OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

remegius said:
Christopher (or anyone)...

Can you provide a little education here. I just recently started using an OM2 (and loving it!), and I'm pretty sure that it has in it the stock screen. I'm OK with that, but if there is a significant advantage to swapping for another screen I would love to hear about it. I've had this screen out of the camera to clean out the dust, so doing a change would be no problem.

Cheers...

Rem
Click to expand...

The 2-series screens are only for the OM-2s Program, the OM-3/3Ti, and OM-4/4T/4Ti models. It cannot be installed in an OM-2/2n or an OM-1/1n because its tab (that you hold to install it) is too wide for the space the OM-2 provides for the tab to sit. Some people break the tab off so they can install them anyway. I wouldn't bother. The chance of damaging an expensive and RARE part is too great, and the brighter screen messes up the OM-2 metering system. The OM-2 has CdS cells in the finder for manual metering and also to indicate the approximate shutter speed you'll get with autoexposure. The actual autoexpsure speed is determined by the Silicon Blue Cell in the bottom of the camera that reads off the film and fist shutter curtain. So, with a 2-series screen your OM-2 will give accurate autoexposure results, though the speed indicated in the finder will not be what you actually get. In manual mode, the camera's meter will be off.
 
remegius said:
I don't quite follow this. In manual mode you still have meter matching, which which means the meter is on, right?

Cheers...

Rem
Click to expand...

When I said "Off", I meant "Not Accurate". Sorry for the confusion. If course it will be on, but it will indicate an exposure that will underexpose. John Hermanson is the guy to ask about this, he's an RFF member and Olympus repair tech, but I think on the OM email list he has stated that it is not possible to recalibrate the OM-2 meter for the brighter screen because the screen's brightness is not consistent across the range of focal lengths of different lenses, unlike the 1-series screens, which apparently transmit the same amount of light no matter what lens you use.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
When I said "Off", I meant "Not Accurate". Sorry for the confusion. If course it will be on, but it will indicate an exposure that will underexpose. John Hermanson is the guy to ask about this, he's an RFF member and Olympus repair tech, but I think on the OM email list he has stated that it is not possible to recalibrate the OM-2 meter for the brighter screen because the screen's brightness is not consistent across the range of focal lengths of different lenses, unlike the 1-series screens, which apparently transmit the same amount of light no matter what lens you use.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for clearing that up. Back to the issue of the screen. The one that is in my OM2n is a 1-3, which I imagine was the standard issue screen. Is there another more desirable screen for use in the OM2?

Last question: do you have a link for the OM email list? I've haven't had any success finding it.

Cheers...

Rem
 
... An OM-1 with the regular 1-series screen is as bright as an OM-4/4T with the 2-screen...maybe even better!
Click to expand...

So what you're saying here is the OM-1 with a 1.2 lens and stock screen would pretty well be as good as it gets in OM for low light shooting?
 
remegius said:
Thanks very much for clearing that up. Back to the issue of the screen. The one that is in my OM2n is a 1-3, which I imagine was the standard issue screen. Is there another more desirable screen for use in the OM2?

Last question: do you have a link for the OM email list? I've haven't had any success finding it.

Cheers...

Rem
Click to expand...

1-13 is the standard screen. The number on the tab is just a 13 though, so if thats what yours has it is a 1-13, not a 1-3. I can't remember what the 1-3 is. I have, in addition to my 2-13 screens and 1-13 normals, a 1-1 and a 1-2.

The 1-13 and 2-13 are matte screens with a split image in the middle with a microprism ring around the split image area. The 1-1 and 1-2 are matte with the whole center ring occupied by microsprisms instead of the split image with microprisms around it. Of the 1-series screens I prefer the 1-1 and 1-2 over the 1-13....I like microprisms better than the split image and I wish they'd done a 2-series version of them. The difference between the 1-1 and 1-2 is the 1-1 is optimized for wideangle and standard lenses and the 1-2 is for long lenses. The microprisms are made slightly different in each to work better with different focal lengths.
 
Keith said:
So what you're saying here is the OM-1 with a 1.2 lens and stock screen would pretty well be as good as it gets in OM for low light shooting?
Click to expand...

Yeah. That or an OM-4T with the 2-13, but if I remember right my OM-1 I used to have was slightly brighter, very slightly, than the 4T with 2-series screen.
 
I used ONLY an OM-1 x 50/1.4 for twenty years of backcountry hiking, climbing, skiing, and no babying. I still have and still use it, it's never been serviced, it functions perfectly (now have the 100/2.8 and 35/2.8 too). I've been sidetracked for three years by RFs, but I'm rejazzed about the OM, and I know it so well, I can shoot it behind my back with my eyes closed.
 
I don't think it's necessary to nitpick too much over focusing screens, as the OM series cameras come equipped with very large and bright viewfinders. I've seen quite a few 2 series screens in the shops here in Tokyo (anything which is rare in Europe or America is common in Japan), but as I have no complaint about the 1-13 screens which are in my cameras, I haven't bothered to spend the 2000 or so that a replacement screen costs.

I'm still on the hunt for an 18mm wide-angle OM-Zuiko lens. If anyone here has a nice 18mm they are willing to trade, I'll swap you a clean Olympus M-1 (when's the last time you saw one in real life?) with a mint 50/1.4 MC for it.
 
chippy said:
have to disagree completely here Chris, i just checked again, just for the sake of it and it is clearly evident that the OM-4Ti and 3Ti with 2 series screens are brighter than OM-1n with standard screens, the difference is most noticeable in the fresnel field not in the centre split field of course, the center doesnt look much or any different, its at at least a couple of stops difference in the outer though (testing with a 50mm showed at least two stops difference in brightness)

funny i find the OM just as easy to focus, sometimes much easier, than the leica M to focus and use for indoor shots (pub shots etc), go figure! each to their own
Click to expand...

Is it? I was wrong then, I was going by memory since I sold my OM-1 a few yrs ago. All I use are OM-4T now; I like the metering system.


On the screens, wow, 200$? I got mine a few yrs ago when I lived in Santa Fe and had money to burn...I did not realize they'd gone so high. Damn!
 
Well after reading all the great things about the OM's I too have joined the club. I just had my newly acquired OM-1 MD CLA'd and my first roll of film is ready to go. When I saw this mint OM-1 advertised locally it was too good to pass up. It came with the F.Zuiko 50 1.8 , the original leather case, and a nice small Pentax flash. The original owner had put less than 10 rolls through it and kept all the original paper work and newsletters Olympus sent out to purchasers. Since it had not been used in at least 15 yrs I sent it for servicing and battery conversion. I think that I will really enjoy the Olympus - the craftsmanship and beautiful detailing is first rate IMHO. This is my first post here but I have enjoyed reading the posts here for some time.
 
Keith asked, "So what you're saying here is the OM-1 with a 1.2 lens and stock screen would pretty well be as good as it gets in OM for low light shooting?"

My response would be: absolutely not.

The 2 series screen or the Beattie will give you at least one more stop, no matter what lens you're using.
 
remegius said:
Thanks very much for clearing that up. Back to the issue of the screen. The one that is in my OM2n is a 1-3, which I imagine was the standard issue screen. Is there another more desirable screen for use in the OM2?

Last question: do you have a link for the OM email list? I've haven't had any success finding it.

Cheers...

Rem
Click to expand...

I just went through the screen swapping excercise myself, and have found that I prefer the 1-4 screen in practice to anything else (including the 1-13, 1-10, and 1-4n). But that's a personal preference, and ten different people might have ten different preferences.

By the way Chris, I just picked up a 2-4 screen in LN condition from KEH for $45. Even on ebay they go for way less than $100. But they are damn hard to find!
 
Last edited:
willy_icon said:
Allright, for my first post, here's another OM story:

The om10 fitted with a 50 f/1.8 was my first SLR. It was a horrible, growling, dog of a shutter-impaired camera that led me to believe photography was not for me. I think shot some 40 rolls with it, all blurred. I didn't know what was going on, i just kept trying (i was 14). After getting back another bunch of blurred rolls i finally put the camera away. Didn't sell it, just put it away.
I couldn't get rid of it, because it looked so much like how a camera is supposed to look...
Years went by with me eyeing the om10 in disapointment every time i grabbed any of the other camera's i was using (canon, zenit, ricoh, minolta).
Fast forward to last year. I was minding my own business when a friend called me to say he had picked up an om1 from a local cameragraveyard/pawn shop/greatest store in the world. He said the guy had two more lying around and that he paid 10 euro's for his. I went over there and walked out with two om1 bodies for E 15,-. I bought both because i figured i would frankenstein them together into one working camera.
The 50 f/1.8 had always been in the back of my mind (and closet) and when i fitted it to one of the om1's angels started to sing: "Forget the om10, or any other camera for that matter, THIS is what a camera should look like."
On top of that, both om1's worked fine and each had a different focusing screen. The first 'second' lens i got was the 28 f/2.8, for E 25,-. When it arrived in the mail i was surprised to find that the lens had lost a stop in the mail. That's right, i got the 28 f/2 for the price of a heavy lunch. Unfortunately the front element had some sort of corrosion damage beyond belief so it's not usable. Next i got an om4 and a 50 f/1.4 from keh, the om4 was rated BGN, the 50 rated UG. The om4 is now my favourite camera (it's heavily brassed, but fully functional. i'll take that for $90), the 50 turned out to be a nice $25 paperweight. Eventually added the 35 f/2.8 which i think is super and the search is on for one of the short tele's. Probably the 100 f/2.8 because i'm poor as desert rain.

Pardon me for this lengthy bit of fungusless anecdotal evidence. I have read the entire thread, found it to be a wealth of information, and despite not being much of a forumposter type of guy, just had to add my story.

thanks
Click to expand...

In regards to that 28/2, John Hermanson can bring it back to new. I also had a 28/2 w/ bad coating on the front element (it had been rubbed off on one side) and John replaced the front element and CLA'd the lens for about $200. You may want to think about sending your copy to him, that is easily one of my favorite lenses.
 
Thank you guys for the information about focusing screens!

Yesterday I bought an untested champagne OM4T, missing a battery cover, from a consignment shop selling on ebay, for $125. If it is functional then I got a good deal, even if it doesn't have a series 2 screen in it, and if it is nonfunctional, they will take it back, and I'm out the cost of shipping for the gamble.
 
Well, for Nikon I have the A,B,C,E,F,G,H,J,K,L,P,R, and T screens.

Whatever is in the OM-1 that I picked up for doing a CLA on a J-8, focusing the 50/1.4 on it at a candle-lit dinner was pretty easy.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Whatever is in the OM-1 that I picked up for doing a CLA on a J-8, focusing the 50/1.4 on it at a candle-lit dinner was pretty easy.
Click to expand...

The sheer size of that viewfinder is a real factor in gloomy light IMO ... boosting it by a stop or so with a better screen is hard to imagine ... but a delectible prospect none the less! :D
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Is it? I was wrong then, I was going by memory since I sold my OM-1 a few yrs ago. All I use are OM-4T now; I like the metering system.
Click to expand...

After I sold my wife's OM-4 (she went digital), I installed the 2-13 screen that I got for her on my OM-3. On some occasions I'm having trouble seeing the split on the mirror because of too much light. :)
 
Zuiko 50mm f1.4 w/ Portra 400NC
4370104514_f8a76781a6.jpg


4364158907_7a60d9aeb8.jpg


Zuiko 24mm f2.8
4364159245_8ac9e426d7.jpg
 
My name is OMboy and I'm a Zuikoholic :D

I found this thread while searching for some info and ended up joining the RFF forum just so I could chat with all you lovely OMophiles.
I have read the whole 34 pages before posting - that took me a while...!

I had a very cheap rangefinder as a first camera when I was about 13 which taught me a lot.
My first SLR was an OM10 and 50 1.8 - a birthday present some years ago.

I got a digi Canon P&S about five years ago for holidays and snaps but I always knew I would try film again at some point.

In the last six weeks I have picked up an OM1n chrome, OM2 chrome, OM2n black (X2) and still have my OM10. This is getting out of hand and I feel I need help...!
I love the feel of the OM range and feel a bit guilty joining a rangefinder forum to find like-minded SLR users - do you think my membership is doomed...?

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself and say how much I am enjoying (most of) the banter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom