Given a OM-1 and I have no idea what to do with it - Page 2

hans voralberg · 10-03-2008

OM-1 often have finder/prism degradation problem so if it's not as bright as the X700, give it a CLA. In mint condition it will be very close, I have both.

shimo-kitasnap · 10-03-2008

Oh and what's the difference between all those different OM-xx?

BillBingham2 · 10-03-2008

The OM-1 is one of those classic cameras that changed the world. UPI was going to switch to them when they first came out, not sure if or how long it lasted. Some of the glass they did was world class, some was good, nothing I've ever heard of was bad.

B2 (;->

Avotius · 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimo-kitasnap

Hey cool!

I've always wanted to try the OM. Currently I'm using an M6 (which I'm selling) with a cron-c and elmar-c and am thinking about selling it all for more money to pay for things like car insurance and working towards my pilot's license.

How would you say they stack up against the M6 in size and handling? How are the zuiko lenses?

Thanks peoples

I will get back to you on those points here tomorrow when I snap a pick of the om1 and my m6 next to each other. So far though comparing it to my friends Nikon FE2 we both agree the om1 is smaller and more dainty not to mention the film advance and shutter sound is a lot quieter but we both agree the nikon is the better overall package. We will see, results from film first

BillBingham2 · 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimo-kitasnap

Oh and what's the difference between all those different OM-xx?

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...m1n2/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_OM-4

OM-10 was a auto-only camera with an adapter that you plugged into the front to set shutter speeds. Going after the Rebel/Nikon EM market segment.

OM-2000 is a Cosina body with an OM mount. Mostly came with a 35-70ish zoom. More robust IMHO than the OM-10 but not up to an OM-1/2/3/4.

B2 (;->

BillBingham2 · 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avotius

......but we both agree the nikon is the better overall package. We will see, results from film first

I was making a choice of my first SLR when the OM-1 first came out. One of my teachers brother was a rep for Olympus so I was able to barrow the entire system for a few weekends (in High School at the time). I ended up going Nikkormat FTn because it felt better in my hands (fat). A few years back I got an OM-1 on EvilBay after using my M6/4-P for many years. Now the OM-1 felt better than it did many years back. Not sure why, but she is very small. I think the build quality of the OM is better than the FM/FE/FA series, with the exception of the FM3a, which is a true Nikon, at least to me.

B2 (;->

Avotius · 10-03-2008

We felt the fe2 was a better overall because it was more familiar to the hand and had less quirks but needless to say we want to see what the pictures from the cam look like. He did the same thing I did and did a double take at the asa dial, quite unusual. Tomorrow will take it out for a spin as I stuck a battery into it and did a rough check and it seems to underexpose by about half a stop. Will check it out better tomorrow.

nzeeman · 10-03-2008

great you got that camera. i always liked it a lot - never had it but i had opportunity to hold it in hands and look through vf. really bright vf! enjoy!

Spyderman · 10-03-2008

Quote:

it seems to underexpose by about half a stop

If you look at the pdf which I linked to in my previous post, you would see that if you have wrong battery voltage, the error of the meter readout is 0 to 3 EV and it changes in different light conditions. In dim light the error is smaller than in bright light outside. That is also the reason why a simple setting of lower ASA won't help...

gnarayan · 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimo-kitasnap

Hey cool!
How would you say they stack up against the M6 in size and handling? How are the zuiko lenses?

Forgive the blown highlights - quick snaps. I'll give you my opinion but let me say at the outset that the M6 is a very recent buy while I've had my OMs a while. So some questions to go along with my opinions. I do however have a Bessa R3a and am happy to compare it to that.

I picked up the M6ttl for myself to eventually replace the R3a after borrowing the 90 cron from a friend and finding it a bit of a crapshoot wide open on the R3a. Focusing longer lenses is not an issue I've ever had with the OMs and I use the 85-90ish a lot.

The M6 is much better than the R3a in this regard but it is still easier to compose looking TTL IMO. That said I got the R3a in the first place because I wanted wide angle lenses (old zuiko wides are expensive) and it turns out to be easier to focus in low light and useful to see what the scene looks like in different framelines and what is included vs excluded. Just different ways of seeing in the end. I still sort of prefer the 1:1 finder on the R3a to the M6 so far and have wondered about the magnifier. Anyone know good cheaper alternatives to the OEM one for the M6?

I have been annoyed that I cannot see the shutter speed in the VF of the M6 but this is also the case with the OM1s. I prefer my Bessa and OM2ns in this regard.

The OMs feel very dense but not heavy - very reassuring. The M6 is the only other camera I have that feels as good. They are both several notches above the R3a in this regard. In use it does not feel bigger at all, and oddly with some of the longer lenses (in particular my 85/2 which I absolutely love) it feel smaller (than an M6 or R3a with a 90 cron).

Handling vs the M6 I'm going to dodge because I've only put about 5 rolls through it so far. While I like the R3a it would be unfair to compare it against an OM1 since the R3a has AE. Luckily I also have OM2ns :-) Many of the elements of the Bessa like the exposure compensation are almost copies of the OMs - the layout is similar. The difference is in manual rather than AE. The Bessa shutter speed dial on the top is trditional but nowhere near as efficient as the aperture, focus and shutter speed all falling to the left hand on the OM. It is brilliant in my opinion. Not found another camera I'd prefer to use in manual yet because of that.

The OMs are quieter than the R3a (so are some sledgehammers IMO...) but the M6 is better than the OM1n and with the OM2n it sounds like a different tone but it isn't much quieter funnily enough.

As for the Zuiko lenses - I'm particularly fond of the 85/2 and the 135/2.8. I like the 35/2.8, the 50/1.8 is sharp and focuses nice and close. The 1.4s are not as sharp but quite usable and I do actually prefer them because they are lower contrast. I'd take the 40 Nokton over the 50/1.4. The 55/1.2 is big, soft and dreamy and has lots of CA and vignetting but it is fun to use. I dislike the 28/2.8 because I think it has a bit too much distortion and CA for a small prime and my ZD kit 14-42 ran made it look awful. I am being persnickety and this is more testament to how good the ZD lens is. I have a spiratone 20/2.8 in OM. It doesn't get used much. My 21/4 on the other hand does.

It is difficult for me to compare lenses directly. I've used a lot of OM lenses and not nearly as many M mount ones. I've borrowed a 50 and a 90 cron for a bit to go with the VC 12/21/40 set that I own. For the 12 there is no comparison obviously. 21 I got the Bessa for wides mostly and only recently started hankering after something longer and fast (recommendations anyone?) which is when I figured out just how much rangefinder base length mattered.

Phew. I'm shooting an event tonight and my E510 will come with and I think my M6 with it just to use it more.

Cheers,
-Gautham

P.S. Price is no contest here -
M6TTL body only cost a $1000 bucks (and it has been recently CLA'd)
OM2n and a 50/1.4 cost $75
OM1n and a 50/1.8 CLA'd by camtech cost $150
If your goal is value for money...

sonofdanang · 10-03-2008

Chops, baby. By that I mean you will find yourself in deep, deep, love with this camera. Back in the day - around 30 years ago - I had one of these with three primes. A wide-ish 2.8 (maybe 28mm?), a 50 1.4, and a 90 in something like 4 or 5.6. What an amazing machine. I kept it in my jacket pocket and lenses in other pockets or in socks. Man, was my discovery of air-in-a-can a life-changing event. But what great lenses and what a fantastic box for them to fit on. I seem to recall a technique where once you had the EV, you could grab both aperture and shutter rings and move them simultaneously - took a bit of practice but, as the man said, the only way to get to Carnegie Hall is.....

Avotius, enjoy this camera. It is one of the finest picture taking machines ever built. You will find that it 'disappears' in your hand after a while.

Gaspar · 10-03-2008

This is my favourite camera, period. Small, all mechanic, all manual, sturdy yet ergonomic. I have OM-10;4TI and two om-1n but for simplicity of build and reliability this is peerless.
Add to that a superb range of tiny lenses and you have the best travelling pack.

Some people have complained about the shutter dial. I think the om solution is yet to be matched for full manual control of a camera. Even modern digital slrs don't offere such a friencly shutter speed control.

The on myth that needs to be debunked it the lenses being cheap. The standard lens is cheap but all the top primes comand very good prices. Moreover, you can't even find them anymore. I believe more and more canon users are using these lenses in the DSLRs with an adapter.

BillBingham2 · 10-03-2008

I had very good luck with a 35/2.8 and a 85/2. The 100/2.8 is smaller, but the 85 just sucks the light in so nicely. The 28/3.5 is great as is the 180/2.8. If you want small and long 200/5, about the size of a 135/3.5 in M mount.

B2 (;->

manfromh · 10-03-2008

I have been thinking about an OM1 as well, but reading about the battery issues and hearing that om-m42 (im not giving up my takumar 50 1.4) adapters need to have glass in them, I've passed on the idea in favor of my Pentax ME Super.

How do OM1 and ME/ME Super compare to each other in size?

dee · 10-04-2008

Maybe it's just personal .
i bought a new OM1 based around the hype - and quickly chopped it n for an outdated Minolta SRT 200 used and a bit abused , which is still going strong .
I much prefer the feel of the Rokkors , even on my Dig 3 - Zuikos seemed TOO sharp / gritty , but then I am dee-lighted with a Summitar and Fed / Elmar on my M 8 / IIIc , so who am I to say ...
but if I were to be given an OM1 ... I may try to change my mind !
dee

jmkelly · 10-04-2008

The OM-1 was my first camera and continues to give me joy. I love my rangefinders, but if I were to experience a financial crisis, the OM-1 would probably be the one camera I keep.

Ten years ago mine needed a CLA/foam replacement. The guy who did the job added a diode to allow the meter to work properly with the 357/LR44 1.5v silver-oxide cell. I use a couple of rubber o-rings to center the cell in the chamber.

Dim finder? Two words: Beattie Intenscreen. Yes, this screen is more expensive than a Zuiko 50/1.8 lens. Worth it.

The original covering was peeling. I considered Griptac, but can't resist black lizard.

dee: too sharp? Hmmm... the Zuiko 85/2 is a Sonnar design and gives creamy-soft portraits. The 50/1.2 in the pic above is not anywhere near as sharp as the Zuiko 50/1.8 or even the 50/1.4, but produces a lovely glow in low-light.

George S. · 10-04-2008

Spyderman is correct- the wrong battery voltage will throw your exposures off in a non-linear way. IOW- each shot's exposure could be off a different amount depending on the lighting. Either use it on manual, or if you do use the wrong battery just use negative film, not slide film to test the camera. Negative film should handle 3 stops error no problem.

I've used the Olympus OM system for approx 30 years. Be careful, these cameras and lenses are addicting. Just yesterday I went thru my OM body and lens collection with the intention of selling them to finance more Leica RF gear purchases, and I just couldn't do it. I decided to keep them and use them more.

oscroft · 10-04-2008

Quote:

Well, the run of the mill Zuikos (50/1.8, the slower 28's, 135's and 200's) do go for a reasonable price, but the other lenses are pricier than their equivalents from Canon and Nikon, in my experience.

"Slower than the very fastest" really isn't the same as "run of the mill" in terms of quality. When I was retooling for SLRs a while ago, I went for Olympus because the lenses were superb but cheaper and more plentiful than Nikon, more plentiful that Canon, and the bodies were better than Canon (squeak, anyone?).

So I have 24/2.8 (£75), 28/2.8 (£35), 35/2.8 (£30), 50/1.4 (£50), 100/2.8 (£40), 135/3.5 (£15), 28-48 (£40), 100-200 (£12!), and I've had a lot more to try. Every one has been a gem, and if you don't think those prices are bargains then I don't know what is!

oscroft · 10-04-2008

Quote:

Just yesterday I went thru my OM body and lens collection with the intention of selling them to finance more Leica RF gear purchases, and I just couldn't do it. I decided to keep them and use them more.

Yeah, I did the same recently - I thought "I don't need all these old zooms, cos we all know zooms aren't very good - I'll sell them and buy RF gear". But I took them out and did some shooting, and I'm keeping them ;-)

gnarayan · 10-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaspar

The on myth that needs to be debunked it the lenses being cheap. The standard lens is cheap but all the top primes comand very good prices. Moreover, you can't even find them anymore. I believe more and more canon users are using these lenses in the DSLRs with an adapter.

I don't know what the myth is - I listed prices I paid for my stuff a while ago for a poster on dpreview -

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=27907297

I've since traded the OM 100/2.8 for a second OM2n body and an old Oly XA for a Winder 2 and got traded the 35-70/4 and the T-20 for a Bessa-T (which I admit has still not gotten used like the items I traded...)

The big headache is getting wide angles wider than 24 cheap. The 21 and lower and painfully expensive. Even the f2 lenses, while not cheap, can usually be found for under $300 which compares pretty well with many things out there considering the aperture.

I think part of the trick is to avoid evilbay. People pay silly prices for some things there and I've seen really innacurate descriptions. My particular pet peeve is advertising things as silver nose to raise the price when really all that means is that they were the earlier copies before Oly moved to black aperture rings and filter threads to cut down on reflections.

Cheers,
-Gautham

Trius · 10-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimo-kitasnap

Oh and what's the difference between all those different OM-xx?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimo-kitasnap

Hey cool!

I've always wanted to try the OM. Currently I'm using an M6 (which I'm selling) with a cron-c and elmar-c and am thinking about selling it all for more money to pay for things like car insurance and working towards my pilot's license.

How would you say they stack up against the M6 in size and handling? How are the zuiko lenses?

Thanks peoples

Size and handling is very close to an M, although, as mentioned the shutter speed dial is around the mount. Also as mentioned, this is VERY ergonomic; you can set the shutter speed and aperture with one hand, without moving your hand from the shutter release. Some people can't get used to that, but it's the only way I've shot with an SLR (except for a brief foray with a Mamiya-Sekor 1000DTL), so it is natural for me.

Someone referred to "run of the mill" lenses. I would say there are very few of those. Even the more common "run of the mill" lenses are very good, if not excellent ... there will be varying opinions. I don't worry about that, I just shoot. There are exceptional lenses, of course, particularly the fast primes (21/2, 35/2, 50/1.2, 100/2, 24 shift, etc.), and those DO get big money on eekBay. But the "ordinary" 50/1.8 (especially later version) is a really good lens, and I find the 50/1.4 nearly indispensible. The 35/2.8 is superb for what it is, i.e. cheap and very small and easy to work with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimo-kitasnap

Oh and what's the difference between all those different OM-xx?

The double digit OMs were lower-priced, more amateur bodies. Nothing really wrong with them, but not worth a CLA if they go belly up. Most are heavily electronic so repairs are expensive, if even available.

A lot of this is repetitive to what others have said, but hey, I'm an Zuikoholic so I had to get my chops in.

OMmmmmmmmmmm

mh2000 · 10-04-2008

here is the last set I shot using my OM-1 (w/50/1.8):

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=342831118

Nice camera... held onto it for a few years after getting Leica-R, but in the end decided that I was only shooting my Leica... so it went, but it was nice.

chambrenoire · 10-04-2008

Seriously my favourite SLR system of all time! Zuiko glass is amazing.. The standard 50/1.8 is amazing for portraits and such. I can't praise the OM's enough!

Gaspar · 10-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by manfromh

I have been thinking about an OM1 as well, but reading about the battery issues and hearing that om-m42 (im not giving up my takumar 50 1.4) adapters need to have glass in them, I've passed on the idea in favor of my Pentax ME Super.

How do OM1 and ME/ME Super compare to each other in size?

I borrowed the ME super from a friend with the standard lens and it was about the same size as the om with lens beinga tad bigger. The results were pretty good!

amateriat · 10-04-2008

Oh, here comes the OM-stampede...

I keep going on about having abandoned the SLR world for dead over six years ago. Well, it's true, except for one thing: a single OM-2n body, with a 50 f/1.8 lens (quite an underrated optic, I'd say), and a Sigma 21-35 f/3.5 zoom, which I've actually come to like a good deal. Most of the time, I use the OM-2 and zoom, as well as an Olympus VariMagni finder, as something of an ersatz view camera (the combo spends most of its time on my tripod or monopod, both which are finally getting real use again since getting rid of my Minolta AF SLR system long ago). Once in a while, however, I'll put the 50 on the OM and go happy-snapping with it, and recall just how nimble an SLR the thing is.

And, since we touched on the subject of "odd" control placement, I want to point out that the OM-2's film-speed control, while in the same location, is more conventional in operation (being incorporated into what is now the exposure-compensation dial). Also, the OM-2, like subsequent OMs, uses easy to find S76 batteries.

(To those who scoff at battery-powered cameras: I happen to know the entire history of this particular OM-2n quite well: I helped a friend pick it out a few decades back when she was getting seriously into photography. It saw heavy use. on several continents, and was given to me when my friend decided her eyesight was no longer adequate for manual focus, and, again on my advice, bought a Canon Elan 7. The OM is still working quite well, with minimum attention.)

- Barrett