OT: OM heaven

nightfly: definitely go for the 'n' or 'MD' version of the OM1. Personally, I don't care that it can take a motor drive. But the improvements to the film advance are substantial, IMO. I've never seen a non 'n' version with properly-working film advance.

Igor: I was also struck by the comment about the SP lens not being as good as the prime 50mm f/1.8 lens. I had kind of assumed they would be equal, with maybe the rangefinder one being a bit better. (less complexity, closer to film plane) Any comments on this?
 
Jeremy, my very subjective feeling is that OM 50mm is better than 35SP on close distances at f1.8-f5.8, while 35SP is better on infinity at f8-f16.
 
Got back roll shot almost exclusively with OM 18mm - I like it. Almost no distortion, very usefull.
Interesting how this 30 years old lens compares to M-mount wides.
 

Attachments

  • AA_969_A004.jpg
    AA_969_A004.jpg
    148.9 KB · Views: 0
  • AA_969_A010.jpg
    AA_969_A010.jpg
    148.4 KB · Views: 0
  • AA_969_A036.jpg
    AA_969_A036.jpg
    152.8 KB · Views: 0
Jeremy Z said:
SNIP!

Igor: I was also struck by the comment about the SP lens not being as good as the prime 50mm f/1.8 lens. I had kind of assumed they would be equal, with maybe the rangefinder one being a bit better. (less complexity, closer to film plane) Any comments on this?
Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm always careful about comparing ANY lens/body, etc. unless it has been properly serviced/calibrated. True of older equipment of course and, sadly, a lot of the newer stuff as well.

ScottGee1
 
While I obviously think a lot of the 42/1.7 on the SP, I haven't done any structured comparison between it and the 50/1.8. The latest 42/1.8 lenses were probably produced around 1969, maybe even 1968. The last OM 50/1.8 miJs were produced nearly 30 years later. I would be very, very surprised if the 42/1.7 was equal or "better" than a late 50/1.8, at least significantly so. But it's an interesting question, probably calling for some tests. 😀
 
Igor.Burshteyn said:
That's why I called it "my very subjective feeling", not even comparison.
Click to expand...
Igor, my comment was general to this type of discussion and not specifically in reponse to you.

Based on personal experience, I'd rather have a mediocre lens that works well than an exceptional one that doesn't. That may sound painfully obvious, but I think a lot of gear (used AND new) is out of spec/calibration.

About a month ago I sent a lens back to a manufacturer's service department for repair and calibration under warranty. The repair was just mechanical (zoom mechanism replacement) but the calibration made a significant difference. Before having it serviced, I planned to get it fixed and sell it and put the $$ toward a more expensive lens in order to get better quality. It is SO much better since the service that I'll probably drop my plan and keep it and spend my money on other toys, er, tools. 😀

ScottGee1
 
Igor.Burshteyn said:
That's why I called it "my very subjective feeling", not even comparison.
Click to expand...
That was good enough for me; it was just what I was looking for, information-wise. Short of blowing a bunch of film to prove it one way or the other, most of our lens opinions are subjective.

If the last SP lens was made around '69, and the first OM lens was made around '71, I suppose the OM lens might stand a good chance of being better. All my OM lenses are from probably '75 or so. (28/3.5, 50/1.8, 135/3.5, Tokina-Special 75-150/3.5) Looking through the finder, they look kind of yellowish; does that mean the coating's going bad?
 
Yellowish? I'll have to check my OM lenses, but I don't think that is unusual. As far as I know, the only OM lens that yellowed significantly, with detrimental affect on performance, was the 55/1.2, which used a radioactive coating ... lanthanum if I remember.

And just to be clear, I do agree that it's all subjective wrt to lens "performance". My comment about the time span between production dates was latest to latest. I think the 42/1.7 is perhaps "better" than the original silver-nose OM F.ZUIKO 50/1.8. That iteration of 50/1.8 had its charms, but it wasn't the best of that line. The 50/1.8 miJ, the last version, is regarded as the "best", at least in terms of resolution, colour balance, contrast, etc. Again, all subjective.
 
oscroft said:
I'd go for an OM1n - the improvements over the OM1 are not great, but it will be a newer camera (possibly by quite a few years).
Click to expand...

I agree.

I had a beautiful black OM-1n until three nights ago, when I was mugged and it was stolen. I enjoyed it a great deal while I had it!

I still have an OM-G left but, well, it isn't quite the same.
 
I've had my OM-1 for 30 years - my first (and last) SLR. I'm shooting through a newer Zuiko 50mm/f1.2; IMHO one of the best lenses ever made. LOVE the OM!

Note to those looking to pick one up - original mercury-cell battery no longer made. If it has not alreay been done, you will need to get the camera modified to use an available battery. Foam around the film compartment also may need to be replaced. ASA indicator dial also has a tendency to pop off and may have been haphazzardly put back on. In other words - get a good CLA.
 
Melanie, hope you are OK. That's got to be frightening.

If you don't mind my asking, when did you use your Olympus as opposed to your Leica? I was thinking of getting one but I'm on the fence about having another camera and was wondering what situations you used it rather than your Leica. Did you find they complemented each other or did you sorta struggle with which to use?
 
I'm OK. It could have been worse. Camera-wise they took my OM and also my D-Lux 3 point and shoot digi. I'm just glad I didn't have my dad's cameras with me.

As far as the OM vs. the Leica, sometimes I struggled with which camera to carry. In most situations I would rather carry the Leica, but it's heavier (by a lot) and not as versatile as the OM. I only have a 50 for the Leica, so if I wanted to go wider I needed to carry the OM. I also carried it when I felt like seeing through the lens, if that makes any sense. In this case I was traveling and wanted to practice with the cameras that I planned to bring to Morocco with me in May. It's kind of funny, I lived in Philadelphia for 15 years and never experienced any kind of crime, and then I'm back visiting for a mere four days and I get mugged. I think living in San Francisco has made me soft and stupid.
 
back alley said:
will you be looking for another om1 before your trip?
Click to expand...

No, I have the OM-G and can always bring that. It'll take the same pictures, it's just not quite as elegant in the hand.

I also lost a 50/1.4 lens, but I have two other 50s (the ubiquitous 1.8, in "silvernose" and multicoated versions) so life goes on.
 
As a confirmed Oly nut (or is that Zuikoholic) I can still see why Leica M users often feel they have the best of all worlds. Reading through this thread there is an underlying topic of 35SP vs OM in terms of image quality. I have both an SP and an OM4Ti and I too still wonder which one ultimately gives me the best images. There are times when the shooting situation calls for the SP, but then I end up wondering if the shot would have been better with the OM, and vice versa. Many Leica M fanatics are already of the opinion that their glass is the finest available, so don't end up wondering if they should have reached for an SLR instead, unless shooting macro or extreme telephoto.
 
MelanieC said:
SNIP!
It's kind of funny, I lived in Philadelphia for 15 years and never experienced any kind of crime, and then I'm back visiting for a mere four days and I get mugged. I think living in San Francisco has made me soft and stupid.
Click to expand...
Stupid? I doubt it. Unless you were flaunting it in an area known for high crime, you were the victim of a criminal so do NOT take any responsibility for their actions.

IMO, of course./ScottGee1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom