OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

Wow ... I used my recently CLA'd by camtech OM-1 for the first time in quite a while today ... I'd forgotten how slick that camera feels. I know 'buttery' is a patented Leica description but damn it I'm gonna say it ... it's buttery smooth!

I was using one of those pneumatic releases with the camera on a tripod and to be honest on some cameras those air releases struggle to get enough pressure to trip the shutter when you're using five metres of extension tubing ... not so with the OM-1. It also has the smoothest lightest advance of any OM I own.

It's amazing how you can not pick up your OM for several months and when you finally do, the love affair starts anew! :D
 
shadowfox said:
It took me a couple of years to realize that a bunch of A+ and B- means absolutely nothing when it comes to actually using a lens and be familiar with it enough to use them effectively. :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Too many variables of lens condition, tolerance variations of lens and camera and how they interact, etc. Also, looking at Gary Reese's test results, I am convinced that his OM-1 body that he used for testing was out of spec. The lens performance on that camera body are consistently relatively poor. While Gary attributes it to vibrations in the OM-1, lens test results by others using OM-1 bodies have never noted that problem.
 
dtcls100 said:
Totally agree. Too many variables of lens condition, tolerance variations of lens and camera and how they interact, etc. Also, looking at Gary Reese's test results, I am convinced that his OM-1 body that he used for testing was out of spec. The lens performance on that camera body are consistently relatively poor. While Gary attributes it to vibrations in the OM-1, lens test results by others using OM-1 bodies have never noted that problem.
Click to expand...

But Gary is right: on a tripod, an OM1 is weaker than, say, an OM4, since closing down the aperture does indeed induce vibrations. I've observed this, and so have others.

Then again, while this may lead to a rating change from A to B, in practice (no tripod, no pixel peeping, etc), it doesn't really matter.

Roland.
 
ferider said:
But Gary is right: on a tripod, an OM1 is weaker than, say, an OM4, since closing down the aperture does indeed induce vibrations. I've observed this, and so have others.

Then again, while this may lead to a rating change from A to B, in practice (no tripod, no pixel peeping, etc), it doesn't really matter.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Actually, the performance differences in various instances are far greater than that. For example, take a look at the test results for the Zuiko 250 f2.0. Performance is A (center) and B+ (corner) at f2.0 and A+ (center) and A- (corner) at f2.8 on an OM-4 with mirror and aperture pre-fire. The same lens on Gary Reese's OM-1n with mirror lockup rates a D (center) and C (corner) at f2.0 and a D+ (center) and C (corner) at f2.8. This huge difference is unlikely to be solely a result of any purported additional vibration, but much more likely indicates that his OM-1n body is out of spec. If that lack of sharpness was attributable solely to a feature of all OM-1s -- using an extremely sharp lens with mirror lockup -- it is difficult to see how anyone could get a sharp picture using any OM-1 camera, which obviously is not the case.
In fact, the test results of pretty much all of the Zuiko lenses he tests on his OM-1n are well below that of the same lens models being tested by Modern Photography and other published lens testers, even though those other lens testers didn't use mirror lockup. The sheer consistency of many lenses' relatively poor test results on his OM-1n body strongly suggests his OM-1n body is out of spec, perhaps with a focus accuracy issue. I've noticed that after I've had some used Ebay OM bodies overhauled (including focus check and adjustment), the sharpness of my pics has improved.
 
Never looked at the 250/2 - always was out of my league :) But Gary's wide open measurements do confirm that what you say makes sense (again I was referring not to mirror vibrations, but vibrations induced by aperture closing).

I myself am obsessive about SLR screen alignment (as well as RF adjustment on my Leicas). And I've had an OM that needed adjustment. For some (wrong) reasons screen alignment is rarely discussed here and other places (while RF alignment is a constant topic).
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
But Gary is right: on a tripod, an OM1 is weaker than, say, an OM4, since closing down the aperture does indeed induce vibrations. I've observed this, and so have others.

Then again, while this may lead to a rating change from A to B, in practice (no tripod, no pixel peeping, etc), it doesn't really matter.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Actually, your comment underscores my point about a likely problem with Gary Reese's OM-1n body used in his testing. Indeed, the performance differences in various instances between his OM-4 and OM-1n bodies using the same lenses are far greater than what you indicate. For example, take a look at the test results for the Zuiko 250 f2.0. Performance is A (center) and B+ (corner) at f2.0 and A+ (center) and A- (corner) at f2.8 on an OM-4 with mirror and aperture pre-fire. The same lens on Gary Reese's OM-1n with mirror lockup rates a D (center) and C (corner) at f2.0 and a D+ (center) and C (corner) at f2.8. This HUGE difference is unlikely to be solely a result of any purported additional vibration, but much more likely indicates that his OM-1n body is out of spec. If that lack of sharpness was attributable solely to the common aperture close down feature of all OM-1s (and indeed all OM models when shot normally without a timer) -- even when using an extremely sharp lens with mirror lockup -- it is difficult to see how anyone could get a sharp picture using any OM-1 or OM camera, which obviously is not the case. For example, I get quite sharp pics using my OM cameras using a Zuiko 300mm f4.5 outdoors on a monopod, without using mirror lockup or aperture prefire. The aperture vibrations simply don't degrade image quality to any observable degree as you indicate.
The test results of pretty much all of the Zuiko lenses Gary Reese tests on his OM-1n are consistently below that of the same lens models being tested by Modern Photography and other published lens testers, even though those other lens testers didn't use mirror lockup. The sheer consistency of many lenses' relatively poor test results on his OM-1n body strongly suggests his OM-1n body is out of spec, perhaps with a focus accuracy issue. I've noticed that after I've had some used Ebay OM bodies overhauled (including focus check and adjustment), the sharpness of my pics has improved.
 
ferider said:
But Gary is right: on a tripod, an OM1 is weaker than, say, an OM4, since closing down the aperture does indeed induce vibrations. I've observed this, and so have others.

Then again, while this may lead to a rating change from A to B, in practice (no tripod, no pixel peeping, etc), it doesn't really matter.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Actually, the performance differences in various instances are far greater than that. For example, take a look at the test results for the Zuiko 250 f2.0. Performance is A (center) and B+ (corner) at f2.0 and A+ (center) and A- (corner) at f2.8 on an OM-4 with mirror and aperture pre-fire. The same lens on Gary Reese's OM-1n with mirror lockup rates a D (center) and C (corner) at f2.0 and a D+ (center) and C (corner) at f2.8. This huge difference is unlikely to be solely a result of any purported additional vibration, but much more likely indicates that his OM-1n body is out of spec. If that lack of sharpness was attributable solely to a feature of all OM-1s -- using an extremely sharp lens with mirror lockup -- it is difficult to see how anyone could get a sharp picture using any OM-1 camera, which obviously is not the case.
In fact, the test results of pretty much all of the Zuiko lenses he tests on his OM-1n are well below that of the same lens models being tested by Modern Photography and other published lens testers, even though those other lens testers didn't use mirror lockup. The sheer consistency of many lenses' relatively poor test results on his OM-1n body strongly suggests his OM-1n body is out of spec, perhaps with a focus accuracy issue. I've noticed that after I've had some used Ebay OM bodies overhauled (including focus check and adjustment), the sharpness of my pics has improved.
 
There really is no sense in poring over lens tests for the minutiae, even less in debating over the minutiae. Virtually any Zuiko prime and any OM body will allow you to get an image as sharp and contrasty as you would ever want.

I haven't posted in this thread yet, but I am somewhat of a Zuikoholic myself. I started out as a pure Nikon guy. Well as of last week, I sold my last Nikon body and my last Nikkor lens. I do not miss them at all, despite the fantastic images I got with them, just too heavy and bulky for me.

I just bought a 28/2 and am strongly considering selling my 24/2.8 and picking up a 21/3.5. The 24 is my most used Zuiko, but I think having the 21 and the 28 will make up for where the 24 isn't wide enough or just too wide. With those changes my OM kit will be:

16/3.5 , 21/3.5 , 28/2 , 50/1.4 , 90/2.5 Macro(Vivitar) , 100/2

However I have a feeling that that will not satisfy me and I wont rest until I pick up an 85/2 and 135/2.8. Not to mention I REALLY want a 200/5 but I cannot find one anywhere! Seriously, if anybody has any leads on a 200/5 I will buy it on the spot! I have always wanted a super compact telephoto.
 
Opinions please, Is one of the Zuiko 200 teles to be preferred over the other based on image sharpness or contrast? There are a lot more 200 f4 lenses to be had compared to the 200 f5 as stated above. The Zuiko lens catalog has the 200 f4 as a 5 element lens while the 200 f5 is a 6 element lens. Should I ask so what?
 
Just got lucky on ebay (hopefully) and won the following for £89 including shipping:

  • Olympus OM2N
  • Olympus 50mm 1.4
  • Olympus 35mm - 105mm
  • Olympus 135mm 3.5
  • Vivitar 28mm
Can't wait for the arrival on Monday!

Best regards,
RoyM
 
radiocemetery said:
Opinions please, Is one of the Zuiko 200 teles to be preferred over the other based on image sharpness or contrast? There are a lot more 200 f4 lenses to be had compared to the 200 f5 as stated above. The Zuiko lens catalog has the 200 f4 as a 5 element lens while the 200 f5 is a 6 element lens. Should I ask so what?
Click to expand...


I have heard the image quality is stellar on both versions. I want the f5 because it is considerably smaller.

ferider, thanks for the link, but a later non silvernose version is preferable, is that an actual picture?
 
AFenvy said:
However I have a feeling that that will not satisfy me and I wont rest until I pick up an 85/2 and 135/2.8. Not to mention I REALLY want a 200/5 but I cannot find one anywhere! Seriously, if anybody has any leads on a 200/5 I will buy it on the spot! I have always wanted a super compact telephoto.
Click to expand...

I have some leads if you're interested.. The 200/5 is a silvernose like the one at KEH, but almost half the price. The same little shop has an 85/2 that I'd love to add to my kit, but I'm on lens buying hold right now. And I have a nice 135/2.8 in it's original case that just never seems to get any use.
 
Roscoe said:
I have some leads if you're interested.. The 200/5 is a silvernose like the one at KEH, but almost half the price. The same little shop has an 85/2 that I'd love to add to my kit, but I'm on lens buying hold right now. And I have a nice 135/2.8 in it's original case that just never seems to get any use.
Click to expand...


Sounds lovely. My budget sense seems to have just caught up with me however, and it looks like I need to do some saving before I start ordering up any more lenses. Damn.
 
I made a good find today, an Olympus M1 with a "M-System" 55/1.2 lens. The camera is very pretty, and works well, though the meter seems a couple stops off (maybe due to the alkaline battery). The lens is especially nice, and came with it's original metal hood. I love the gold color of the glass on the old 55mm lenses, and I especially love the quality of the photos they make.
 
I had an OM moment today - found a 50/1.8 lens for $2 at the local flea market. Dirty on the outside, clean as a whistle inside. :)
 
I must be going to the wrong flea markets.

Having and OM-2 has started the dreaded GAS again but this time i will be selling everything else

yeah really!
 
35/2 is one of my favorite lenses.

5865645142_1b325bae2b_b.jpg
 
I've been toying with the 35/2 recently - nice shot.

I found a lovely 100/2.8 a week ago and after a clean, it came up near mint :)

_MG_0070.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom