Why is the OM system so beloved among the RFFers??

Small, well built, fine lenses, affordable. Brilliant viewfinder. Easy to carry, hold and use, even in my large hands. Parts and service are still available.

RF's aren't perfect. Neither are SLR's. An RF and an OM together are pretty close. They complement each other while sharing a long list appealing attributes.
 
I don't own any OM's but the E-P2 by olympus and it's not much respected kit zoom lens are both good products and I'm tempted to try their old SLRs. But for film SLR's I'm really a Canon guy. The A-1, AE-1 and EF cameras are all in my stable. But again, if I find a cheap OM, well... that and a nice 35mm lens would fit me well.
 
I find the OM1 intuitively designed, compact, the shutter is very quiet, the lenses are also compact and equally as well designed. More superficially, they look beautiful. I've used an OM2, but I prefer the OM1 because it's so bare bones.

The only other SLRs I have experience with are a variety of Canon SLRs, some sort of old AE1 (belonged to my dad, partially broken, only had a slow zoom lens), and a Minolta SRT201. I still have the SRT for sentimental reasons, but after using an OM1 it seems twice as heavy and seems as loud as a Hasselblad.

I just bought a BGN 50/1.4 Zuiko from Keh. :D But I am also eyeing an M4-p on Keh as well...
 
Last edited:
I really like the OM's though I just cannot bring myself to get into yet another system (GAS is pretty out of control). Although I really like the multi-spot of the 3 and 4 I'd go for an OM-1 if I was in the hunt for an OM. I love the minimalist look, same cool feel to me as a Nikon F with unmetered finder.

My personal choice for a small SLR is a Contax Aria. Tiny, great lenses, excellent ergonomics and 1/4000th to boot :)
 
Why?

Small, light, quiet, with a big, bright viewfinder that's about as easy to use in low light as a rangefinder....plus (in the OM-2s and OM-4s), one of the most sophisticated autoexposure systems ever made. Amazing they got all that in such a small, neat package.

Really, the 35mm SLR as it SHOULD be, rather than the big, clunky tanks many of the other camera makers put out. (Heard the inspiration for the OM was in part due to the Barnack Leica Maitani had as a young man.)

....And that's why I call the OMs the "rangefinder SLR."
 
I used the OM system from 1978 through 2004 and never saw a reason to change to another system until the electronics in a couple bodies and flashes started to go haywire. At that point I traded the entire system to partially pay for a Leica M7 and three lenses. I really liked the OM system for all the reasons previously mentioned, but there is a point where the elecronics in 20+ year old equipment will start to go. While I have no doubt that the manual OM lenses could last a long time into the future, I would only consider an OM1n body (the original OM1 used mercury batteries) to avoid the aging electronics. I didn't go that route as I wanted to have aperture priority AE.
 
Of course, just by the position of your hand on the barrel of the OM1, you can determine what your shutter speed is. It takes a bit of practice, though. But it's a nice excuse to pic up your camera and play with it. :)

814177514_3a948b0bf0_z.jpg
 
Aight, as the kids say. I took my Nikon FM2n, Minolta XD-11, Olympus OM3 and my girlfriend's Pentax ME Super, put 50mm lenses on all of them, gently cleaned front and rear elements and the viewfinder windows, and w/o film just shot away at the wall. Compared sizes too. Here's what I found (rankings -- keep in mind this is my samples only, no larger claims being made).
Largest camera: Nikon. And no doubt they like it that way.
Smallest (in every dimension) the Pentax. the Minolta and Olympus were virtually identical in size.
Largest viewfinder: Tie, OM and XD11. Nikon smaller, Pentax a smidgen smaller than that.
Quietest shutter: OM just by an edge over the XD11 which is also very quiet. Nikon after that, and the Pentax is like there's a man with a bat inside the camera, a real clatter that you can actually feel in your hands. This is the biggest disadvantage to that camera; the second biggest being that you can only manually control the shutter speed by electronic button pushing.
Smoothest advance: Nikon. Then Minolta XD11 very close second. Then OM. Then a distant fourth, the Pentax. (Among my main rangefinders, in quietness of shutter and smoothness of advance, first smoothest by far is the Leica CL, then the Canon P, and almost as bad as the Pentax, the CV Bessa R2.)

So them's my findings. I would think among Leica fans particularly, the Minolta would be as popular as the OM because the Rokkor lenses were designed to emulate Leica's in contrast and acutance, and they basically do. They are also the cheapest lenses around and quite breathtaking in quality.

That OM metering though, in the OM3 and OM4T that I have -- spot, highlights, shadow -- is brilliant and saves having to stop and consider and judge and adjust. On the other hand it's probably good to know how to do those things. Do the OM1 s have the spot metering?
 
I don't really like the OM's myself - too small and the ergonomics just don't work for me. Good glass but I'll stick to me Canons.
 
For me the OM system was a great 35mm SLR for architectural photography. Loved the 24 & 35 shift. the 18/3.5 never let me down and I could use the bodies for personal happy snaps. Aside from those specific purpose lenses just listed I think the gem of the line-up is the 85/2. The 28/2 is also a great performer. These were the last two lenses I sold when I moved to RF.

Mirror lock-up is great for architectural and macro work. Macro lenses were superb and I loved the body design. The shutter speed and aperature ring move in the same direction - almost like a hassy, though they don't lock together.

I still have a copy of the OM Manual to sell if you really want to go over the deep end. Great system concept and design. Beware that the history and theory of the system will suck you in...
 
I switched from Nikon to the Olympus OM system in 1979. I loved, loved, loved my OMs. Carried them on documentary/PJ assignments to 27 countries on five continents and around much of the US, plus a ton of editorial and commercial work.

By 1992, aging eyes made it more difficult to focus quickly and accurately on the grid screens with very fine microprisms that I had installed in all my bodies. In retrospect, I should have just changed screens and kept on using the OMs. But I sold everything, and after trying Nikon autofocus (it hunted for focus like a hound dog with a cold in its nose), I tried the Canon EOS system, which locked on focus like a pit bull. So I switched to Canon, and eventually switched over to Canon digital, which I still use for my commercial and architectural work.

At the time I sold my OM system, I had several bodies and 13 lenses. The workhorse body was an OM2n, but I also had an OM-1, an OMPC, and a recently acquired OM2S.

When I first began to use Olympus, I bought a 21mm f3.5, a 28f2.8, a 35-70f3.6, a 50f1.8, an 85f2, and a 135 f2.8. I later decided that the 24f2.8 could do the work of both the 21 and the 28, so they went on the shelf. I added other lenses over time, and on my last trip abroad I carried the 24, a 35f2, the 85f2, and the 180f2.8. This seemed to be about the perfect set of lenses for the kind of work I did. All were very sharp, and with the exception of the 180, were all quite small and light.

Over the 13 years that I used Olympus, I would estimate that about 70% of all exposures were made with the 85mmf2.

The only Oly equipment which gave me problems was the winders, which weren't very durable. I should have just bought motor drives up front. Also, I found the 35-70f3.6 to be not as sharp as I would have liked, although others have rated it as very sharp.

Now, after 18 years, I am back to Olympus for my personal work and book projects. I inherited an OM10 from my father, which I had originally given him back in 1981. However, its shutter is inconsistent, so I bought an OM2S Program from KEH and have been shooting some test rolls in it. I also inherited from my father a 28-80 f3.5-4.5 Sigma and an 28-85 f2.8-3.5 Kiron, both very clean. The prize, however, was a Zuiko 75-150 f4 in mint condition with the original case and instructions.

I am very much enjoying slowing down, shooting less, and thinking more about what I'm doing. Digital can be just too easy.
 
Last edited:
I too am tempted by an OM. I recently picked up an XA and really like that camera, so far perfect for what I wanted: small, fast, easy to use, and good build quality. Almost done with my second roll, and now that I have an Epson V500 on the way, I am going to get into shooting and scanning more =]

I noticed the reviews about the OM and Zukio lenses, and am quite interested, mostly for the compact size of the OM. However, I also have a Nikon FE, and I am not sure that the OM is much smaller/lighter than the FE? Maybe I will get one if a deal comes by, but for now, I will stick with the FE (which I dont use very much anyway).
 
Honestly, I'm becoming a Zuikoholic. Even thinking of selling my oft ignored Autocord for a 21mm. What's great about it is that I've seen stunning results with Zuikos put on Canon EOS Digital, so the film and digital kits can merge together.
 
Stewmander:

Be tempted. Be very tempted. In fact, buy an OM-1.

Believe me, they are smaller and lighter than an FE. I've had both OMs and FEs. And OMs have a much better viewfinder, too. The OM-2 is the only SLR I will use for low light work outside of rangefinder cameras. I found the viewfinder of my FEs to be much too dim to use in low light, and lost a lot of shots due to focus being off. One reason I switched to rangefinders until I found OMs...

( I should also mention that an FE w/ motor drive and an 80-200 F2.8 zoom lens became an excercise in weightlifting, rather than a pleasurable photographic experience...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom