om 1 arrived today

The 28-48 was designed as a walkaround lens for a single-lens kit, and I agree that the focal length range is about perfect. (24-48 might have been a bit more interesting, but at its price-point, that couldn't be expected, I suspect.)

Gary Reece's tests here are a great resource. The 28-48 doesn't fare too badly, I guess, but I haven't really studied his method of posting results.
 
I developed an interest in OM gear after the camera show in San Jose a few months ago. They are so small, and so well made.

On Saturday I went back to San Jose for the next installment of the camera show, planning to lowball dealers on OM-1 or OM-2 bodies and maybe a 35 or 50 mm lens. There are usually so many for sale at this show that I figured I'd have some success. I saw a couple of nice-looking OM-2 bodies with lenses but they cost more than I wanted to spend ($100-$200... right!).

Somewhere in the middle of the room I walked past a table with odds and ends on it. On the second pass there was an OM-1 MD with 50/1.8 attached that I hadn't seen the first time. I looked at the price tag. It said:

$50
but the $50 was Xed out and below it, it said
$25

So I bought it.

I asked about other lenses and the guy had a Vivitar 28-210mm macro zoom that he wanted $10 for. Incidentally, it had an OM-G (OM-20) for a rear cap that he offered to throw in for free because, he said, "It isn't a very good camera."

Subsequently I was talked into accepting a 28/2.8 lens for the OMs as well so now I have two new bodies and three new lenses.

Unfortunately, the OM-1 shutter jammed halfway through the first roll -- hopefully it's an easy fix because I'm not going to spend money to CLA a camera I can probably replace more cheaply than fix. Meanwhile, the OM-G seems to have absolutely nothing wrong with it. It isn't quite as solid as the OM-1, but it appears to have all the other advantages of the OM system as well as a full manual mode. Both cameras are very clean and the lenses don't have any flaws that I can see.

Cameras are fun!
 
Last edited:
By the way, the 50/1.8 came with three magnifying filters screwed onto it. I offered to leave two of the three filters behind (I'm not sure what I'd use even one for) but the seller insisted that I take them.

Is there any application for three magnifying filters being used at the same time?

If not, does anyone want one?
 
All my black ones have yellow metal at the corners, one is an OM-1n, only the Chrome and the Ti dont, the Ti jams and lives in a card board box.

Noel
 
Xmas said:
All my black ones have yellow metal at the corners, one is an OM-1n, only the Chrome and the Ti dont, the Ti jams and lives in a card board box.

Noel
Click to expand...
Noel: The wear at the strap lugs is brassing, which is common for all black paint cameras. A lot of people really like the look; I didn't used to but now I do. 🙂

Let me know if you want to get rid of the OM-4Ti.

Earl
 
jshelly said:
Does anyone else have worn corners on their OM-1? My does, and I would swear that it looks like brass underneath.
Click to expand...

Trius

So sorry I forgot the quote, from post on previous page.

And the wear on mine is also at the corners rather then the strap lugs, I normally work with the ERC bottom on, I got chips dinks & gouges as well, from previous owners I missed the boat on getting any new ones - the Ti has only slight 'skuff' marks (it is my only from new bit) and I'll send it back to the repair man one day, I only need two bodies, to work and the OMs are so reliable, normally, it is the only fault Ive ever had apart from:

Lenses that I've bought with sand in focus or oil on blades that I've fixed myself. It was the simple high number, remove rear ring and wipe with cotton gloves fix, I think the dealer told me I had to take it away with the body.

One OM-1 has gum on the slow speeds which I've never fixed as it does not annoy.

The foam annoys, I dont think I have a pentaprism at risk, hope not.

The Ti jam is a remove the mirror box and hours and hours,,,

I think the OM1, 2, 3, and 4 were all brass, only the Ti were different dont know about the others, Sp etc...

I'll give you first refusal if I ever consider selling and as I only really like the mechanical OM-1 it is a possibility. I have to turn of their meters, as I chase the needles, otherwise... The star trek OM4 display I seem to tolerate most days, -sometimes I use the spot/Hi/Low, when I cannot find my Weston.

Atvatistic?

Noel
 
Last edited:
OM pr0n

OM pr0n

Here are my new OMs. Sorry for the crappy first picture of the OM-1. They're both very clean.

I've got some pointers off the web for how to fix the OM-1. I'd really like to get the $25 wonder up and running again myself.
 

Attachments

  • om1_1.jpg
    om1_1.jpg
    223 KB · Views: 0
  • om1_2.jpg
    om1_2.jpg
    198.6 KB · Views: 0
  • omg_1.jpg
    omg_1.jpg
    192 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Here are my new OMs. Sorry for the crappy first picture of the OM-1. They're both very clean.
I've got some pointers off the web for how to fix the OM-1. I'd really like to get the $25 up and running again myself.
Click to expand...
Those really do look like clean examples - I do hope you get the OM1 back into service.

And the OMG really was a steal. I think it's possibly the best of the OMx0 series (it was called the OM20 here in the UK), because of its manual mode. I have an OM10 (which I will probably get rid of) and its light weight, but still quite solid construction, is really quite nice at times when you don't need hand-to-hand-combat toughness. But the thing that stops me using it is that it is aperture-priority auto only (the manual adaptor is a pain), and I really can't handle that (It was an enlightening surprise really, because I use an OM2 on auto a lot - I just hadn't realised how much I rely on switching to manual and selectively metering mid-tone areas).

Hope you enjoy your OMs
 
Here are my new OMs.
Click to expand...
Oh, forgot to mention your lenses. The zuiko 28/2.8 is a cracker, in my opinion, and you've got a multi-coated version that should be nice and sharp with good contrast. And I see that the 50 is an early "silvernose". I have a silvernose 50/1.4 and love it for b&w work - its handling of b&w midtones is really nice (which is possibly due to its single coating), and I like the bokeh too. But I think my multicoated 50/1.8 works better for colour. It would be interesting to hear what you think when you compare the two lenses.
 
Hi Alan, thanks for the info. It seems like there's an awful lot to learn about these cameras, as well as a community of devotees as rabid as the Leica folks. I am having some fun with the 28 since I'm not used to having a wide angle (I only have a 50 for my M3) and focusing the lens on both OM bodies is a piece of cake (I think -- of course, I have not gotten any photos back yet).

I'll probably use both bodies (assuming I manage to bring the OM-1 back to life) on manual all the time as I'm used to doing with my M3. For some reason I have a really hard time seeing meter readings in the viewfinder of every metered camera I own -- my eyes don't focus right at that distance or something -- so I'll probably just eyeball exposure or use my handheld meter with both cameras. It's mildly annoying that the OM-G needs a battery to operate but I guess I'll get used to it.
 
Hey, Melanie, if you're willing to spare one of those close up lenses I'm interested! (Are they Zuiko or third party?)

I got into Olympus only relatively recently. I turned up my nose at them for the longest time, maybe because I thought they were "amateur" stuff compared to Nikon, my first SLR love. Now I've got -- what? -- an OM-1, OM-1n, OM-2 (2) and OM-2n, and 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 (2), 50/3.5, 75-150, 200/4, 300/4.5; Tokina AT-X 28-70, Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5, Vivitar 70-210/4.5. Holy crap.

I suppose a Putsian analysis would reveal the Zuikos to be overly contrasty, at the expense of ultimate resolution. All I know is that they seem plenty sharp for me -- I am hard pressed to think of a bad picture I've taken with them that wasn't my fault. The bodies are brilliant designs, and about the best looking SLRs around, at least the -1 and -2. All mine can stand overhauls at this point, but they deliver the goods.
 
Howdy --

The magnifying filters are Tiffens. I think I'm going to hang onto them for now having found out that I can actually use them stacked. Might be worth playing around with. They may be homeless again later though.

Are the Vivitar zoom lenses supposed to be good? The one I got looks like it's in perfect condition (glass). It is a 28-210 multicoated "macro focus zoom." Not having any experience with SLRs beyond my dSLR I have no idea what this lens is really for.

I'm looking forward to my first rolls from the OM-G, at least. Hopefully the OM-1 won't be paralyzed forever.
 
Mealnie: As Alan said, that 28 is a very good lens; you will have fun!

I've never shot with the Vivitars. They're often quite good; Vivatar didn't make lenses, they sourced them from other manufacturers such as Cosina (how appropriate for this forum!) Kiron, Tokina, Sigma, etc. To find out which manufacturer for your lens, go here

You can have some fun with the close-up adapters, don't sell them short. If macro ain't your thang, then that's understandable, but for quick but decent close-ups, they can be unexpectedly good.

Nick: Yeah, you got into real real good; only a few more lenses to go, and Puts be damned! :angel:
 
my 28-210 is a phoenix.

but it arrived in 2 pieces, the rear internal piece unscrewed from the vibration of the trip up north and a thin spacer came loose and get bent a bit.
if any handy kind of guy has a use for it, it's yours for shipping cost.
joe
 
Tarzak said:
Melanie, nice looking OM1.

They look better without the hot shoe.

Of course if you don't need it, maybe I could have it? 🙂
Click to expand...

The hot shoe or the OM-1? I need the body as a rear cap for the 50/1.8!

I hate flash but might change my mind sometime. I don't know. For all I know, the entire thing may end up going for parts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom