I'll 'fess to being an Olympus fanboi: started out with OM-1n and then OM-2ns. When it was time to go digital, I picked up E-3...and I just recently got an EM-5....
So OF COURSE I'll recommend OMs. As I've said before, they are the "rangefinder SLRs"--small, light, and (relatively) quiet. With the OM-2, I was always amazed Olympus could put such a sophisticated exposure system into such a small camera body--and keep the camera mostly mechanical, too.
And the big ,bright OM viewfinders are akin to what you see through a Leica M's finder, IMHO. (I see one person here who says OM viewfinders are "not as good as Nikon." Funny...one reason I gave up on Nikon SLRs was that their viewfinders always seemed dim and unsharp, and caused me lots of problems focusing in low light....whereas focusing the OMs in the same situation was.....well, about as good as using a Leica M. The number of out of focus or soft images dropped dramatically when I made the switch).
Also have a Leicaflex SL 2. Wonderful camera, but the antithesis of the OM--a big, solid, very well built, and heavy (which can become a critical factor in the course of a long day) monster of a camera, with lenses to match. I call it "the Panzer". It has a viewfinder which is just slightly bigger and brighter than the OM's. But it is bare-bones tech (match-needle metering, no AE), and at a higher price than you can pick up a good OM-2 for. And there's certainly nothing discreet about that bad boy, when you take it out for a stroll---not the best street shooting camera....
So it's a case of what you want. But in my biased opinion, an OM would be the way to go.
