable quality.
Generally, making a choice amongst the 'legacy' camera systems is pretty much entirely a matter of subjective taste by now: criteria tend to be issues like size, cost, battery availability and availability of system parts; performance is going to be pretty much the same for all of them.
taskoni
Well-known
For example I don't need evidence to believe what Roger is saying. I can believe him because I was handling Olympus OM's before and NOT only because of that
If the OP is after the OM system because is cheap, that's fine. Looks like he already has made up his mind, so after all the arguing I don't feel comfortable to give an opinion on topic. I'll just say there are many better SLR cameras out there and the OM makes a good (and in my case unwanted) present IMO.
Sorry in advance that my opinion is different than yours folks - I see most likely you are not ready to accept different opinions so let be it.
I would like to ask the OP if he ever handled OM camera before?
gavinlg
Veteran
For example I don't need evidence to believe what Roger is saying. I can believe him because I was handling Olympus OM's before and NOT only because of that
If the OP is after the OM system because is cheap, that's fine. Looks like he already has made up his mind, so after all the arguing I don't feel comfortable to give an opinion on topic. I'll just say there are many better SLR cameras out there and the OM makes a good (and in my case unwanted) present IMO.
Sorry in advance that my opinion is different than yours folks - I see most likely you are not ready to accept different opinions so let be it.
I would like to ask the OP if he ever handled OM camera before?
Just out of pure curiosity - what makes you say the OM's are second rate to other systems?
taskoni
Well-known
P.S.
Thanks God this thread has very little to do with me and my career is not in danger
Mackinaw
Think Different
You may well be right here. I got to believe it would be quite hard to conceive, design, engineer and mass-produce a brand new 35mm camera system from scratch, especially one as different as the Olympus OM-series. Also remember we're talking 1970's technology and manufacturing techniques. I'm sure engineering and production mistakes were made and that resulted in variable QC the first few years of production. I'm also sure that as the years went by, Olympus worked the bugs out and that later production stuff was pretty good.
Jim B.
taskoni
Well-known
Hey.
I personally didn't like the ergonomic, the overall feel how the body handles. That's why I suggest to the OP to try it first. To give you similar example I have Leica R7 but now I rarely use it because of the same reason, although it feels more comfortable to me. I found the Canon AE-1 etc. to be more comfortable. Please note I am not talking about lenses and technical stuff. We all know too little why and what reasons the OP have to go after OM or what he's going to do/shoot with it.
Regards,
b.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Sorry to get in: this has been an interesting (and civilized) thread to me...
That fact that only Roger knows, apart from people involved in the test, is not a reason to consider the premise is not valid, IMO...
I just know less than anyone, as I have never used any OM lens or camera...
Cheers,
Juan
taskoni
Well-known
... and to stay on topic would remind you all that there was question in the OP's post as well which I'll try to answer if I may :angel:
Dear Joachim,
I had couple of suggestions in mind but after reading that interesting discussion I found out that OM's are the best cameras money can buy!
Go for it!
Regards,
b.
Ade-oh
Well-known
In that case I think you misunderstood it. OM's are no better than Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Fuji, Yashica, Contax, Leica and all the other cameras of their era... but they aren't measurably worse either. It's a matter of personal choice depending on what criteria are important to the individual.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Once again, you're twisting words, which is generally regarded as something of a death-knell in the kind of journalism I've been involved in for some decades. You get caught sooner or later.
What I actually said was that manufacturers often make statements 'off the record'. So do politicians and many others. If you never get 'off the record' statements, then presumably, nobody trusts you, or nobody thinks you are worth bothering with.
I also said that in journalism, some people believe you, and some don't. Often, those who don't are those who have made their minds up in advance, and do not wish to be confused by any consideration of the facts,let alone by any consideration of others' opinions.
Finally, who said it was a PR briefing? It is actually possible to talk to engineers, and to get questions that are (sometimes) honest and accurate. This was a side-issue that came up in the course of discussing something completely different, if I recall correctly, at a trade show.
The conversation actually went something like this, "We do it thus-and-so, and we believe that our QC is very good,because we take a lot of other manufacturers' stuff apart. We are reasonably confident that it is as good as anyone's." [Discussion follows about different ways of doing QC, machine work vs. hand work, taking other manufacturers' stuff apart, as everyone does, etc.] Then, a question, "Whose is the worst QC?" -- "Oh, I don't really like to say." -- "Go on." -- "Oh, all right, Olympus's current SLRs [as they then were]. But don't tell anyone we said so."
That is a pure reconstruction of the gist of the conversation: I am sure they were not the exact words used. At this remove, I don't feel too bad about repeating what I was told when OMs were relatively new cameras. But I'd feel very uncomfortable about revealing the source. I really didn't think that revealing the comment mattered all that much, given that we're talking about a minor system that never achieved widespread popularity. I should have known better, given the fierce partisanship of OM users.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Choosing which camera system to use is largely a subjective decision because the capabilities of the different systems are pretty much evolved to the same degree and the build quality of the major systems are similar, subject as they are to market forces of demand and economic viability. In my collection of 35mm slr camera gear, I have and have taken pictures with several models of each of these brands: Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and Contax. It basically boils down to a personal preference. Each brand has bodies that are stronger and weaker, and lenses that are top performers and weaker performers. Any general judgement on which brand is better than others is pretty subjective and based on individual needs and preferences. The photographer beind the camera is much more important to the final results than what brand of camera he/she is holding. Surely we all know that.
Perhaps Roger and Ade-oh can continue their discussion by PM. (It can be unsettling for children to witness their parents arguing.)
Can't we all just get along?
Perhaps Roger and Ade-oh can continue their discussion by PM. (It can be unsettling for children to witness their parents arguing.)
Can't we all just get along?
Last edited:
Ade-oh
Well-known
That may be the way you work in the trade press but if I'm given off the record information as background ('off the record statements'? Come on...), I tend to treat it with a great deal of caution: there are always reasons why interviewees want to go off the record. Did you, by any chance, follow up this nugget with Olympus? I'd have thought it would be a hot story back then when Olympus was a significant player in the SLR market.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, you do it your way, and I'll do it mine. We're still both working in our respective fields so probably we're both doing something right, or at least, right enough for our editors.
One reason for staying 'off the record' is that you don't want to cause unnecessary grief. Note the word UNNECESSARY. The people I was talking to did not see Olympus as a threat, so why antagonize them with an off-hand remark? 'Significant player'? Not really. They were a second- or third-rank SLR system, which many found unergonomic and hard to focus, but which even then had attracted diehard devotees.
As I never had that much interest in Olympus, I didn't bother to follow it up. Why would I, at the time? To ensure that Olympus never advertised in anything I wrote for again, or that I never wrote or anything that wanted Olympus advertising? And having to spend more time with a camera that had already underwhelmed me? I'm very fond of my Pen W, but I just steer clear of kit that doesn't interest me, or that I can't find something nice to say about.
This was an idle comment, made more than three decades ago, and idly reported a few days ago. Now it's causing unnecessary grief, as it always does when you make negative comments about anything, because there are always a few people who are unable to accept even the slightest negative comments about the things they hold dear. Much like religion, really.
EDIT: To avid further argument, because of a flaw in my own character (I find it very hard to ignore statements that seem to me to need rebuttal), I'll just put you on ignore for a few days so I don't see whatever reply you make to this. It should save a lot of time for both of us.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Ade-oh
Well-known
They may not have achieved the market they sought but the launch of the OM system was Olympus's attempt to grab a very significant share of the SLR market back in the 70s: the fact that their quality control was letting them down would strike me as a good story. It's the kind of thing you could get on the business pages of a national daily, let alone into 'Amateur Photographer'.
Anyway, I'm just teasing you now... a final thought though. I would certainly accept that a lot of people struggled (and struggle) with the ergonomics of OMs - but focusing? Would it be because they're blinded by the super-bright viewfinder image?
gavinlg
Veteran
Well, camera opinions are certainly subjective, because I found my om1 and om2 so be sweeter than honey in terms of ergonomics! And the easiest SLR to focus I've used!