Is OM they only way?

Ade-oh said:
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.
Click to expand...

This may be totally unrelated, but I worked in the forest product industry for years. Virtually every wood producer or sawmill I dealt with told me off-the-record comments about their competitors. Invariably, these off-the-record comments proved to be correct.

People in any industry talk, evaluate and spy on their competitors, and they're more than willing to tell you about it, off-the-record, if you want to listen. Just the nature of any business.

Jim B.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a shame, I was looking forward to you managing to rebut one of my statements.

Cheers,

A.
 
FrankS said:
Perhaps Roger and Ade-oh can continue their discussion by PM. (It can be unsettling for children to witness their parents arguing.)
Click to expand...

Alas not: he's put me on ignore!

Anyway, I'm off on my summer vacation on Saturday so there will be time for Roger's blood pressure to decrease before I return. FWIW, I'm taking an Olympus OM-4ti, a Leica (IIIc), a Nikonos and possibly a Minox LX with me: I'm liberal with my photographic affections.
 
SLR-wise, I have an extensive (3 film, 3 digital and 12 lens) Nikon system and a somewhat abbreviated, but serviceable (OM1n, 5 lenses) Olympus system, and have previously had a large (3 bodies, 7 lenses) Canon FD system. I state this to qualify my opinion as one who has first hand experience with Olympus vs it's competitors at the time Olympus' OM system was new.

I have not encountered any camera or lens construction issues that would suggest that Olympus' quality control lagged behind either Canon or Nikon's quality control. After using my OM1n from 1985 to 2009, I found it necessary to send it to Camtech for service. All of my Canon equipment was stolen in early 1985, so I cannot comment on it's durability, but while I owned it, it worked fine. I bought my Nikon FG used, and replaced the foam rubber, and cleaned the optics. A Nikon lens developed leaking oil onto the diaphragm leaves, so that the lens no longer stops down correctly. All of the auto-focus Nikon bodies are working fine without service, although the N80 has a broken mode dial, likely from a bump, but operation of the camera is not affected.

The lenses on all of the cameras, save the oil-bladed Nikkor, function well within their specifications.

Jockos said:
... What other systems in the same price range should I be looking at?
Click to expand...

I see that you have already selected an OM1. It's a good camera, I really enjoy using it. It is sturdy and well made, and somewhat quieter than the Nikons I also use. The things I miss with the OM1n is more versatile internal metering, and any sort of autoexposure. When I want AE, but still want to have a similar experience (small camera, manual focus, etc.) I use my (now completely refurbed) Nikon FG. When I want auto-everything, perfectly done, I use my Nikon F5. Then I get a bit of upper-body exercise too!

Olympus lenses are quite good, although I have never done any 'testing' on them. I like the way photographs I take with them look. The selection is a bit thinner than Nikon's but it covers any focal length range I would want to use, often with a choice of apertures and other features.

The selection of Nikon lenses is phenominal - more lenses are available than any other system. But they are also more pricey than other slr lenses, due to the fact that nearly all Nikon cameras - even brand new digital cameras - are directly compatable with most Nikon lenses. This is not true with Olympus Zuikos, which can be adapted to a variety of cameras, including digital Olympus cameras, but they are not fully functional in this configuration.

Canon FD cameras and lenses are orphaned just like Olympus. They are not 100% compatible with modern Canons, but they can be made to work. FD lenses are very affordable, and there are a lot of them available.

So it mostly comes down to ergonomics - the costs will be similar for all three systems. If you like the left-handed shutter speed arrangement of the Olympus, it is the only way to go. If on the other hand, you prefer the Nikon/Canon (and Leica, of course) top-of-the-camera dial, look elsewhere. All three slr systems focus, change aperture and load film similarly. The metering systems are different, but they all work.

Congratulations on your new camera.
 
Many times in the past manufacturers reps have denigrated the competition. It's the nature of the beast. Most, but not all should be taken with a very large grain of salt.
Roger was given information from a competitor of Olympus to a writer for a buff book. What is he supposed to say? Olympus is better?
How does a manufacturer determine consistency of QC unless they inspect more than a handful? And what do they compare it to? A block of aluminum, steel or brass?

I tried PM early on, lenses were comparable to Nikon but I didn't care for the location of the shutter speed ring or the size of the body. Same dislike for SS ring on the Nikkormat. I guess I was too used to the SS dial on top of the camera to be happy.

To the comment that Nikon was the only system camera in the 70's that's simply not true. Canon and Olympus both had sophisticated systems available. Maybe not as complete as Nikon but system cameras none the less.
 
Landshark said:
Many times in the past manufacturers reps have denigrated the competition. It's the nature of the beast. Most, but not all should be taken with a very large grain of salt.
Roger was given information from a competitor of Olympus to a writer for a buff book. What is he supposed to say? Olympus is better?
Click to expand...

They didn't see Olympus as a competitor. Nor did I. The information wasn't volunteered, as had already explained in an earlier post. And these weren't reps, again, as pointed out: I tend to believe a lot less of what I hear from salesmen.

Let's just turn this 'grain of salt' thing around a moment. I was there. You weren't. I knew the people. You dìdn't. I am not completely gullible: I have a certain amount of experience in guessing whether people are talking nonsense or not, especially in a field in which I've now worked for a very long time. It was nothing at all to do with any article I was writing, or planning to write. People who are passionately interested in a field often discuss things in that field; quite frequently, though you apparently find it hard to believe, without any ulterior motive than being interested.

If you care to regard me as a gullible fool who will believe anything he is told, this is your privilege. But you might also consider the remote possibility that I may not be quite as gullible as you seem to think.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
dtcls100 said:
While I generally find Roger's contributions and thoughts helpful and further understand that he had negative experiences with Olympus OM cameras and lenses many years ago, Roger cannot seem to resist the impulse to bad mouth Olympus OM equipment every chance he gets. 😀
Click to expand...

Well, I don't see it as bad mouthing, but merely as redressing the gushing praise that comes from some other quarters. I do not notice you complaining that others are unable to resist the temptation to praise OMs at every opportunity.

As I think I mentioned above, I'm very fond of my Pen W, but equally, I've never been able to understand the adulation heaped upon either the Pen F SLRs or the OM series.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think OM fans should really "big-up" the OM gear, as I want to get top whack when I sell my OM stuff. (I really like OMs and Zuiko lenses, but they just aren't getting enough use)

Feel free to big-up FD, ETRS, and Nikkormat too 😛

WRT Zuikos, I have found that the 50/3.5 Macro is an incredibly sharp lens, even wide open (if f/3.5 can be described as wide open). Most others perform best, in terms of sharpness/contrast at least, at mid apertures - often being a bit soft or even veiled wide open.
Bear in mind I've not used any of the "legendary" exotic lenses that cost a few bob 😱

Who wants to mention on the Leica forum that the "Leica glow" is due to a poor lens - lol that would stir up a hornet's nest !
 
Last edited:
Hey, all Roger said was:

"Someone told me, after testing with real life results -back then- Olympus OM cameras/lenses seem to present variable quality, maybe more than Leica and Nikon..."

It sounds totally possible to me, and these reactions seem a bit exaggerated...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I worked in a camera shop in the 1970s, we sold Nikon, Pentax, Canon, and Olympus. I steered customers away from the Olympus OM-1md an OM-2 in favor of the Pentax and Nikon lines. The Pentax ME and MX were about the same price and size. The lenses were fully multicoated. The Nikon line was more expensive, but for someone placing heavier use and preferring a motor drive, was a good choice.

The Olympus OM-1md had a 15% failure rate out of the box. The other cameras did not have the high failure rate. That is based on first hand experience.

I picked up some Olympus OM series lenses (135/2.8, 50/1.4 late, and 28/3.5) in a trade, and finally -after three attempts- got a working body. Nice lenses, but traded the outfit for a Contax IIa.
 
Olympus lenses have performance comparable with the lenses of the day, from a 1976 test. The black dot is the performance of the lens being tested. The bar is the range of performance of lenses in the same class, F1.2, F1.4, F1.7~F2, etc. Note that the measured F-Stop of the Olympus lenses is a bit slower than that marked. F1.2 is an F1.3, F1.4 is closer to F1.5.

picture.php
 
Last edited:
Oh my, I haven't seen this thread for a couple of days and it festered into a full-blown debate.

To those who don't get why people could like such a non-robust body, QC variance as ragged as the Himalayas and so-so lenses, please continue using your choices of gear and move on with your lives.

Stop wasting your time and energy on us, hapless OM users and fans. 🙂

The rest of us OM users, let's just keep building that mega-thread about OM Zuikoholic goodness, I long to see that thread appear in the Guinness Book of World Records as the longest SLR thread in a Rangefinder camera forum.

And I love the irony 🙂
 
There is brand loyalty, brand allegiance, brand cheerleaders, and brand evangelists.

If you like Olympus, great. I have cameras from most of the major, and several minor brands. Of Nikon, Leica SLR , Olympus, Kodak Retina, Konica, Fujica, Yashica, Canon- I just could not latch onto the Leicaflex and Olympus. Sold the Leicaflex and traded the Olympus. I do have an EP-2 and an Olympus Stylus zoom. Used the latter at the beach, and at the waterpark yesterday. Left it out with the flip-flops when going swimming. Picked it up for $3, about the same as the flip flops. No one took it. Put it in a plastic bag going down the water slides. Still works.
 
shadowfox said:
Oh my, I haven't seen this thread for a couple of days and it festered into a full-blown debate.
Click to expand...

guess what drew also others to post here, besides OM fans, was the name of topic: "Is OM they only way?"

it really isn't the only way, and IMHO, there are many better ways.

well we're in off-topic now, guess things cool down from now on 😛
 
A dump truck is more rugged than a Ferrari. But then a Ferrari is more enjoyable to own and operate.

If you need to haul 10 ton of boulders the dump truck is your choice. But if you just want to have a little fun on the weekends who doesn't love a Ferrari?

We are using these relics to have a little fun. Who cares if a Nikon can stop a bullet? We aren't stopping bullets here are we?

The OM1 is the first film SLR I ever owned. Olympus OM's are the only film SLRs I have ever owned and they will be the last. They still work and will work long after film has disappeared from the Earth. I never wished I had a different brand.
 
If I remember correctly, Bruce Davidson used an OM system to shoot most or all of Subway. Really, what stronger recommendation could there possibly be?
 
Camera rated Exc+, looks like it was picked straight out of a dumpster. The prism is rotten, the grip is all bumpy in front, it's very filthy overall, hot shoe is cracked, and the lens rubber ring is loose.

Sent the seller a message, hoping for a partial refund to cover repair and cleaning costs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom