Olympus OM-1 vs. OM-2

thmk

thmk

Well-known
Local time
1:19 PM
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
457
Hello,

I currently have an OM-1 and an OM-2 for testing and using the 3.5/28 I did notice that light fall-off in the finder corners is visibly stronger in the OM-1. Both cameras are clean and have the same screen type (1-1) built-in. Furthermore I noticed that film advance is smoother with the OM1. Is there someone who can confirm these observations? I am torn, which camera to keep. I do not necessarily need the AE of the OM-2 and lean towards the OM-1 but for my taste the finder is too dark for use with the 3.5/28.

Cheers
Thomas-Michael
 
thmk

Not noticed that, but my OM2, is long gone I'll compare with OM4 and report, the problem may be the screen did you swap screens?

Noel
 
No, I do not have the necessary tool, yet and without it I do not want to try to swap them.
 
thmk

Probably a good decision until you have used the correct tool, it is not obvious how to do it with mk1 finger and thumb.
I believe there are more parts availability problems with the OM-x after the OM1.
Do you need the auto flash auto exposure?

Noel
 
@Xmas

No, I do not need anything related to flash. The cameras do not even have the flash shoe.

In the mean time I found some more information in the web stating that the finder magnification of the OM-1 is slighty higher than in the OM-2 resulting in the described effect with wide lenses. So for me the OM-2 seems to be the way to go.
 
Hi Thomas-Michael,

As for which camera to keep, regardless of the condition of each one, it is a question of what do you like. The OM1 offers you a somewhat quieter shutter and almost no electronics. The OM2 offers you TTL flash, AE, and other very interesting electronic features.

Basically the OM2 electronics, are from the mid 70's, so the choice is not between a basic camera or a digital monster.

Regarding the softness of the winding you find, it is only due to the specific samples. Both should wind the same. Should have the same brightness of viewfinder with the same screen. Etc.

Just beware, the OM system is highly modular and addictive. Once you bite you later discover yourself married with a whole family.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I will have a look through my OM-1n & OM-2 & OM-2n in the next couple of days. The comparison with the OM-4 won't be fair, as the OM-3 & OM-4 (as well as the OM-2SP) take the 2-series screens,which are brighter. The 2-series screens can be retrofitted to the OM-1 & OM-2, but the meter will need to be adjusted, after which you can't go back.

The other difference between the OM-1 & OM-2 is that the OM-2 lacks mirror lock up. For me, this is a significant issue. Since I have both models, it's no big deal, BUT if I could only keep one, it would be the OM-1 because with close/macro work, it's an advantage, IMO.

I agree that the differences in film advance are sample-based.
 
Can anybody comment on noticeable differences between the 1 and 2 shutter/mirror sounds relative to eachother? Do either of them sound harsh, or is a "swoosh" the extent of it?
 
Sound identical to me, a soft "swoosh".
With the OM-1 from 1/8 down you can hear the clock work missing from
the OM-2, obviously.

My OM-4 sounds noticably harder than the [12].

Roland.
 
I have both of them for sale in classified with some good glasses...if someone want to try to see for yourself which one is better !
 
I had the OM-1. OM-3, and OM-4T years ago. From memory, the OM-1 was somewhat more quiet than the OM-3, which was identical to the OM-4T.

After totally divesting myself of SLRs (or so I thought) five years ago, a friend gave me her OM-2n with 50 f/1.8 lens. It's not quite as quiet as the OM-1, and I suspect it's because of the small secondary mirror, and its related escapement, behind the main mirror, used by the rear-facing metering cell at the floor of the mirror box (facilitating the camera's pioneering off-the-film-plane metering for ambient light and TTL flash). Film-advance smoothness seems similar to the OM-1 I used.

In some circles, the OM-2n seems to be regarded as the most trouble-free of all the electronic OMs. This particular OM has been used a lot in its lifetime, and, even though I don't use it a whole lot, it's a solid and friendly machine, something I find strangely rare in cameras of recent vintage, my Hexars and most M-mount cameras excepted.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
amateriat said:
...
After totally divesting myself of SLRs (or so I thought) five years ago, a friend gave me her OM-2n with 50 f/1.8 lens. It's not quite as quiet as the OM-1, and I suspect it's because of the small secondary mirror, and its related escapement, behind the main mirror, used by the rear-facing metering cell at the floor of the mirror box (facilitating the camera's pioneering off-the-film-plane metering for ambient light and TTL flash). Film-advance smoothness seems similar to the OM-1 I used.

In some circles, the OM-2n seems to be regarded as the most trouble-free of all the electronic OMs. This particular OM has been used a lot in its lifetime, and, even though I don't use it a whole lot, it's a solid and friendly machine, something I find strangely rare in cameras of recent vintage, my Hexars and most M-mount cameras excepted.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

Actually, the OM-2(N) has just one mirror. The OM-2S(p) brought in the secondary mirror, also seen on the OM-4 and -3. The OM-2N is also still highly repairable.
 
I have found the shutter/mirror sound of the om-1/2 is greatly influenced by the state of the foam padding around the screen, where the mirror strikes. Getting the right foam is important- ebay seller 'interslice' has the right stuff.
Also some years of the om 1/2 bodies have foam in the prism cover that will corrode the copper backing of the mirror surface on the prism, causing what looks like crumpled metal to appear in the viewfinder image. Always look closely at the whole finder image around the edges for that.. lots of internet lore on the subject exists.
 
thmk said:
Hello,

I currently have an OM-1 and an OM-2 for testing and using the 3.5/28 I did notice that light fall-off in the finder corners is visibly stronger in the OM-1. Both cameras are clean and have the same screen type (1-1) built-in. Furthermore I noticed that film advance is smoother with the OM1. Is there someone who can confirm these observations? I am torn, which camera to keep. I do not necessarily need the AE of the OM-2 and lean towards the OM-1 but for my taste the finder is too dark for use with the 3.5/28.

Cheers
Thomas-Michael
Click to expand...

I would suggest you keep both if you can :)

For smoothness in operation, OM-1 is the king (try to compare the shutter speed ring "clicks" between the two). But for events where people move around, the AE on the OM-2 is very useful, and I find the +/- compensation dial on the OM2 very versatile.

Both are a dear to use. If I'm forced to choose, my OM-1 stays.

Btw, try to get 1-13 screen, the split screen focusing is more precise than the 1-1.
 
Many people prefer the 2n , but I like the 1n better ... couldn't tell the diff in sound side by side, but I prefer the more solid sound on the 1n.

And yes...only the 2sp, 4, and pc has the second mirror (I hate the "click clunk" sound on these)!
 
Yes, the 1-13 screen is better than the 1-1. I'd love to have 2 or 3 of the 1-14 screens, though ... Diagonal split image.
 
OM 1 versus 2

OM 1 versus 2

I have still OM1,OM2n and OM2 SP. The last one is the least reliable in my hands. Also serious drainage of batteries!! These cameras are so reliable, using my OM1 since 1978, OM 2 was bought new in 1982. I don't think there is a difference between shutter noice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom