Is the OM1 that much better than ...

nikon_sam said:
oftheherd,

Sorry that would be a "No"...I still have them...actually they're my wifes...I bought her a Pentax years ago but it was too complicated for her so it really never got used...Then I gave her a Pentax Program Super that I had but didn't use and handed the Vivitars to her also...long story short...she doesn't use any of it...So I guess I have some Pentax stuff I could get rid of...Her stuff and the MX my daughter doesn't use...

BUT, I did get a Vivitar Series 1 135mm 2.3 in Nikon mount and do used it plenty...Now that's a heavy lens...nothing but metal and glass...:D
Click to expand...

Alas! Poor Series 1's. :D I have seen the 135mm on ebay and bid several times, but they always got too expensive for my blood. Now my Fujinon 135mm is light, but then it is an f/3.5 too. One thing Fuji tried hard to do was keep all its lenses with 49mm filter sizes. As I recall, Olympus tried to keep theirs the same size too. Made for compact lenses, but not always desired low light capabilities. Fuji had a 75-150mm that was small and light. I think I have only seen one for sale. I would love to have one. But they are more rare than other Fujinons in screw mount.

Is the Series 1 135mm a close focus lens also?
 
I got the 135 on ebay and for a great price...it had issues but not stated in "Item Description"...the linkage for the aperture blades was slightly bent and would cause a slow movement of aperture blades...I worked on it till I got it right...everything else is just about perfect...nice clean glass and it came with a filter...72mm...

Yes, it does focus very close...and then you can mount extension tubes on it too...WOW!!!

I wasn't too happy with the built-in lenshood...found that the Nikon HN-20 works just fine...
 
nikon_sam said:
Trius,

The problem with the shutter is this...It looks like the bottom half of the second curtain is not connected properly...it has a bit of a bag in it...looks like it's an easy fix...I don't know enough about it to even try to fix it myself...I would rather have the camera sit than ruin it completely...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know how to do that, but folks on the OM list (including John Hermanson) would. http://www.zuikoholic.com/
 
rover said:
All of this OM talk has had me thinking and looking. An OM1 looks to be the ideal OM, other than the later pricey models largely due to the big viewfinder. .........
Click to expand...

Hi Rover,

not to tease you, but it seems to me all OMs have the same big viewfinder, and I own several models. I happen to use most the OM2n, as for me it is a kind of compromise between the advanced models and the OM1. It is a nice compromise too in terms of shutter noise level.

Take care, OMs are very addictive. And btw, if you go, take care of getting a new looking 1.8, the latest ones are the best.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Per specs I have seen the 1 has a higher magnification and % of actual field coverage.
 
rover said:
Well, as we are RFF all of this SLR talk is Off Topic here, but a little variety is not a bad thing. I have moved the recent SLR threads to our OT forum.

..............
Click to expand...

Well, in my case, I went back to my OM4Ti, shot several times, and compared to my Kievs it was like a series of slaps on my face. A positive experience to bring me back to range finders.

In my opinion we have to be open hearted to different types of cameras, not only range finders. Of course some 90% of RFF should deal with rf, and not the opposite. But let us remember that range finders do have an intrinsic value of their own, which we will allways be happy to re-discover upon comparizon.

As for the OM stuff, there is no question that an SLR system, specially the OM, is very comprehensive, all embracing, enabling wider capacities than a rf system.

But love is love, and nothing to do about.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
And RFF is RFF, and no OM site or SLR site even close to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rover said:
Per specs I have seen the 1 has a higher magnification and % of actual field coverage.
Click to expand...

OM[124] feel very similar wrt viewfinder size, Ralph.

WRT sound, the OM2 and OM1 sound similar. I find the 4 to sound different,
a bit louder and harsher.

Roland.
 
ferider said:
OM[124] feel very similar wrt viewfinder size, Ralph.

WRT sound, the OM2 and OM1 sound similar. I find the 4 to sound different,
a bit louder and harsher.

Roland.
Click to expand...
I find the OM2 and OM1 to sound quite different; I noticed the other day for the first time in all my shooting!
 
rover said:
What lenses are we looking at?
Click to expand...

Ho rover,
Had our friend showed the OM1 with the Zuiko 40mm he would had make the size gap even more smashing on behalf of the OM...

Cheers,
Ruben


PS
Third time quoting you, but you happen to point to the most interesting issues for me.
 
BillBingham2 said:
When I add a winder (mine is not working well) the OM-1 is a great feeling package, then it feels as big as an F2.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...


I fully agree Bill. The winder adds size, but the gripability of any OM with a winder is award wining.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Actually, the later models (OM-2SP and later) have the VF magnification lowered and their VF is generally dimmer. The reason is, that they made the mirror semi-transparent, so that all sensors could be in the bottom part of mirror box, and part of the light goes through the mirror and to the light sensors...
 
ferider said:
OM[124] feel very similar wrt viewfinder size, Ralph.

WRT sound, the OM2 and OM1 sound similar. I find the 4 to sound different,
a bit louder and harsher.

Roland.
Click to expand...
The difference is most likely attributable to the secondary mirror found in the 2Sp, 3(Ti) and 4(Ti).
 
Well, in my case, I went back to my OM4Ti, shot several times, and compared to my Kievs it was like a series of slaps on my face. A positive experience to bring me back to range finders.
Click to expand...

;)

I had my Minolta SRT's repaired after years of neglect. The first time I tripped the shutter of 101 when shooting again with it, it almost fell out of my hands. I was not ready for the BOOOMMMMMMM.
 
ruben said:
Hi Rover,

EDIT

Take care, OMs are very addictive. And btw, if you go, take care of getting a new looking 1.8, the latest ones are the best.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

I always liked the SC f1.8, is the MC better?

pic0018%2Bcopy.jpg
 
Spyderman said:
Actually, the later models (OM-2SP and later) have the VF magnification lowered and their VF is generally dimmer. The reason is, that they made the mirror semi-transparent, so that all sensors could be in the bottom part of mirror box, and part of the light goes through the mirror and to the light sensors...
Click to expand...


Ondrej,
In what refers to VF brightness, I think you are mistaken. To my knowledge the OM3/4 titanium were given Lumi micron screens, even brighter than a Beattie, and ceirtainly of much better quality.

The same Lumi micron screens were customary for the OM20 (OMG), OM30 (OMF) and OM40.

Yet I don't know for sure the fate of the OM3 and 4 not titanium.

Excuss me for this amicable correction.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sparrow said:
I always liked the SC f1.8, is the MC better?

pic0018%2Bcopy.jpg
Click to expand...

By no means I am entitled to such level of knowledge. Trius or Ferider are required here.

Nevertheless, if you pick a Zuiko 1.8 looking absolutely new, which are thrown away for penauts as if sellers where begging you to release them from a liablity, you cannot go wrong. Outstanding performance !

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
By no means I am entitled to such level of knowledge. Trius or Ferider are required here.

Nevertheless, if you pick a Zuiko 1.8 looking absolutely new, which are thrown away for penauts as if sellers where begging you to release them from a liablity, you cannot go wrong. Outstanding performance !

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

I got mine new in 1973 and used it as a bench mark since
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom