Total SLR system swap ... sensible or folly!

I think it's a good idea, but I would ease out of Olympus and ease into Nikon, so if the urgency to do this goes into remission, you won't find yourself without Olympus gear. And when selecting a Nikon body, consider the FA over the F3. The FA is smaller, will handle more like the Olympus, and has a smoother and quieter shutter and mirror. The F3 is loud and clacky, with heavy mirror slap. The FA is among the lowest of Nikon bodies for mirror slap. So is the F100, but you don't seem to want it. I got rid of my F3 in favor of the F100, for ease of switching back and forth from the D300. Now I use FE2, FA, F100, and D300, and it's a good setup!
 
dtcls100 said:
The F3, while a very fine camera, won't feel give you the same satisfaction using it as an OM either. ...
Click to expand...

so no point of even try out F3 then ? :D

maybe going all Nikon is too rational move, from artsy Sunday shooting point of view ? :rolleyes:
 
I wouldn't do it. If you like the look that the zuiko's give you, you are eventually going to miss them. I've switched systems a few times and looking at some of my favorite photos, some are due to that special look that I could not have gotten with anything else and I miss them..
One being the 'blad 500c that I had a decade ago. The Minolta maxxum lenses that are truly special, 85G, 100/2 and 135STF, the m42 czj 35/2.4 flektogon, etc. I think you will eventually regret switching if you truly enjoy the zuikos..
 
Hi Keith. The Nikon F3/T is one of my main film bodies for the Nikon system.
Mounted with an MD-4, no camera fits my hand better.
If you're happy with the D700, the F3HP viewfinder will be a pleasant surprise as it's bigger, brighter and shows a full 100% of the viewfinder.

If you want, you can get different heads. I love the Sports Finder head, and having the choice of different focusing screens is a real plus.

For the price that the F3HP is going for, to me getting one is a no-brainer.
However, I don't think you should sell your Olympus to get one. That might cause some residual hard feelings that would negatively affect your enjoyment of the F3.










 
Last edited:
I did this last December. Total swap from Canon FD to a F2 & pre-AI lenses. So I'd hardly gainsay it. I'll probably move up to an F3 eventually for film, ai-ing as I go along and then, when used ones are within a price range I can consider, I'll get a D700. Slightly bumpy ride here and there but I've had fun with it.
 
I recently picked up an FM2 Ti camera, and it is the closest thing Nikon has made which can compare with the OM system, it weighs almost nothing. I prefer Zuiko glass to Nikkor stuff, but I really wish my OM3 Ti had the same 1/4000th top shutter speed as the FM2, it would be nice when shooting the 50/1.2 in daylight. For me it is the lenses which are the deciding factor rather than the camera body. I have a Canon F1 which I bought only because I can use it with my favorite of all SLR lenses, the old 35/2 concave. My OM3 usually wears a cheap 50/1.8 lens, but I love the character this particular lens has.

I shot an F3P (the version with a hot shoe on the prism) for several years, it was a great camera, and I can't complain about it, though a faster flash synch shutter speed would have been handy. The OM3/4 cameras will synch all the way up to 1/2000th, and their meters are worlds better (better even than my D300).
 
Roger Hicks said:
What I've never understood is using Nikons for two or three years . . . then Canon . . . then OM . . . then Pentax . . . then back to Nikon again . . . .
Click to expand...

I have a friend like that. He went from Pentax to Minolta SRT to Nikon autofocus to Canon EOS (with a side trip into Pentax 67), then he made the switch to digital with a Canon DSLR and has recently sold all the EOS stuff in favor of Nikon. Its hard to keep track of how many times he's bought and sold the same general lineup of lenses!
 
I started out with a Nikon F in 1969, but switched to Olympus in 1979 and have never regretted it for a second. I used that wonderful, light, durable, precise outfit for 13 years on PJ assignments in 27 countries and around much of the US and totally loved it (except for the winders, which did not hold up).

However, in 1993 aging eyes dictated a switch to an autofocus system, so I got a Nikon 8008s and 6006. I regretted that move very quickly and switched to the Canon EOS system within a year. The Canons have been good to me, but I will always miss my Olys. (I still have an Om2s and a few lenses to play with.)
 
Keith do you own any Nikkor lenses? If you are used to the ZF mount lenses the feel and ergonomics of the Nikkors may be odd. The opposite direction focus turn takes a bit of getting used to. I use a couple old Nikkors adapted on my 5Dii and although I like the performance the handling is not great. As an RF shooter the Zuikos are a natural fit with the small size and front aperture ring. IQ wise it would be a strictly sideways move if you do it. The OM system was a really great film system. If you are shooting film occasionally and just for pleasure... The Om cameras and lenses will surely be more pleasure. I would want a small and light kit to compliment the big and heavy D700. The F3 is super clunky next to an OM.
 
I have an extensive Nikon system with nearly a dozen lenses and half a dozen bodies, grips, cords, finders, etc. I also have a modest OM system based on an OM1n and four lenses (2 of which are 50s.) I find that they coexist quite harmoniously. They even let the Leica and Mamiya have a crack at it from time to time.

Keith, in my humble opintion, you should build your Nikon system, but wait until you know it's strengths and foibles before selling off your OMs. There may be a logical reason to keep at least one camera and lens.
 
Keith,

I think it would be less insane to switch from everything you own (keep the lenses; keep your medium format stuff, too) to a NEX 7, once it is out and buying a bunch of lens adapters.
 
I would be more likely to switch to Olympus but... I could not afford it. Nikon stuff is way cheaper.
 
Field said:
I would be more likely to switch to Olympus but... I could not afford it. Nikon stuff is way cheaper.
Click to expand...

Good God!

Twenty or thirty years ago, Olympus SLRs (and especially Olympus lenses) were widely regarded as a bit of a joke, with the worst QC of any major manufacturer.

But I suppose they're rarer than Nikons now, because so few bought them when they were new, and they are therefore more sought after. Supply and demand: the supply of Nikons is much higher, therefore they're cheaper, therefore people think Olympuses (Olympi?) are more desirable.

Could there have been a reason why Olympus cameras were less popular when they were new? Or are all professionals mindless herd animals?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Field said:
I would be more likely to switch to Olympus but... I could not afford it. Nikon stuff is way cheaper.
Click to expand...

??? Not where I come from. Olympus OM system gear is extremely good value: far cheaper than used Nikon for comparable quality...

...and Roger, I'm surprised by your comment too. My recollection from the 70s and early 80s was that Olympus was a very respectable pro system. It was only in the autofocus era that Nikon and Canon established their professional user hegemony. I recall newspaper pros using Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Rollei, Contax, Leica and all sorts back then. People like Don McCullin, David Bailey, Patrick Lichfield and so on were genuine OM users for their 35mm work.
 
Ade-oh said:
??? Not where I come from. Olympus OM system gear is extremely good value: far cheaper than used Nikon for comparable quality...

...and Roger, I'm surprised by your comment too. My recollection from the 70s and early 80s was that Olympus was a very respectable pro system. It was only in the autofocus era that Nikon and Canon established their professional user hegemony. I recall newspaper pros using Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Rollei, Contax, Leica and all sorts back then. People like Don McCullin, David Bailey, Patrick Lichfield and so on were genuine OM users for their 35mm work.
Click to expand...

Put it this way: in the mid-to-late 70s I worked in a hire studio (OK, not much 35mm, but what you saw was only Nikon) but I also did a LOT of work for Colour Library International (stock photography agency/publisher) where there was plenty of 35mm.

Yes, people used a far wider variety than today, but Olympus was probably bottom of the heap from the makes you mention. They were extremely generous with 'loaners' but more than one person I knew gave 'em back because of poor lens quality. I'd say that until autofocus came in, the most highly regarded was always Nikon (apart from Leica, which was always off to one side) and that Canon may well have come in below Pentax.

Of course it's a small sample, but it was high-end London photography in the late 70s.

Cheers,

R.
 
Zuiko lenses are far less expensive then comparable Nikkors because the Nikon F mount is a current system mount, and 90+ percent of the lenses remain compatible with the latest cameras. While Zuikos can be adapted to a wide variety of cameras, there is no OM mount camera made any more. The lenses are semi-orphaned.
 
Speaking of which, why not go full-tilt with a nice Leica SL? Makes those Nikons look like toys.

I went from Olympus to Nikon, and assisted a good pro who also did the same. It wasn't that the Olympus lenses were bad at all, it was simply a matter of appearances in the uber-status-conscious 80s when Olys were cheap mass-consumer cameras and Nikons were uppity pro gear. These silly prejudices carry over with the foggy old guard, even photo writers ;-)

The Nikons were better for large American hands. But the Nikon-ladden camera bag got a lot heavier too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom