Which to keep - Olympus or Nikon?

[Spicy]

Either keep the Nikon or sell it to me for cheap lol.

Om1s are easily found and replaceable.

 

[Vics]

Keep the Nikon.

 

[shadowfox]

Worrying about redundancy is the ultimate redundancy.

Sell the AE-1, replace it with a Canon F-1, now that's a real camera.
Keep the Nikon and Olympus, and start hunting for a classic Pentax and Minolta too.

 

[dtcls100]

Get rid of the Canon AE-1. It may have been your first real camera and have sentimental value, but it is definitely not in the same league as the OM-1 or FM3a.

If the choice comes down to the other two, I would keep the FM3a, even though I am a long time OM user and fan. My opinion boils down simply to the fact that the OM-1 is a much more common camera and can be much more cheaply replaced if you change your mind. I like the FM3a's faster shutter and faster flash synch speed, but prefer the OM-1's viewfinder, handling, feel, weight and size, as well as faster motor drive. Both Nikon and Olympus OM have excellent lenses, but the best OM lenses (18mm f3.5, 21mm f2.0, 50mm f2.0 macro, 90mm f2.0 macro, 100mm f2.0, 35-80 f2.8, 180mm f2.0, 250mm f2.0) are often harder to get than their Nikkor counterparts these days, as many more Nikkor lenses were sold over the years.

 

[unixrevolution]

Worrying about redundancy is the ultimate redundancy.

Sell the AE-1, replace it with a Canon F-1, now that's a real camera.
Keep the Nikon and Olympus, and start hunting for a classic Pentax and Minolta too.

Way to not listen to what the OP was actually saying.

-----

I would personally keep the Olympus of the two listed, but if I were keeping the Canon i'd sell the Oly and the Nikon and get a Pentax MX.

Why?

The MX is an unsung hero of sorts. it has a bright finder, nearly as bright as the OM, and has interchangeable screens. It is almost idential in size and weight to the OM-1 (I have both) but I find it shoots more intitively. The advantages of the MX over the OM-1:

1. Hot shoe.

2. Exposure info viewable in the finder.

3. Meter readout is LED and is easier to see especially in low light.

4. Controls are laid out more normally

5. Pentax K and M42 glass compatability...there's tons of good, cheap glass for Pentax out there.

6. If you get a Pentax DSLR, the MX's glass will work just fine on that.

 

[hepcat]

Wow... sell 'em all... keep 'em all... keep this one because the other is cheap... that system is bigger... the next body in the line was better... Wow...

The odds of you being able to tell which camera took which photo in twenty years is slim. They're optically all very good. No concerns there.

Those might all be good answers, but here's the answer you're looking for:

Which one will you enjoy using more? Which one feels better to you? Keep that one.

 

[rbsinto]

Wow... sell 'em all... keep 'em all... keep this one because the other is cheap... that system is bigger... the next body in the line was better... Wow...

The odds of you being able to tell which camera took which photo in twenty years is slim. They're optically all very good. No concerns there.

Those might all be good answers, but here's the answer you're looking for:

Which one will you enjoy using more? Which one feels better to you? Keep that one.

The advice that makes the most sense to me.

 

[Uglee]

Wow, so many members here recommending selling the OM because it is cheaper to replace than the Fm3, yet the lenses for the Om are generally better and more expensive. Since we are talking about a system camera and the lenses are always more expensive than the body, The logic of selling one over the other based in the least expensive part of the system does not make sense to me.

Since you are asking for a recommendation, I'll say, sell it all and buy a rangefinder.

 

[tunalegs]

There's no point to selling the AE-1. You wouldn't get much for it, and definitely not more than it is worth to yourself.

And yeah, keep the camera you like the most. One of my favorite SLRs is by most people's standards a complete joke, but I love using it so it's never going away. Three SLRs isn't really that many either, I can't imagine not having enough space for one extra camera sized object in the house.

 

[Dirk]

If you simply MUST whittle it down to one system, keep the Nikon. The FM3a body is great, and you can use the lenses on most digital Nikon bodies. Of course, the OM lenses will also do that, but only with adapters and stop-down metering.

 

[wblynch]

The only 35mm SLRs I have ever owned are Olympus OM's. My first was an OM-1 bought new in 1975. I adore them.

But my advice is to keep the FM3A. It is a unique camera that has no peer. No one else made a dual electric/manual shutter that works at all speeds. I would keep it for that reason alone.

 

[John Bragg]

Fm3A all the way. Best build quality and best compatability with modern lenses too. Also a rarer camera as less were made. I have an Fm2n and it is by far my favorite slr. The higher flash sync is also a winner with the Nikon making daylight fill flash a doddle.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but keep the Nikon. I love Olympus. I was shooting a photo with my OM2s today and ran into a problem with not enough shutter speed. In bright light, when I want to open up the aperture, I often run out of shutter speed. Obviously you don't always want to shoot with a shallow DoF, but when you do, those two stops of shutter speed come in handy.

So does an ND filter!

 

[jcb4718]

Sooner or later, I've almost always regretted selling kit I owned. My advice is to store the camera you would sell and forget about it. Out of sight, out of mind! You may come to hanker after the advantages of the stored camera over the camera you are using, then you can swop!

 

[ruby.monkey]

So does an ND filter!

The difference being that selecting 1/4000s takes little time, doesn't make one carry extra junk, and doesn't interrupt the flow of things.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

The difference being that selecting 1/4000s takes little time, doesn't make one carry extra junk, and doesn't interrupt the flow of things.

I've never had any of those problems. If you want to shoot wide open then it's not usually a rush shot, is it? As for extra junk, a filter slips into a trouser pocket and has so little bulk that you don't even notice it's there. It interrupts the flow more than selecting 1/4000th but, if you were to look at it like that, switching lenses would cause just as much inconvenience and disruption to the creative process. We'd all be one lens wonders!

 

[Uncle Bill]

I own both systems with multiple bodies and lenses. If I had to choose if a FM3a body was involved, I'd stay with the Nikon.

 

[shadowfox]

Way to not listen to what the OP was actually saying.

Seriously ???
I'm a UNIX guy also, but at least I know when to not take things too seriously.

 

[goamules]

Can someone help me decide: should I eat Honey Bunches of O's or Honey Nut Cheerios tomorrow morning? Sheeze, you bought the cameras for some reason, you made that decision. Now make the next one. I never understand people asking for validation on equipment. It's like kicking an anthill, just to watch the ants scurry around as a bunch of strangers try to fathom a good rational answer to another stranger.
Rant over.