Frontman
Well-known
A couple people asked me if I could compare the Nikon F3 I recently acquired with my OM3Ti, so I thought I would share my impressions of both.
The most obvious difference of course is the size and weight. Even without the motor drive, the F3 is significantly heavier. This is natural, given the design parameters of each camera, Nikon and Olympus went in completely different directions when designing their pro-level cameras.
The control layout is quite different, with the shutter speed dial, mirror lock up, and depth of field preview buttons and levers all being in different locations. Though I have had a lot of experience with the F3, I prefer the layout of the OM3Ti, especially the shutter speed ring.
Both cameras have great viewfinders, but in different ways. The F3's high-eyepoint viewfinder has a large window, and makes focusing while wearing glasses quite easy. But the lack of magnification makes the HP finder a little more difficult to focus finely than the standard eye-level viewfinder. The viewfinder in the OM3Ti is larger and brighter than in the F3. My F3 has a Beattie Intenscreen in it, but the 2-13 is brighter, at least to me. The F3 displays the shutter speed and aperture in the viewfinder, whereas the Olympus displays only the shutter speed. One benefit of the Olympus shutter speed display is that even though it is digital, it follows a horizontal scale, somewhat like a needle-type meter.
Mechanically-speaking, both cameras are a marvel of engineering. The F3 is one of the smoothest operating cameras ever made, ball bearings were used extensively within the camera, the winding lever turns with almost no effort at all. The F3's shutter and mirror move with firm precision, and the camera is a pleasure to use. The OM3Ti's shutter is not as smooth or easy, but is nice just the same. The F3 uses a battery-dependent shutter, whereas the OM3Ti uses a mechanical shutter. I prefer the Swiss-watch-like operation of the Olympus shutter over the electro-mechanical Nikon shutter.
Both cameras are easy to handle, but each one is handled much differently. The F3 (especially with the motor drive) is nearly perfect ergonomically. The camera simply fits in the hand perfectly, your fingers fall into the important places naturally. The OM3 is also well-thought-out ergonomically, but in a different way. Changing shutter speeds on the Olympus is easier and more intuitive than with the Nikon, and the smaller size has the advantage when shooting candidly, the hands cradle the camera more closely.
The metering systems are completely different in each camera. The F3 has a center-weighted meter that is quite simple to use. The F3 also has an Auto mode, which can take a step out of the picture-taking process. The OM3Ti uses a more sophisticated meter which has a very useful Spot function. I have found this feature very useful on many occasions.
I have used a variety of lenses on each camera, and I have to say that I prefer the OM lenses over their Nikkor counterparts. For the OM, I have a 21mm f/3.5, and for the Nikon I have an AIS 20mm f/2.8. I have 35mm f/2 lenses for each one, as well as 50mm f/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 lenses. I prefer the OM examples of all of these lenses. The OM lenses are smaller, and in my opinion, they simply perform better. For longer lenses, I have the Nikkor 50-300 ED IF and Nikkor 300/2.8 ED IF lenses. Unfortunately, there are no reasonably-priced OM equivalents to these lenses.
Both cameras are fun to use, and both take great photos. Rather than choose one over the other, I'll simply take turns using each one.
For comparison, you can see what the OM3 and Leica M4 look like side-by-side.
The most obvious difference of course is the size and weight. Even without the motor drive, the F3 is significantly heavier. This is natural, given the design parameters of each camera, Nikon and Olympus went in completely different directions when designing their pro-level cameras.
The control layout is quite different, with the shutter speed dial, mirror lock up, and depth of field preview buttons and levers all being in different locations. Though I have had a lot of experience with the F3, I prefer the layout of the OM3Ti, especially the shutter speed ring.
Both cameras have great viewfinders, but in different ways. The F3's high-eyepoint viewfinder has a large window, and makes focusing while wearing glasses quite easy. But the lack of magnification makes the HP finder a little more difficult to focus finely than the standard eye-level viewfinder. The viewfinder in the OM3Ti is larger and brighter than in the F3. My F3 has a Beattie Intenscreen in it, but the 2-13 is brighter, at least to me. The F3 displays the shutter speed and aperture in the viewfinder, whereas the Olympus displays only the shutter speed. One benefit of the Olympus shutter speed display is that even though it is digital, it follows a horizontal scale, somewhat like a needle-type meter.
Mechanically-speaking, both cameras are a marvel of engineering. The F3 is one of the smoothest operating cameras ever made, ball bearings were used extensively within the camera, the winding lever turns with almost no effort at all. The F3's shutter and mirror move with firm precision, and the camera is a pleasure to use. The OM3Ti's shutter is not as smooth or easy, but is nice just the same. The F3 uses a battery-dependent shutter, whereas the OM3Ti uses a mechanical shutter. I prefer the Swiss-watch-like operation of the Olympus shutter over the electro-mechanical Nikon shutter.
Both cameras are easy to handle, but each one is handled much differently. The F3 (especially with the motor drive) is nearly perfect ergonomically. The camera simply fits in the hand perfectly, your fingers fall into the important places naturally. The OM3 is also well-thought-out ergonomically, but in a different way. Changing shutter speeds on the Olympus is easier and more intuitive than with the Nikon, and the smaller size has the advantage when shooting candidly, the hands cradle the camera more closely.
The metering systems are completely different in each camera. The F3 has a center-weighted meter that is quite simple to use. The F3 also has an Auto mode, which can take a step out of the picture-taking process. The OM3Ti uses a more sophisticated meter which has a very useful Spot function. I have found this feature very useful on many occasions.
I have used a variety of lenses on each camera, and I have to say that I prefer the OM lenses over their Nikkor counterparts. For the OM, I have a 21mm f/3.5, and for the Nikon I have an AIS 20mm f/2.8. I have 35mm f/2 lenses for each one, as well as 50mm f/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 lenses. I prefer the OM examples of all of these lenses. The OM lenses are smaller, and in my opinion, they simply perform better. For longer lenses, I have the Nikkor 50-300 ED IF and Nikkor 300/2.8 ED IF lenses. Unfortunately, there are no reasonably-priced OM equivalents to these lenses.
Both cameras are fun to use, and both take great photos. Rather than choose one over the other, I'll simply take turns using each one.
For comparison, you can see what the OM3 and Leica M4 look like side-by-side.
