payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
A relatively inexpensive alternative is the adapter made by Frans de Gruijter. It takes a 1.55V silver oxide and converts the output to 1.35V. I had three and they worked and fit perfectly.
dacookieman
Cookie Monster
Ahh.. i thought you were choosing a new system, in this case where u already have the nikon system, makes sense to stick to Nikon unless you have time to switch.
A FE/FM would be a very affordable backup cam.
Merkin
For the Weekend
A lot of people, including myself, have been pretty agnostic in this thread, so I will stump for Nikon for a bit, even though I stand by my original statement that it is difficult to go wrong with either.
One of the biggest reasons to choose Nikon is if you think you might be interested in switching to digital in the future. Nikon and Pentax are the only major SLR manufacturers who haven't changed their lens mount in my lifetime. A 50 year old Nikkor F lens will work on a current Nikon SLR, albeit with a bit of an adjustment to the lens, and if the lens is adjusted (conversion to AI), it still works on 50 year old Nikon F mount bodies. Nikon has only in the last few years started making lenses (the G series) that won't work on a 50 year old Nikon body. Therefore, if you take a 50mm f1.2 AI manual focus lens, and an 80-200 f2.8D autofocus lens, you can use them on both a Nikon F or F2 as well as a D3 or D700.
If you want a large, heavy, stable camera for things like portraiture (like I do), there are Nikon bodies for that, both old and new, like the F2 with motor drive and the D3. If you want a small, lightweight, whippy camera body for tucking under a coat and snapping away discreetly, there are Nikon bodies, new and old, for that too, such as the FG-20 or the D40. A Nikon FG-20 with a 45mm f2.8 GN lens is as small as any Olympus setup.
You can find Nikkor lenses in pretty much any focal length or range of focal lengths you might want. Olympus has a pretty wide range, but not as wide a range as Nikon.
Nikon has averaged making a million lenses a year over the last fifty years, so you know there are plenty out there to be had, and while there are a number of Nikkors that are absurdly expensive, some of their best lenses are actually surprisingly cheap.
As the popularity of film decreases, the value of Olympus gear will continue to decrease, even those highly desirable rare lenses. Nikon lenses, on the other hand, will maintain value better, because they are still useable on current digital cameras. I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if we didn't find ourselves someday using 100 year old lenses on Nikon cameras.
Again, if you choose Olympus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. They are great film cameras, but they are film only. Yes, you can use the lenses on modern olympus dslrs, but it requires an adapter, and the olympus dslr sensor is laughably small, giving your lenses a 2x crop factor, which makes them pretty useless for a lot of people.
One of the biggest reasons to choose Nikon is if you think you might be interested in switching to digital in the future. Nikon and Pentax are the only major SLR manufacturers who haven't changed their lens mount in my lifetime. A 50 year old Nikkor F lens will work on a current Nikon SLR, albeit with a bit of an adjustment to the lens, and if the lens is adjusted (conversion to AI), it still works on 50 year old Nikon F mount bodies. Nikon has only in the last few years started making lenses (the G series) that won't work on a 50 year old Nikon body. Therefore, if you take a 50mm f1.2 AI manual focus lens, and an 80-200 f2.8D autofocus lens, you can use them on both a Nikon F or F2 as well as a D3 or D700.
If you want a large, heavy, stable camera for things like portraiture (like I do), there are Nikon bodies for that, both old and new, like the F2 with motor drive and the D3. If you want a small, lightweight, whippy camera body for tucking under a coat and snapping away discreetly, there are Nikon bodies, new and old, for that too, such as the FG-20 or the D40. A Nikon FG-20 with a 45mm f2.8 GN lens is as small as any Olympus setup.
You can find Nikkor lenses in pretty much any focal length or range of focal lengths you might want. Olympus has a pretty wide range, but not as wide a range as Nikon.
Nikon has averaged making a million lenses a year over the last fifty years, so you know there are plenty out there to be had, and while there are a number of Nikkors that are absurdly expensive, some of their best lenses are actually surprisingly cheap.
As the popularity of film decreases, the value of Olympus gear will continue to decrease, even those highly desirable rare lenses. Nikon lenses, on the other hand, will maintain value better, because they are still useable on current digital cameras. I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if we didn't find ourselves someday using 100 year old lenses on Nikon cameras.
Again, if you choose Olympus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. They are great film cameras, but they are film only. Yes, you can use the lenses on modern olympus dslrs, but it requires an adapter, and the olympus dslr sensor is laughably small, giving your lenses a 2x crop factor, which makes them pretty useless for a lot of people.
Jerevan
Recycled User
What Sover Wong can't fix is probably not worth fixing.
My F2 with a Photomic head keeps on working since the overhaul of both a few years back. http://soverf2repair.webs.com
gavinlg
Veteran
I'd go the OM. I prefer the OM series to just about any other SLR besides maybe the f3hp (and thats more because it's cool, rather than a functional reason). Besides that I personally prefer the OM glass much more than the nikkor glass. My reason is that some of the nikkor stuff is fairly 'harsh' in rendition, the OM glass is really balanced, and a lot smaller. Note this is JUST my opinion.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
What Sover Wong can't fix is probably not worth fixing.
http://soverf2repair.webs.com
That is my point, last I looked Sover was in England now and how many other besides him can do it. I did not say it was impossible but just getting harder and likely more expensive too.
Bob
Jerevan
Recycled User
The Head Bartender also has a guy who does the work on the Photomics, for the F and F2. The argument could be the same about John Hermanson and his repairs on Olympus cameras; "there is practically nobody doing the work nowadays". It sounds a bit pessimistic.
Lets be glad there are a few souls out there who likes to repair old cameras. Here's to John, Don, Sheryl, Sover and a few I don't know about.
Merkin
For the Weekend
Huh, I was under the impression that the parts supply for fixing photomic heads had run dry. It is nice to be proven wrong, as I plan on buying an F2 sometime in the next couple years.
Maiku
Maiku
Go for the Olympus. Great viewfinder. It is big, bright and clear. Focus is a snap. Great meter. Great lenses. Weighs very little. Small and compact. Just a great camera.
newspaperguy
Well-known
I have both. Three OM's (was five) an OM1MD, OM1n & a OM2n.
Five Nikons - F, FE, 2020, 501, 8008, F80 all working, and lots of lenses for both.
For personal use, I almost always grab one of the OM's.
The Nikons get carried in the car, and mostly get used on the job (big, heavy and say "Get out of my way.")
They can live together peacefully you know.
(...and no, I don't remember how I got so many N's)
Five Nikons - F, FE, 2020, 501, 8008, F80 all working, and lots of lenses for both.
For personal use, I almost always grab one of the OM's.
The Nikons get carried in the car, and mostly get used on the job (big, heavy and say "Get out of my way.")
They can live together peacefully you know.
(...and no, I don't remember how I got so many N's)
Last edited:
Gaspar
Established
OM- in terms of getting a good set of lenses it turns out considerably cheaper.
As for digital bodies, any canon body can take the lenses with full metering and a cheap adaptor.
I think Nikon is great but a) it is a lot heavier b) it is much more expensive.
As for digital bodies, any canon body can take the lenses with full metering and a cheap adaptor.
I think Nikon is great but a) it is a lot heavier b) it is much more expensive.
RFluhver
Well-known
I have also recently got into the OM system, starting with the OM1. Now I have the OM2n, OM2-SP and the OM4-Ti. I gotta say, these babies are tough, made to last decades. And for the price I paid, even for the OM4-Ti, I always walked away laughing as they were cheap.
As for the Zuiko lenses, well, those are just top class. And btw, I understand that Jonas Bendiksen shot his Satellites book with an OM2.
As for the Zuiko lenses, well, those are just top class. And btw, I understand that Jonas Bendiksen shot his Satellites book with an OM2.
Merkin
For the Weekend
on a canon, you have to use stop down metering. I don't consider that full metering.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I count six
I was thinking about getting some OMs as well after having played around with them, but am glad that I didn't go for it. An extra system would have been a money sink and not have given me much photography-wise. In the SLR field I'm practically all-Nikon now; one system is enough for taking pictures.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The Head Bartender also has a guy who does the work on the Photomics, for the F and F2. The argument could be the same about John Hermanson and his repairs on Olympus cameras; "there is practically nobody doing the work nowadays". It sounds a bit pessimistic.
Lets be glad there are a few souls out there who likes to repair old cameras. Here's to John, Don, Sheryl, Sover and a few I don't know about.
I am glad that there are a "few" souls out there that can do the work. The fact remains that repairing a photomic head leaves you with little resources to choose from and the situation is not going to improve in the future. For a fun camera to use as the spirit moves you that is no problem but as a main or back up camera that can be significant. In that light it is not so much that I am pessimistic but more realistic. CLAs are no problem and I have F and F2 bodies that have never been in for one and still function just fine. OTH one F2 does have a problem with any photomic head I put on it. Anyhow we are both correct depending on where you are coming from.
Bob
RFluhver
Well-known
GUys...if any of you are in Sydney, FotoRiesel currently has a whole bunch of F3 bodies for sale. They also have F5 and some lenses. I was tempted to pick up one or two, but didn't fancy getting into a whole new system.
The F3 bodies are about AU$350.
The F3 bodies are about AU$350.
Pablito
coco frío
OM is more delicate. Loved the OM1n but the meter kept breaking. The Wein cells don't last in my experience.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
I have the OM system but do not find it equal to the F-3HP system. Lens for lens properly chosen the Nikon F-3HP out performs the OM-2. The only area where the OM system outperforms the Nikon is in weight. The most popular lens is the 35mm f2.0. Zeiss has come out with their ZF which outperforms the 35mm f2.0 Zuiko. The portrait lens for both are the legendary 105mm f2.5 AiS v. the 85mm f2.0. The Nikkor is much better. The Olympus probably has a better 24mm f2.8 that is a little better than the Nikkor version but how ofter do you use the 24mm. The F-3HP has motor drive and a removable prism. Granted the Nikon is more expensive & heavier.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I see, then you should definitely sell those underperformed OM lenses and let those with inferior standard enjoy them ...tremendously.