I'm curious how the eyepoints and finders of both cameras compare. I know the F3HP is made for high eyepoint (so it's easy to see the whole screen for eyeglass wearers). I've also heard that the OM-3/4 have higher eyepoints, too, and can match the brightness of the OM-2 finders with the 2-series focusing screens.
I'm trying to decide on a 35mm film SLR. Olympus, Nikon, Minolta are the candidates, and I used to shoot on an old Canon FD system.
Thanks for any insights!
well I have 2 OM-2ns and an OM-2sp. the OM-2n will not accept my 2-4 screen. I think I have 1-1s in both of those and a 1-5 in my favorite OM-1 and and maybe a 1-1 in the backup.
I also wear glasses, I cant see more than about a foot without them.
yes, in terms of size, the OM-2n/1 is biggest, then 2sp, then F3HP. The screen I have in the F3HP is a red dot grid. It's ok. The 2-2 screen with a good lens (like the 50/2 macro) is like HDtv compared to EVERYTHING else. It's even better than using an M2 IMO. The F3 suffices.
I like the F3 as a camera plenty. The viewfinder is certainly acceptable and it's operations are fine. I do not like the lenses. I have the 55/3.5 and 55/2.8 and find each to be a bit worse than the OM 50/3.5 and 50/2.0.
But I didnt buy a Nikon camera to shoot Nikon lenses. Not this time anyway. I bought it SPECIFICALLY to shoot the 50 f2 Makro-Planar, which is all kinds of huge and sharp and so on.
The current line of Zeiss SLR lenses is really great, so I recommend that on a pro level Nikon body. The F3HP seems like the best choice to me. Oh yeah, that's why I have one.
After that I like OM. If you can spend up to get a series 2 screen and one of the really special lenses (21/2, 50/2, 90/2, etc) it's still cheaper than the Zeiss option and you have something really good.
I only shoot 50s, so maybe it's different outside of that. I neither know, nor care.
I'd rate the OM-2sp above the Nikon F3HP but the 50MP over the Zuiko macro. In the end, the lower price of the OM and the fact that you're "settling" for what is still one of the very, very, very best 50s ever made probably makes that the winner in my eyes.
If you want in for not much, maybe Pentax is the best bet? They have the best 50/1.4 and I dont think their system is modular so you just buy the best body you can find (MX, LX?) and one of those and they aren't very pricey.
Minolta is fine if you buy the 58/1.2 and can tolerate whatever camera you put it on. Ive had one of those too. Nice lens, I can live without mine and I like the OM50/1.2 just as much but I can use it with a good body.
YMMV. actually, it WILL vary.
