Nikon FM vs Olympus OM

[Frontman]

According to Yoshihisa Maitani, the Olympus OM series was inspired by the Leica M. Maitaini was a huge fan of the Leica M, and especially like the balance and the handling. The Olympus M1 (the first of the OM series) was designed to be compact, light, smooth, and quiet. These goals were all met. Compared to the other pro cameras of the time (the Nikon F and Canon F1), the Olympus was in a class by itself.

In regard to durability, I don't find the Nikon FM to be any superior to he Olympus OM. I come across many of these cameras, and if you care to count the dents, the FM/FE are more easily dented. The cloth shutter curtains in the OM cameras are much simpler than the metal curtains in the Nikon cameras, but are much more difficult to damage. I have acquired half a dozen or so early Olympus M1 cameras in the last year, and surprisingly, every single one had an accurate and functional light meter.

The Prism rot is an issue, but I find it easy to swap out the prism with newer OM40/OMPC cameras, which always have good prisms.

For myself, I still shoot mainly with Nikon, but below is a comparison between a couple of my cameras, you can see how closely they resemble each other in size,

 

[Prest_400]

According to Yoshihisa Maitani, the Olympus OM series was inspired by the Leica M. Maitaini was a huge fan of the Leica M, and especially like the balance and the handling. The Olympus M1 (the first of the OM series) was designed to be compact, light, smooth, and quiet. These goals were all met. Compared to the other pro cameras of the time (the Nikon F and Canon F1), the Olympus was in a class by itself.

In regard to durability, I don't find the Nikon FM to be any superior to he Olympus OM.

And the design is quite remarkable even today.
While I don't have now time to do a shot of it (and would hijack the thread), my OM-1 with a 50 1.8 is in the very ballpark of what an EPL with kit 14-42 zoom is.
And micro 4/3 was said to be a purely digital format and had numerous size advantages!
Sure, the m4/3 has a zoom and a pancake prime would make it smaller... But still it's surprising that it isn't more so (GM1 seems to veer into that direction).
Otherwise, before I didn't think the OM-1 was that small.

Mine was well cared for, however the other day my 50mm fell into the tile floor (hit at the rear)... Now it's hard to mount, yet still will. Bent mount, that is. I will give it a chance, I hope it still retains alignment and is sharp.
Yes, it's cheap to buy new lenses/bodies, but as a student I've got many things on where to choose spending cash... Make prints for example! (together with college lunch)

 

[Rodchenko]

I think I've fallen out of love with my OM.

It's a beautiful camera, and easy to use. But, y'know - and I should have known, having tested this several times before - I'm not an SLR type of person.

My first proper camera was an OM-1, and I came, with time, to realise just what a gem it was. Man, I love that shutter speed ring.

But, once I'd got into rangefinders (a Kiev and a Zorki back then), I knew where 'my' photography belonged.

Years later, I was bought a Bronica SQ-A by a very kind partner. Great camera, but just soooooo not my bag.

When I got made redundant , I bought myself an Olympus E-400. No complaints, but I just didn't use it.

When my son bought me a Minolta SLR, which was OK, it sat there for a year before I got a battery sorted out, and I was reminded how much I liked photography. I got the OM2SP I'd always wanted.

But it never really worked out for me. I strayed back to the rangefinders, and soon settled down to the Olympus ones.

I kept my SLR for macro and telephoto duties. But now my EPL1 does that, and also travels with me everywhere. So, sadly, I've decided that the OM kit should go of to find a new owner, and free up space in the flight case.

 

[Godfrey]

are you saying that some FMs have interchangeable focusing screens?

Nikon FM and FE models do not have interchangeable focusing screens.

Nikon FM2, FM2n, and FE2 models do. Interchangeable focusing was one of the new features introduced with the FM2 and FE2.

G

 

[sevo]

Nikon FM and FE models do not have interchangeable focusing screens.

Nikon FM2, FM2n, and FE2 models do. Interchangeable focusing was one of the new features introduced with the FM2 and FE2.

Not quite. It was a feature introduced with the FE.

 

[kbg32]

Olympus SLRS complement Leica Ms very well. Approximately the same size. Lenses focus in the same direction.

 

[Godfrey]

Not quite. It was a feature introduced with the FE.

Thank you for the correction!

G

 

[ianstamatic]

contax 139Q anyone ?

 

[scatteredpixelphoto]

I have both systems and love them! I have the OM3 and the FM. The latter's film wind is smoother than the OM3, but they both work beautifully. I really enjoy the lens selections for both of them as well. I feel both are sturdy cameras, though the coating on the Nikkors seem to age better than the Zuikos.

 

[dtcls100]

Nikon FM/FE series vs. Olympus OM

Nikon FM/FE series vs. Olympus OM

I am a long time OM user (having multiple OM-1, OM-1n, OM-2n, OM-4, and OM-4Ti bodies) and also own a Nikon FM3a body. They are all very fine cameras, so my comments below should not be interpreted as saying that any of them are less than wonderful machines.

In comparing them, I would make the following comments:

1. The OM cameras are smaller, lighter, handle better, have a better, brighter, sharper viewfinder (OM-4Ti with 2-4 and 2-13 screens are MUCH better), greater viewfinder coverage (97% vs. 93%), are more compact, and handle better IMHO. Also, it is harder to mixup when the camera is in Auto vs. Manual mode with the OM cameras; one can easily make this mistake with the FM3a, since the viewfinder display does not obviously indicate what exposure mode the camera is in with the FM3a (other than a tiny, translucent light blue needle indicator pointing to AE at the extreme top left of the viewfinder, which can be easily overlooked), while it is pretty obvious with the OM-2 and OM-4 series cameras (the OM-1 is only manual) as the viewfinder display changes with the exposure mode set. For example, I recently shot a roll of film with an FM3a in what I thought was AE mode, when the shutter speed dial was actually set on 1/4000 sec in manual, as opposed to the AE setting right next to it. This could not happen with an OM.
I also think the OM cloth shutters are simpler, quieter, have less vibration and are more durable than the FM3a metal bladed shutter. I also dislike how one must turn on the FM3a meter by pulling out the film advance lever, which pokes me in the right eye (as a left eyed viewer). This has forced me to use the camera exclusively with the MD-12 motor drive, as with the drive mounted the camera meter turns on when one hits the shutter release button on the drive. However, with the drive, the FM3a handles well. But the Motor Drives 1 and 2 of the Olympus OM system are faster, and the OM Motor Drive 2 is quieter and more vibration free. The plastic frame of the OM viewfinder eyepiece also is much less likely to scratch one's glasses than the sharp metal frame around the Nikon's viewfinder eyepiece.

2. The only areas that the FM3a is superior to the Olympus OM-2 and OM-4 cameras is its ability to use all shutter speeds without any battery power and the FM3a's superior flash synch speed of 1/250 vs. the Olympus OM synch speed of 1/60. This minimizes problems of ghost imaging and blurring where flash is used with moving subjects in moderate ambient light. However, I have found that OM-1, OM-1n, OM-4 and OM-4Ti cameras can actually synch almost perfectly at 1/125 except at the extreme right edge of the frame (OM-2n cameras will not fire above 1/60 sec with any flash). The Nikon SB-800 flash which I have also is superior to any Olympus OM flash, being a much more modern unit, with a built in zoom mechanism, wider coverage, built in bounce card, etc. This renders the FM3a a superior camera for flash and fill flash, although the OM-4Ti's Full Synchro Flash with the F280 flash works fine for most fill flash situations.