Olympus' approach to SLR cameras should have been Leica's. Instead they [Leitz] threw caution to the wind and decided Barnack be damned in this case. They did downsize a bit with the R4-6 era cameras - but certainly not enough. Then they really went off the deep end with the R8-9 cameras!
MX for me over the ME, but I love them both. Lovely finders, smooth operation. The meter readout works well for me on the MX. all the controls are in the right place.
To cite the Nikon F with a photomic prism and the tube attached is a stretch. How many users walked around with that configuration? What matters is the depth of the back to the lens mount—which is no better or worse than its immediate competitors. A lot of cameras with interchangeable finders could become super deep if one starts basing the measure on some of the special finders once available. Jason doesn't specify the non-through-lens Photomic F. He says "any Photomic" prism. If one insists on measuring the depth of the Photomic finder, yes, the finder is 2.5 inches, but the camera itself is not that deep. Actually, in 1959, the Nikon F was one of the smaller SLRs available compared to say the Topcon B or the Canonflex.
If Leica had actually 'gone off the deep end' with the R8/9, it would have been to add autofocus that it had invented in-house, instead of squandering the advantage. They'd have dominated the SLR market for the next 2 decades.
I did, liked to use it as a semi-spot meter throughout much of the 70s and early 1980s. I was just trying to figure absolute maximum. 1.5"- the body, 2.5"- FTn meter, 3.5"- was able to figure that was a max.
zoe1 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Did you keep your OM3 Keith? Your review here made me buy one, but to be fair I did need a body for the 40mm f2 I’d been hoarding.
I still have all my OM gear including that OM3 ... as competent as it is I've always preferred the OM1 for its pure simplicity. I also still have a couple of OM2s in the cupboard. The only OM I bought that I didn't like a lot and subsequently sold shortly after was an OM4 ... not sure quite why I didn't like it though.
Were these clones of the Cosina CSM/CSR. I like the CSR very much.
The search makes this inexplicably hard to find, but this analytical review of the OM3 by Keith from 2012 (!!!) is worth looking at if you are vaguely interested in the OM3: Olympus OM-3 review (finding the holy grail)
I enjoyed reading that ... the older I get the more I suffer from goldfish syndrome where everything is new again! 😆
Many many years ago, I asked you which was your favourite camera and you told me the OM1. I think it was during a discussion about the Nikon F6 but I might be wrong. Again, if I remember correctly it was you who posted a picture of a bed sheet on the washing line and looked beautiful. My memory might be failing me but that is what I recall. As a result I went on and bought my first om-1.
