Which SLR system?

Which SLR system?

  • Nikon F3

    Votes: 50 49.5%

  • Olympus OM-1n

    Votes: 38 37.6%

  • Minolta X-700

    Votes: 13 12.9%
  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .
M

MaxFrank

Member
Local time
11:26 PM
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
45
I am currently selling my MF gear as I simply don't use it enough, and it is too big and bulky for my likings. Whilst I'd love to have a Leica M camera and 35mm/50mm lenses it is simply too expensive for me at the time and older SLRs aren't nearly as big and bulky as today's.

My options are as following.

Nikon F3 with 50/1.4 and 35/2.8 cost €425
Pros:
  • Lenses usable on my D300
  • Lenses are readily available
Cons:
  • Most expensive system
  • Biggest of the three options

Olympus OM-1m with 50/1.4 and 35/2.8 cost €235
Pros:
  • Smallest of the three
  • Lenses are quite common and not expensive
Cons:
  • Problems with prism foam and battery that has to be modified
  • Might have to use an external light meter

Minolta X-700 with 50/1.4 and 35/2.8 cost €125
Pros
  • I already own the x-700
  • Lens are the cheapest of all three systems
Cons
  • Lenses are hard to find
  • Problems with capacitor (but a new body might be cheaper than the repair costs

In the future I'd like to extend the system with a second body and a 24mm and 85/100mm lens
 
I think the Minolta lenses are the best of your options (just my opinion, don't go getting nuts) and they are in no way hard to find as you mention. That said, since you have the Nikon DSLR, if you could live with Nikkors, go that way.
 
Im pick would be the Nikon. Im using a FM, a FM2n and a FE2 at this time. I found them to be very reliable and tough. If you don't like carrying heavy loads you should also consider a FE2 body instead of the F3. It's lighter and every bit as reliable, plus you got a faster max shutter speed of 1/4000 if you may need it later.:)
 
Om-1 without a doubt ... but I have to admit I am horribly biased towards that system! :D
 
I would go with the Nikon, the reusability of the lenses on your existing system would be the killer argument for me.
 
How about changing that middle option to Olympus OM-2n. The batteries are available and on manual mode it should behave exactly like OM-1n. Pros: You get aperture priority AE when/if you need/want it. Cons: It's battery dependent. (However, the batteries are small and light... So it's no problem to carry spares.)

I have no experience on the OM-1n though... Exept handling one on a camera shop once. OM-2n left the shop with me that time (selection was based purely to the battery availability issue). I have only put one roll through it, but that's because I bought it to my wife. It seems like a fine camera though... Somehow elegant, when comparing to the brutal Nikon F2 that I'm used to (and which I like a lot too).
 
Elektrojänis said:
How about changing that middle option to Olympus OM-2n. The batteries are available and on manual mode it should behave exactly like OM-1n. Pros: You get aperture priority AE when/if you need/want it. Cons: It's battery dependent. (However, the batteries are small and light... So it's no problem to carry spares.)

I have no experience on the OM-1n though... Exept handling one on a camera shop once. OM-2n left the shop with me that time (selection was based purely to the battery availability issue). I have only put one roll through it, but that's because I bought it to my wife. It seems like a fine camera though... Somehow elegant, when comparing to the brutal Nikon F2 that I'm used to (and which I like a lot too).
Click to expand...

I had not considered that yet, thanks for the tip!
 
Olympus if you want small.

Nikon if you want to use your lenses and the body may cost, the savings in not buying new lenses may offset. Smaller Nikon cameras are nowhere the same as the pro build F series, although my Nikormat is equal to my F2 both of which are in almost new condition. FM are clearly lightweight inferior cameras. They are much lighter in weight.

Nikkor lenses are the easiest to get.

Nikon digital bodies can take non Ai lenses if you keep to D3100, 5000 series. Ai lenses fit to any Nikon digital.

Leica cameras are smaller in height,lenses are smaller, but the weight is still there.
 
In the Nikon line, I second the recommendation for the smaller bodies. All are very nice. That said, I'm in the same position, and I find that I just do not use the MF lenses on the D300. That would suggest the Olympus and Minolta as good alternatives. Nothing wrong with the quality of either.
 
I'd go with an Av-capable OM camera. That's because I really like the OM system (and especially love my OM-4T) but have never got on with the shutter setting ring. That said, I'm also rather fond of the F3 and sharing lenses with your digital rig makes sense.

...Mike
 
Olympus. I'm a fan. They are the SLR that is the closest thing to shooting a rangefinder. ( Matter of fact, I have a chrome model I'm willing to sell...)
 
Another argument for the nikon is that with the exception of lenses made specifically for crop sensor cameras and the g series lenses, you could use your d300 lenses on your f3 just as easily as you can use the manual focus lenses on your d300.
 
I have all 3 systems.

IMO

bodies : OM > Nikon > Minolta
lenses : OM > Minolta > Nikon
system : OM > Nikon > Minolta

my honest recommendation is to go for Olympus or Minolta and pass on Nikon. I understand this will run counter to most other people's opinions and I'm fine with that. I'd like to think I'm not biased.

OM is nice, but I do like Leica M better. The difference between my M2 and the OM-1 or the Nikon S2 rf (my two favorite cameras after it) is as long as the universe in my opinion.

I'll probably try Contax eventually. If you have the budget for it, I would go with that though. A lot cheaper than going Nikon + ZF lenses.
 
I'm a hard-core long time Nikon user but I voted for the OM1n - even better, an OM2n. Find a nice one and immediately send it off to John Hermanson's Spa For Ailing OMs to get the foam replaced and the battery converted, then go forth and harvest photons for years to come.

http://www.zuiko.com/
 
You left out a very viable Nikon option: FM2 or FE2 with the Nikon lenses you mentioned. Less bulk than the F3.
 
the capacitor is really easy to fix in the x700. Anyone who knows how to use a screwdriver and soldering iron can do it in 10 minutes.

Dont let it put you off!
 
I have a selection of many 35mm SLR systems including those you have, and Nikon is my favourite. YMMV

It just seems much more robust to me than any of the others.
 
OM1. The battery problem is easily solved. DIY conversion or, better yet, send it out to John and get the works, which includes battery conversion.

The OM1 is most like the Leica all around, save for the "slr" thing. I've never owned a Leica so I can't offer image quality comparisons but I have always been happy with my OM's and they travel well.

They are very durable. I don't know why people need an anvil of a camera to consider it robust ?
 
I use an OM2n, which I also second (or third) as a good choice in that system. Ingenious metering system, including a circuit to give accurate aperture priority exposure in good light even when the camera is turned off. The lightness and compactness of the lenses is great. I have never noticed that the image quality is anything special in the way people rave about Zuiko 'glass', but sure it's fine. My main problem with OM is that I find the bodies too small to hold comfortably. My daughter's F3HP feels better than a Leica, has a fantastic viewfinder and I like the idea of using the ZF lenses. She won't let me use it but I am thinking she'll tire of it......I voted Nikon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom