jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I've just received my latest OM, an OM-2SP, and am surprised. Surprised at the difference from my OM-2 in the speed setting ring. The SP's is much thinner resulting in there being less to grip to set the speed. The ring also is much stiffer to turn than the one on my OM-2. It could be that it just hasn't been used through the years and might ease off over time. However, has anyone any bright ideas that will help now? A small drop of cleaning fluid did make a bit of difference, but only a bit.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
One of the OM's I bought a while ago had this problem ... the ring was stiff and the action unpleasant. The ball and detent system that's inside dries out and needs to be cleaned and re-lubricated. I pulled mine apart and did so with some of that white lithium grease but you have to be very careful as there is a small gear at the bottom that tends to dissengage from the ring and can be a bitch to get right again! Once done though the action was smooth as silk and was well worth the trauma ... the little ball and spring is tiny and if you drop either you may never see them again!
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Thanks Keith - that's very helpful. I'll have a look at the schematic diagrams that I have a reference to, and then contemplate doing what you suggest. I can't say that I am surprised about the drying up of the ball and detent. It might be a job after the Christmas spirit has worn off - needs a steady hand and the ability to keep the watchmaker's eyeglass in place!
I've shelved the idea of an OM-4 or similar for a bit - guess its the wrong time of year because prices here in UK have moved up in the last month. I'll have another look in February. In the mean time I've this quite smart 2SP to get to grips with.
I've shelved the idea of an OM-4 or similar for a bit - guess its the wrong time of year because prices here in UK have moved up in the last month. I'll have another look in February. In the mean time I've this quite smart 2SP to get to grips with.
hans voralberg
Veteran
Hi Jesse if you dont mind spending a bit on it Keith Leedham at KL camera repair can do that very quickly
George S.
How many is enough?
Jesse,
Apologies if you already know this, but I believe you have to take careful note of the ball's and the whatchamacallit thing that the ball rides against's position when you disassemble.... and remember to put it back together with the same position and orientation. Otherwise it won't move through all the possible shutter speeds.
Apologies if you already know this, but I believe you have to take careful note of the ball's and the whatchamacallit thing that the ball rides against's position when you disassemble.... and remember to put it back together with the same position and orientation. Otherwise it won't move through all the possible shutter speeds.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Given this thread ... DO YA THINK???
ColinW
* Click *
Hi Jesse if you dont mind spending a bit on it Keith Leedham at KL camera repair can do that very quickly
I second that vote for Keith, the guy is a genius. It's better to phone though as he's a bit of a computerphobe and doesn't bother with his email much.
As far as 'spending a bit' goes, I found his prices very resonable and his turnaround time is very quick indeed.
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Trius:
But I've just got an OM-2SP to contend with.
For an old guy like me to even contemplate spot programming is a massive acheivement. Yesterday or was it today or even last week, I realised that the remote for the TV does more than just turn the set on or off! ( now where did I put that remote, I'll have to find my glasses and I put them down somewhere!)
jesse
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Hans: GeorgeS: ColinW:
Thanks for ideas and suggestions,
jesse
Thanks for ideas and suggestions,
jesse
wgerrard
Veteran
Wouldn't it be nice if Olympus would follow the lead of Nikon with their retro tribute versions of the S3 & SP and bring back the OM-1
Here commences preaching to the choir:
What would be really, really nice would be an OM-sized digital that could take OM lenses with no crop factor. Same thing folks want on the M-mount front (the M9 is not going to saturate that market).
Ah... to dream...
George S.
How many is enough?
This thread is fast approaching its 500th post! Go Zuiks!
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Yeah, Bill, that would be a dream come true. Unfortunately, it will remain a dream. I'd take a re-issue of the film OM-3t (black) in a heartbeat.
pggunn
gregor
Yes, that would be nice. A digital OM4 with all manual controls. Shutter speed dial, ISO dial, one for color balance, metering mode, a hot shoe, but no built in flash, a swiveling LCD screen like the RD1 to be used just for image review, a display button to toggle histogram and exposure information on and off, and an erase image/format card button. That's about what it would take for me to get interested in digital again, though I don't think I'll ever give up film completely.
And Trius, a reissue of the OM3 would be nice too.
pggunn
gregor
Yeah! Now that's a very good idea!
wgerrard
Veteran
Well, I don't expect to see digital backs or all-manual digitals. Only oddballs like us would buy them.
But, I do expect production costs for sensors to decrease to the point that they are not such a determining factor in the price of a camera. That doesn't mean Olympus will start making a digital OM. It might mean, however, that they market an affordable full-frame 4/3 camera that can take OM lenses with an adapter. If the thing had a bloody viewfinder, I buy one.
But, I do expect production costs for sensors to decrease to the point that they are not such a determining factor in the price of a camera. That doesn't mean Olympus will start making a digital OM. It might mean, however, that they market an affordable full-frame 4/3 camera that can take OM lenses with an adapter. If the thing had a bloody viewfinder, I buy one.
George S.
How many is enough?
Agree, Bill. If they made one I'd probably buy it too.
The problems with just making a digital back to slap onto an existing film body are many. The OMs being so slim already, where would you put the new electronics? Plus battery power, because you can't power it on two 357 button cells. I don't think you could cram all that into the back alone. What with the sensor thickness, the LCD screen thickness, the electronics, the battery, etc. etc. Maybe an OM sized digital would be possible, but only if you could gut the film body's (now) unneeded parts, you could probably squeeze the battery into the film canister area, and some electronics where the film advance and sprockets are, but it would take a complete redo, not just slap a new back on.
The problems with just making a digital back to slap onto an existing film body are many. The OMs being so slim already, where would you put the new electronics? Plus battery power, because you can't power it on two 357 button cells. I don't think you could cram all that into the back alone. What with the sensor thickness, the LCD screen thickness, the electronics, the battery, etc. etc. Maybe an OM sized digital would be possible, but only if you could gut the film body's (now) unneeded parts, you could probably squeeze the battery into the film canister area, and some electronics where the film advance and sprockets are, but it would take a complete redo, not just slap a new back on.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
So we're all agreed on memorial re-issues of the OM-3 and OM-4 then?
funkpilz
Well-known
I might be deluded, but if Olympus made a full frame camera that accepted OM lenses, with or without adapter, I think a lot of people would buy it.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Olympus will NEVER introduce a 35mm-size frame digital camera with OM mount.
First off, they have staked out their position with 4/3 and m4/3 spec cameras. That was (and is) a huge investment for them, and they cannot afford another investment of similar magnitude. While the entire company, which comprises their medical imaging, systems and other non-camera areas are substantial, they are still a relatively small company. The camera division is its own P&L centre, so unless the board is willing to see that division take a loss for a long time, it will not happen.
Second, they have stated that legacy OM system lenses are NOT adequate for current digital capture technologies. Unless they were willing to partner with Kodak or some other partner to develop or adapt the M9 type sensor to an OM body (again, a relatively huge investment,) they would not risk the bad reviews coming from legacy glass on an OM-D.
In addition, they would open the door to Zeiss and others producing 3rd party glass for such a system, which would eat into potential profits from the sale of any new digital-specific lenses developed for such a system. Zeiss, in particular, already has the glass ready; converting the mount to OM would be fairly trivial. With most of their R&D costs already sunk, Zeiss would be able to compete even if new OM-D lenses were priced 10-25% lower. Who wouldn't be willing to spend a small premium for Zeiss glass on an OM?
No, a "full-frame" OM-D will never see the light of day. It is highly, highly unlikely that even Maitani-san memorial film OMs would be even considered, though the appeal to his memory would likely be the only chance for that happening.
I don't mean this as a downer, cuz I'm pretty sure everyone realizes this already and that the dreams mentioned are dreams that further enhance our fondness for the OM system. Thank goodness we have folks like John Hermanson to keep our OMs ticking.
Chop wood. Carry water.
First off, they have staked out their position with 4/3 and m4/3 spec cameras. That was (and is) a huge investment for them, and they cannot afford another investment of similar magnitude. While the entire company, which comprises their medical imaging, systems and other non-camera areas are substantial, they are still a relatively small company. The camera division is its own P&L centre, so unless the board is willing to see that division take a loss for a long time, it will not happen.
Second, they have stated that legacy OM system lenses are NOT adequate for current digital capture technologies. Unless they were willing to partner with Kodak or some other partner to develop or adapt the M9 type sensor to an OM body (again, a relatively huge investment,) they would not risk the bad reviews coming from legacy glass on an OM-D.
In addition, they would open the door to Zeiss and others producing 3rd party glass for such a system, which would eat into potential profits from the sale of any new digital-specific lenses developed for such a system. Zeiss, in particular, already has the glass ready; converting the mount to OM would be fairly trivial. With most of their R&D costs already sunk, Zeiss would be able to compete even if new OM-D lenses were priced 10-25% lower. Who wouldn't be willing to spend a small premium for Zeiss glass on an OM?
No, a "full-frame" OM-D will never see the light of day. It is highly, highly unlikely that even Maitani-san memorial film OMs would be even considered, though the appeal to his memory would likely be the only chance for that happening.
I don't mean this as a downer, cuz I'm pretty sure everyone realizes this already and that the dreams mentioned are dreams that further enhance our fondness for the OM system. Thank goodness we have folks like John Hermanson to keep our OMs ticking.
Chop wood. Carry water.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
Hi all... I've been toying with getting into the OM system for a while now and have a chance at picking up an OM1 w/50mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.8 for $60... is this a good deal? I'm told the camera is in perfect working order but no idea what kind of cosmetic shape.