o.t. - favourite om body

Sweet deal:
OM-1n body found on *Bay for $32-. It works just fine, tho' the meter needs repair.

As for now, I carry the Gossen Luna Pro a lot, meter or no.

I have another OM-1 with S/N 710xxx [6 digits]; must be the mid-1970's. Here the meter is right on, and two Zuiko 50/1.8's are great.

Ciao, mike
 
Magnus,

We are talking about OM's because they are the closest to a rangefinder in the SLR world.

I have an early OM-1 and a mid period OM-1 MD or N don't know how to distinguish them. I had to let go my OM-4 due to shutter issues and the repair was almost the same as the OM-1 MD, so a trade in occoured. I would love to get an OM-4ti someday.

Bill
 
my choice: any OM-1 (incl. MD and N).

bill: the MD has a motor mount and a little MD logo on the front right side (seen from the front).
the N has this as well, can be distinguished by a different hot shoe (but unfortunately i don't remember the actual number)

cheers,
sebastian
 
Last edited:
OM-1MD was the addition of motor drive capability to the OM-1; came a year or two after the introduction of the OM-1. The N models came out later (can't remember the exact year) and are designated OM-1n and OM-2n. The MD badge was dropped since all single-digit OMs were MD capable after OM-1 MD. The OM-2 was always motor drive capable, but was never badged OM-2MD, AFAIK.

The hot shoe for the Ns is the Shoe 4, which also is used on the OM-4.

As far as RF-like goes, I agree. At my next session at the Irish music jam I will take an OM-1n w/ 21/2 and a Leitz/Veriwide finder mounted. I'm going to lock up the mirror and shoot by scale focusing. And I will post here since it is essentially RF shooting!
 
Last edited:
Magnus said:
why are we discussing OM cameras on a rangefinder forum ?
Click to expand...


it's clearly marked as off topic and it's in the olympus section.
and because it's a tiny quiet camera that many here love.

and because we're waiting for jorge to start an oly section in the dslr site...;)
 
I have owned a few ..
OM 10 Okay i guess but it didn't like the rough life on safari in Africa
OM40 ( PC in the USA ) rather nice but uses batteries at an alarming rate
OM 2 Spot Program My latest toy and so far the favorite ... likes batteries too :(
I lust after an OM-1 I wish i could afford an OM-4 Ti .... BUT
It's the Zuiko lenses that have kept me using these cameras.
 
I started 20 years ago with an OM-G. It took great photos, but when it froze up I invested in two OM 1's (chrome and black). They have my vote as the best slr ever made. BUT, I'd still like to wrap my hands around an OM-3Ti!!
 
Favorite OM

Favorite OM

The black OM-1 which I purchased around 1976;ITS STILL PRODUCING FINE PHOTOS! In continual pro use for 30 years. I still own OM-2,OM-4T,OM-PC.OM-10. the later models were great for quick work,especially publicity and PR shooting with the TTL flash;slides were spot-on. But the OM-1 was literally a first love. When it first started using it,I heard a lot of derisive remarks about from Nikon purists

Had Nikon F and F2 when I was a pro(changed careers in 1993)as well,but used the OMs for field work.(Nikons in studio and for photographing artwork;Nikons have 100% accurate viewfinders;using a 45mm F:2.8 GN lens. The 45GN was intended for flash work,having an iris which was coupled to distance scale;however it was also a flat-field lens,and gave perfectly rectilinear shots of framed paintings).

The OM just felt right in my hands,and the lens line was comprehensive.

In truth the 70s/80s were the heydays for SLRS-Nikon,Pentax,Canon,Olympus were and are excellent.

Mikey GaGa
 
I forgot to mention that about a year ago I picked up a mint OM1 w/ a pristine 50mm 1.8 for $75 CDN at a pawn shop. I looked as though it sat in someones dresser drawer.

I highly recommend an OM to anyone.
 
Value for money: OM-2000 and OM-1. Each a camera of its own kind.
OM-2000 is a Cosina made body, very loud with kicking mirror, but the metering is perfect, and the ability to switch to spot metering is just invaluable. IMHO spot metering is essential when shooting slides.
OM-1 is made like a tank. Also very simple and thus reapirable by any just a little skilled tech. (even by me :) http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=442504 )
The viewfinder is big and bright, with nothing to distract you from your subject.

But for me, most important of all is the glass. All Zuikos are unbelievable lenses. Small, and all in the same form - all the time from 1970's to 1990's. (Nikon owners know what I'm talking about - AI / non AI, G... :D )

PS: Just recently I won an OM-4Ti with 35/2.8 and Winder on evilbay for €250. Not exactly bargain price, but I just had to have that camera... :angel: I'll tell you then what my favorite body is :D
 
According to my OM-4T manual (printed), the -5 only applies to the OTF (off-the-film) phase of the exposure. In normal spot mode (pre-exposure), it only reads to 0.
 
back alley said:
just wondering if you om fans have a favourite om camera.

joe
Click to expand...

I used an OM-3 and an OM-4 side by side for many years (1985-2005) and a OM1 for ten years before that.

The OM-4 was my favorite user, because the metering is so fantastic. It is very sensitive (going down to incredibly low light levels when you are on a tripod and thus in off-the-film mode). It has a very usable and effective system for doing multiple spot readings and averaging the readings. The flash automation is excellent! Great interchangeable screens (including Beatties!) and so on and on. I had a very fully equipped system.

I did have to have my OM-4 serviced a number of times in those 20 years, as metering system components went bad on me. The repair guys in my area could do it. If I were thinking of getting another one I would definitely find out where I was going to have it serviced, and I would assume I'd have it in there every couple of years at least.

I guess I would get the titanium model if I could, while I was at it. I must say, though, that the regular OM-4 body seemed very sturdy. I never had a single mechanical problem with any Olympus OMs in all those years, only the expected electrical problems as components got pretty old.

I do not think Olympus kept pace with other lens-makers in the quality of their lenses. They produced some spectacularly good ones (like their long, fast telephotos) but (for example) never produced a fast 50mm that was as good as the competition. I would rather shoot CV lenses, and Leica lenses really blow them away in equivalent focal lengths. However, I did a lot of good shooting with them and they are great to use. Sometimes quality is compromised a bit by their using fewer elements, but the result is really small and light lenses, like the 200mm f/5. Probably some fans here will chime in with their favorite Zuikos. (Mine were the 28mm f/2 and the 35-70mm f/3.6.) But I think this a fair verdict of the overall lens line compared with Nikon, Canon, and especially Leica. I think they just could not afford to improve such a large product line; they did not have enough success with professionals.

I have not said much about the OM-3 because I used it remarkably little. So long as I had the OM-4 in working order I never used the OM-3 by choice. I took it along when I needed two bodies or when the OM-4 was in the shop. I always had spare batteries with me, and the SR44 is a ubiquitous one anyway.

I can see why collectors prize the OM-3, especially the titanium one (which would be newer among other things). However, I don't see what would be the rationale for buying an OM-3 to use, instead of one of the automatic ones like an OM-4T. So you could get access to the lenses? Yes, but again, I don't think I would use Zuikos on an assignment where I could use RF lenses instead (28mm-135mm). Of course, you could envision a future in which film still existed but SR44 batteries didn't. Pretty far off, considering that Leica Ms use SR44s, too!
 
Last edited:
I guess I prefer the 3 over the 4-T because it forces me to work in manual. I seldom use the multi-spot average auto exposure on the 4-T because averaging the spot readings is seldom what I want to do. In manual you take readings on whatever you like and then place your exposure as you like among them.

It's also all mechanical and somehow slightly closer in spirit to the M6.

I don't want to get into the lens comparisons, let's just say both systems make nice prints?

Tom
 
Tom D: I agree with the overall assessment of the lenses, plus Tom's "both systems make nice prints" comment. The ratio of quality vs. cost & size also a factor. Of the lenses I own, the 100/2.8 and 21/2 are the standouts. The late SN 50 is no slouch, though it is not a Lux or Sonnar. Of those I don't or haven't owned, I'd be happy to own both of the 50 macros (f2 & f3.5), the 90/2 (also a macro) and the 100/2. As far as the fast 50 goes, I don't have any experience with the 50/1.2, but I wouldn't say no to having one to test.

One thing Tom D didn't mention is that Olympus really excelled with the macro system.

Also, to fully "test" the OM lenses when comparing them to RF lenses, you need to use an OM4 or OM2s with mirror lockup and aperture prefire.
 
Trius said:
One thing Tom D didn't mention is that Olympus really excelled with the macro system.

Also, to fully "test" the OM lenses when comparing them to RF lenses, you need to use an OM4 or OM2s with mirror lockup and aperture prefire.
Click to expand...

Yes, I very much enjoyed macro work in those days and remember fondly lying on my belly in Costa Rica shooting leaf-cutter ants marching along. The OM4 (especially!) was fantastic with the flash automation, with an Olympus flash connected via its special sync/automation cable so you could get it near the critters and shoot at small apertures. And the 50mm f/3.5 macro was very good. For anyone interested in macro shooting this camera system is really one of the great ones, 'cause you could switch to appropriate focusing screens and so on. I think I would probably use Canon digital equipment these days if I were still doing that stuff, but I might not get the same macro-flash goodies.

I found the tests with mirror up useful for comparing OM mount lenses with each other, for use on an OM. However, it seems like the right comparison between any SLR and any RF should include the SLR mirror banging around in there! That's fair, isn't it? (If we pursue this notion we might subtly get this thread back on topic, eh?)
 
The OM2n is my favourite. Aperture priority plus manual is the best combination for me, with a proper match-needle (which is better than LEDs). OM1n is my second favourite, because it works without batteries. And I also like the OM2s (though I haven't got one), but I don't like its battery usage - it drains even when not in use. The OM4 doesn't impress me, because cameras shouldn't be operated by buttons.
 
i also like aperture priority and manual together.
i was hoping my om2n would be delivered today but no luck. which means it won't be here for my break from work, too bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom