Is this bonkers? EOS 3 for OM2?

L

Lilserenity

Well-known
Local time
7:15 PM
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,031
Hiya,

Despite this being RFF I thought I'd ask this here as I'm somewhat more enamoured with the users of this Internet forum on photography more than any other. And any mention of film without the word dead tagged on to the end of it can sometimes end up in a right mud flinging contest!

Since getting my M2, my EOS 3 is just not getting used. It's sitting there, looking fallorn, loaded with a roll of Velvia that's been in it for about 3 months now and it's still on frame 6. I didn't anticipate replacing the EOS 3 entirely with the M2 but that's exactly what has happened. I have found that I much much much prefer working with smaller cameras. The EOS 3 is absolutely fantastic and it's main purpose is now to be used for telephoto work, and I don't do a massive amount of that, but regardless, it has a 70-200mm f/4L lens which I do use on the occassion for some action or wildlife shots.

I'm now seriously considering selling the EOS 3 and purchasing an Olympus OM (most likely an OM-2 for its Av mode but good selling price against say an OM4Ti) as it is smaller, good range of lenses (I've always liked the examples of Zuiko glass I have used before now) and in some ways it's not too dissimilar to the M2 in look and feel (ish.)

I'm just wondering though if this is a completely bonkers decision? Has any one else made such a move and regretted it? Or made the move and wish they had done it earlier?

I'd likely get an OM2 with a 50mm f/1.8, and a 135mm and 200mm to start off with -- the prices do look very favourable.

I don't have much if any need for fast auto-focus or AI Servo mode, or indeed for 45 AF points etc. The EOS 3 whilst great, it seems a bit like overkill to me.

I'm beginning to think I'd be better served by the OM system and the money left over could be used for some needed darkroom equipment (mostly a 4 bladed easel and some paper!)

Just curious to hear what people's thoughts are. I know the OM's are well regarded, and I'm very unlikely to go for a Nikon FM/FE as the prices are that bit more, along with the lenses, plus I do like the OM's, but I don't want two SLRs -- I'm not one for having stuff sitting around not getting used or hoarding equipment!

The other advantage is that I'm thinking an Olympus OM would be a bit easier to lug around than the EOS 3 + 70-200.

I guess I'm not really asking a question, sounds a bit silly reading this back, but I was curious if anyone else has had experiences of having a modern SLR, and then changed to an older system and sold the modern SLR gear?

Vicky
 
I would switch to a Leica right away from my F5 if I could, it is just so much simpler, and I enjoy using a manual camera.
However, I do have a lot more creativity with the F5, for example, it would be difficult to get some photos that I can get with it with a RF, simply because of the fast low light AF and the great flash exposure system.
 
Hi Vicky -- Just a few questions to ponder... How would the OM be more useful than the EOS? Could you use the EOS in the same way you would use the OM (manual focus etc)? Would any benefits be enough to make the transaction worthwhile?

Unlike you, I'm an accumulator, so I'm seldom faced with concerns about getting rid of one thing so I can get the other. My problems are more along the line of "which rig shall I use and are the batteries still any good?" :)
 
MarkoKovacevic said:
...However, I do have a lot more creativity with the F5, for example, it would be difficult to get some photos that I can get with it with a RF, simply because of the fast low light AF and the great flash exposure system.
Click to expand...

The EOS 3 is indeed pretty good at that low light AF but in those occasions where I'd need that, I'm now using the M2. So auto-focus isn't a deciding factor (hence looking at a MF SLR, than say a Nikon AF I guess) or important to me.

On the matter of flash: I never use flash. I lament often that I don't like the look of flash and then concede I don't like the look because I'm not nearly skilled enough to know how to use it effectively.

The big factor for me here is size and the OM series is certainly smaller than my EOS 3, and if my memory serves me well, apart from the pentaprism's hump, not that much bigger than a Leica M. That's the draw here, plus whilst I like auto-focus, whilst it seems like a joke but my method of working has always been focus using the central AF point, lock and recompose and shoot. 44 AF points not getting used with the EOS 3!
 
Why not just use the Leica? I mean, unless you are using SLR specific lenses, like telephotos, you can just stick with the M and have all that you want.
 
I use M2 and M6. Last year my father gave me his OM4 and OM2n and I am getting the latter serviced and will put it in use, the 28mm, 50mm macro and I'll get a longer lens. I agree with you that it is the SLR to match the M2, although I did buy my daughter a Nikon F3 and I seriously like the solidity of that camera. The OM2 is almost too small and light as an SLR. People are always staggered by the concentrated mass of the older Leica M when they first pick one up and I find that the Nikon F3 has that sort of feel, so at least look at a Nikon.
 
Doug said:
Hi Vicky -- Just a few questions to ponder... How would the OM be more useful than the EOS? Could you use the EOS in the same way you would use the OM (manual focus etc)? Would any benefits be enough to make the transaction worthwhile?

Unlike you, I'm an accumulator, so I'm seldom faced with concerns about getting rid of one thing so I can get the other. My problems are more along the line of "which rig shall I use and are the batteries still any good?" :)
Click to expand...

I used to use two MF M42 lenses (Pentax, 35mm and 135mm) on my EOS 3 before I got my M2 and got on fine enough and could have got the split screen focus screen but didn't in the end. I don't think it's a case of being more useful, I think it's more down to the size equation.

The fact that this has an M mode, and Av mode is pretty much all I need.

Potentially one thing I would miss is the spot meter which I would retain by going for an OM2-SP, or indeed the OM4 which as the muilt-spot meter again that the EOS 3 has though I seldom use that (usually average things out in my head.)

The other option I have is a smaller EOS body, but that seems a somewhat unattractive option as the EOS 1000/500/300 (Rebels) whilst small and so forth, are not exactly as durable as an OM and whilst my brother is very happy with his 300V, I wouldn't be, too plasticky and just not got that feel.

I seem to have talked myself into this one all by myself... I also see there is a Zuiko 65-200mm lens, f/4 throughout and well regarded even though its by say the 70-200mm f/4L's standard an older zoom lens.

I'm not up to photographing birds in flight, but I would want a camera for when I have the tripod set up or some hand holdable shots of critters and beings that at a distance stay relatively well put for a second or two (e.g. Squirrels, Deer etc.)

The other bonus I can think of that I desire in the OM is the quieter mirror slap. The EOS 3 is like a rifle going off :(
 
MarkoKovacevic said:
Why not just use the Leica? I mean, unless you are using SLR specific lenses, like telephotos, you can just stick with the M and have all that you want.
Click to expand...

That's the issue, every now and then I do use lenses of 200mm focal length (with the 70-200 f4/L) -- I would love to only use the M2 I really would, but I can't for those longer reaches though I love having a more compact camera body like the M2, which the EOS 3 doesn't have.

I seem to have answered my own question here!
 
So what's wrong about considering the Leica R? If you want fantastic long glass, then (budget permitting) why not look at the Rs? My M2 and M6TTL are supplemented by my R8/DMR and R9/DMR. The R8/9 make great SLR cameras and Leica make some truly stellar long glass (bar none C/N included).

Charlie
 
Keep the Eos 3. Looks like you can buy an OM-2 (sometimes with lenses) for under $200.

When I was in the UK about 2 years ago, lunch for my family of 4 cost me about $200. :D

You'll need an EF body for that killer 70-200 lens.
 
Look in the classified. There's an OM-4 with 28mm lens for $175, and a bunch on ebay. Go ahead and scratch the OM itch. I see no need to liquidate.
 
I have the tank like dyanx / maxxum 9 as my main film SLR. It is amazing. Knows what it is doing. Trouble is I don't think I always do. ANd that means it feels like the camera took the picture with all its little internal computations, not me. It's purely psychological, but the sophisitcation of the machine robs me of the feeling of creativity I get from my OM 1n or 2n. Even the mulitispot metering of my OM 4 means I'm still thinking (a lot) more about the available light than the 14 segment matrix or what ever metering. And then there is the joy of manual focus and hyperfocal settings.

The zuikos are fantasic and so light weight - and it's the lens that has a big influence on the image.

So I'd say join the OM family if you want a simpler vibe. But keep th eEOS 3 and that L lens if you enjoy fast action distant photography sports, wildlife. So much easier. You've gotta balance the feel of the process of taking the shot with the end result - the image that you hang on the wall - if it works for you - top stuff.

Maybe get sucked into the I'll just try an OM before I sell my EOS trap so you can compare!

good luck
 
The only thing bonkers would be NOT getting the OM. :D

An OM is almost identical to an M in terms of size and form factor. Any more questions?
 
Last edited:
Vicky,

Trading our EOS3 to a OM2 is the most crazy thing I have heard!

The EOS3 is the most advanced and the best analogue film SLR that has ever been made. With the most reliable and fastest AF that can be bought, with Eye Control - artificial intelligence that is, and all. And it's bayonette is still current with both new and old lenses to be bought. In all respect of the OM2, but it is not up to it compared. I would have done this swap only with several hundred dollars in between. Except for that I would never would have traded a EOS3 to anything less than a Nikon F6, at least. - If at all.

This guy doing the swap 1 x OM2 to 1 x EOS3 must be laughing all the way home.
 
Lilserenity said:
I used to use two MF M42 lenses (Pentax, 35mm and 135mm) on my EOS 3 before I got my M2 and got on fine enough and could have got the split screen focus screen but didn't in the end. I don't think it's a case of being more useful, I think it's more down to the size equation.

The fact that this has an M mode, and Av mode is pretty much all I need.

Potentially one thing I would miss is the spot meter which I would retain by going for an OM2-SP, or indeed the OM4 which as the muilt-spot meter again that the EOS 3 has though I seldom use that (usually average things out in my head.)

The other option I have is a smaller EOS body, but that seems a somewhat unattractive option as the EOS 1000/500/300 (Rebels) whilst small and so forth, are not exactly as durable as an OM and whilst my brother is very happy with his 300V, I wouldn't be, too plasticky and just not got that feel.

I seem to have talked myself into this one all by myself... I also see there is a Zuiko 65-200mm lens, f/4 throughout and well regarded even though its by say the 70-200mm f/4L's standard an older zoom lens.

I'm not up to photographing birds in flight, but I would want a camera for when I have the tripod set up or some hand holdable shots of critters and beings that at a distance stay relatively well put for a second or two (e.g. Squirrels, Deer etc.)

The other bonus I can think of that I desire in the OM is the quieter mirror slap. The EOS 3 is like a rifle going off :(
Click to expand...

If you're interested in spot metering in a fixed lens rangefinder there's always the Oly 35 SP. It's cost effective (generally available for less than $100) and has a razor sharp lens.

I'd stick with EOS 3. It's a great camera!

Respectfully,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom