30 years to get back to where I started. The Olympus OM1n and I.

[benjiboy]

I am confident you are a better judge of that scene

We were professional dealers about 80-90% of our clients were V.A.T. ( Value Added Tax ) rated, which means they made the major part of their income if not all of it from photography so they could claim the tax back from the government on the equipment they bought because they were full time professorial photographers. Olympus cameras lenses in those days weren't freely available to rent from companies that hired out equipment most didn't stock them.

 

[blockend]

I have never owned an Olympus or Minolta either but there's a saying in this neck of the woods, "good stuff weighs heavy", and although I know they are exquisite and like jewellery I always felt they were a bit flimsy and although some leading pro's like David Bailey and Patrick Litchfield used Olympus SLR's, when I used to sell cameras to pro's for a living many of them told me they had tried them but they wouldn't stand up to sort of hammer that professional use gave them, that the Nikon F2 and Canon F1 would.

An OM1 was my first quality SLR, and I used it exclusively for five years. The lenses hold up to the competition optically, but you have a point about the feel of the OM range and they didn't inspire the same confidence as the Nikon F I subsequently bought. Cosmetic parts fell off my OM1 even though it was always kept in a never ready case. I have to say the internals never failed. I heard of one police force that adopted Olympus but went back to Nikon after the bases distorted from tripod bush over-tightening, a good test of the gauge of steel employed.
There's no doubt the OM1 was a lovely camera, but it wasn't the SLR Leica it was sometimes billed as. Bailey and Litchfield used other 35mm cameras in addition to Olympus who paid them.

 

[haziz]

I agree that the Olympus lenses are nice and compact, and I absolutely love them, but you're cheating. That Pentax K lens has a filter on but the Olympus Zuiko is sans filter!

Love my OM cameras and prefer the Olympus Zuiko lenses to my Leica M or R lenses, Zeiss Contax, Canons' etc!

 

[flavio81]

An OM1 was my first quality SLR, and I used it exclusively for five years. The lenses hold up to the competition optically, but you have a point about the feel of the OM range and they didn't inspire the same confidence as the Nikon F I subsequently bought. Cosmetic parts fell off my OM1 even though it was always kept in a never ready case. I have to say the internals never failed. I heard of one police force that adopted Olympus but went back to Nikon after the bases distorted from tripod bush over-tightening, a good test of the gauge of steel employed.

Your honesty is very refreshing. I wish all forumers were like you.

There's no doubt the OM1 was a lovely camera, but it wasn't the SLR Leica it was sometimes billed as. Bailey and Litchfield used other 35mm cameras in addition to Olympus who paid them.

Exactly, that's my gripe with the diehard fans of the OM system; somehow they pretend that it is superior to the SLR system of the other japanese brands, something I can't agree with. In the same way, as, for example, I really like the Nikkormats, but i wouldn't hide their defects.

Yes i did use an OM-2 for some weeks, it was lent to me. I thought it was a very nice camera, but I woudn't place it on my list of "top 10 35mm cameras".

 

[flavio81]

I don't believe that overall size, at least as presented in the OM mount lenses, would be a factor in the optical quality of the lenses.

As a lens designer!!

Or i'll cite known Leica specialist Erwin Puts, a guy specialised in optical history and researching about the great camera optics engineers:

The Zeiss lenses for the Contarex system were the result of this second-generation design approach. I have stated it repeatedly, but the size of the lens, is one of the most important parameters for the optical quality. The Contarex lenses are proof of this statement. Every lens was optimized in performance without regard for the physical size and the designer allowed the lens to grow to its natural proportions. The result was a lens line of impressive performance for that time. There is some mystique around the Contarex lenses: they are sometimes described as the best lenses ever made with an optical quality never surpassed. This is not true. Some designs, like the 4/35 and the 4/135, are indeed close to perfection, but given the modest apertures, that is not a big challenge. The mounting and centring of the lens elements is indeed not yet surpassed.

Additionally, "faster" lenses, by their very nature, require larger diameter glass to ensure adequate circumference to accommodate the larger aperture, and the diameter of some lens mounts were a limitation. But since Olympus did produce a 50mm and 55mm lens with an F1.2 aperture I don't believe this was the case.

The lens mount wasn't the problem. The OM mount has a very wide throat and this is a good thing. The problem, as i've pointed out many times, was the obsession with reducing lens dimensions as priority #1, leaving optical corrections as priority #2.

The Olympus 55/1.2 is rather mediocre lens when you compare it to the competition of the same year (Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC, Konica Hexanon 57/1.2). I used the Olympus 55/1.2 while owning also the FD 55/1.2 (a favorite lens of mine). Yes, the 55/1.2 is much smaller, but also has huge amounts of coma flare wide open and the contrast wide open is very low. The Canon is markedly better in these two factors, which are typical weak points of ultra-fast normal lenses. The Hexanon should be even better (but then, it's a 57mm lens)

Most compact OM lenses are of low speed (i.e. 28/3.5, 200/5), this of course makes easy to have compactness and high performance at the same time. But try making a really fast lens compact, and some optical refinements (corrections) will have to be left off.

 

[ac12]

For a slightly different reason, I have been doing similar.
Now having become a "senior citizen," I am appreciating the Olympus more than I did when I was in college, and physically fitter than I am now. Weight, or more specifically weight reduction, is now a major consideration when putting together a kit to carry. For that reason, my Nikons, which seem to be getting heavier each year, are being used less. I have been assembling an Olympus kit, to carry.

 

[mynewcolour]

As a lens designer!!

Or i'll cite known Leica specialist Erwin Puts, a guy specialised in optical history and researching about the great camera optics engineers:





The lens mount wasn't the problem. The OM mount has a very wide throat and this is a good thing. The problem, as i've pointed out many times, was the obsession with reducing lens dimensions as priority #1, leaving optical corrections as priority #2.

The Olympus 55/1.2 is rather mediocre lens when you compare it to the competition of the same year (Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC, Konica Hexanon 57/1.2). I used the Olympus 55/1.2 while owning also the FD 55/1.2 (a favorite lens of mine). Yes, the 55/1.2 is much smaller, but also has huge amounts of coma flare wide open and the contrast wide open is very low. The Canon is markedly better in these two factors, which are typical weak points of ultra-fast normal lenses. The Hexanon should be even better (but then, it's a 57mm lens)

Most compact OM lenses are of low speed (i.e. 28/3.5, 200/5), this of course makes easy to have compactness and high performance at the same time. But try making a really fast lens compact, and some optical refinements (corrections) will have to be left off.

Some very good points. Leica manage to get the combo of performance and size by extraordinary manufacturing it seems. Olympus made some flipping nice glass in the 60s but they weren't clearly ahead of Nikon or Konica etc so it seems plausible to me that (as you suggest) building small involved some compromise.

For me an OM1n with the compact 50 f1.8 and 85 f2 is dreamy. The little 28 f3.5 is a nice snapshot lens too, mine cost £20! As a package they're about as well built as it could be without getting heavy.

The lenses don't wow like the T* Contax Zeiss Planar / Sonnars / Distagons / Biogons IMHO. Colours aren't as warm, resolution is lower (edges and distortion may differ too but I can't say I've noticed that).

I totally understand why the ergonomics of the OM aren't to everyone's taste. I found I adapted ok. They're pretry well designed. I love how you are forced to hold the lens as you de-mount it. This makes all conventional methods look a bit daft. Nikon focusing and Contax meter activation/lock seem a little odd to me know. Pentax MX era stuff isn't perfect ergonomically either so on balance I'm very happy with OMs.

Prism gunk and battery conversion/workaround is some initial hassle but worth it. It's remarkable how rarely I see or hear of a OM1n breaking/failing. I know of a few (not many) OM2 and 4s that have died.

In the UK bodies and prime lenses are still everywhere and cheap.

 

[mynewcolour]

There's no doubt the OM1 was a lovely camera, but it wasn't the SLR Leica it was sometimes billed as.

That comparison always confuses me. Maitani was 'inspired-by' for sure. But a Leica SLR is either an oxymoron or a Leicaflex, not the Olympus.

 

[Les Sarile]

The lenses don't wow like the T* Contax Zeiss Planar / Sonnars / Distagons / Biogons IMHO. Colours aren't as warm, resolution is lower (edges and distortion may differ too but I can't say I've noticed that).

From all the testing I have personally conducted using manual focus fixed focal length lenses, I have found that the only way I can truly evaluate a len's resolution is by using Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 developed in Kodak Technidol, shooting test targets under strictest control methodology and then evaluated under a microscope. So if you use a less resolving film, poor shooting methodology, a target that doesn't have enough detail poor focusing and don't make extremely large print then I don't anticipate the lens ever being the bottleneck in achieving it's ultimate resolution.

 

[mynewcolour]

I can tell which of my images are shot with each lens without pixel peeping or magnification. Like I say, colour, saturation and clarity are visibly different.

 

[Les Sarile]

I can tell which of my images are shot with each lens without pixel peeping or magnification. Like I say, colour, saturation and clarity are visibly different.

Unless it is a controlled test the results can be colored one way or another. Even more so when using negatives. If you like the results then all the more reason to continue using it.

 

[Les Sarile]

I agree that the Olympus lenses are nice and compact, and I absolutely love them, but you're cheating. That Pentax K lens has a filter on but the Olympus Zuiko is sans filter!

This may be a better comparison . . .

 

[Pioneer]

As a lens designer!!

Or i'll cite known Leica specialist Erwin Puts, a guy specialised in optical history and researching about the great camera optics engineers:





The lens mount wasn't the problem. The OM mount has a very wide throat and this is a good thing. The problem, as i've pointed out many times, was the obsession with reducing lens dimensions as priority #1, leaving optical corrections as priority #2.

The Olympus 55/1.2 is rather mediocre lens when you compare it to the competition of the same year (Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC, Konica Hexanon 57/1.2). I used the Olympus 55/1.2 while owning also the FD 55/1.2 (a favorite lens of mine). Yes, the 55/1.2 is much smaller, but also has huge amounts of coma flare wide open and the contrast wide open is very low. The Canon is markedly better in these two factors, which are typical weak points of ultra-fast normal lenses. The Hexanon should be even better (but then, it's a 57mm lens)

Most compact OM lenses are of low speed (i.e. 28/3.5, 200/5), this of course makes easy to have compactness and high performance at the same time. But try making a really fast lens compact, and some optical refinements (corrections) will have to be left off.

Thanks for clarifying your point flavio81. I really wasn't trying to make a statement as a designer, just a simple observer. My MS Optical Sonnetar 50/1.1 is quite small but gives some great results wide open if I manage to hit the correct focus point. Likewise, I have another MS Optical 25/1.1 for my Pentax Q that produces great portraits on that camera. It is very small as well. There are likely other examples as well that I am probably not aware of.

 

[faberryman]

Cosmetic parts fell off my OM1 even though it was always kept in a never ready case.

What cosmetic parts fell off your OM1. The only cosmetic part I can think of is the little plastic MD logo.

 

[blockend]

Logo, self timer insert, it was along time ago I don't recall every part.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Logo, self timer insert, it was along time ago I don't recall every part.

Of all my 15 OM-1 and OM-2 that have the MD logo, only one lost the logo. I it is an OM-2N that I got from a professional. It was well worked, but not abused and well cared for internally. I just replaced the leather with one without a hole for the logo.
It is a piece of plastic glued in place.
Is that important to access the functionality of a camera?

DSC_0825 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr
My most used OM-2N. The brassing is all natural. No fakes here.

I used the Olympus 55/1.2 while owning also the FD 55/1.2 (a favorite lens of mine). Yes, the 55/1.2 is much smaller, but also has huge amounts of coma flare wide open and the contrast wide open is very low. The Canon is markedly better in these two factors, which are typical weak points of ultra-fast normal lenses. The Hexanon should be even better (but then, it's a 57mm lens)

This is what I would call shameless biasing, not supported by hard evidence.
This is a link you posted in another thread with tests of these lenses.
You might want to review them: http://forum.mflenses.com/1977-pop-photo-normal-lens-tests-32-of-them-t18107.html#156302
Yes, the Zuiko 55mm /1.2 wasn't the best of the bunch and the later 50mm /1.2 was smaller and a lot better.

But, your precious Canon 55mm /1.2 isn't fault free.
You claimed the Zuiko has more coma, flare and less contrast than the Canon.
In fact the 2 are very similar.

 

[blockend]

Is that important to access the functionality of a camera?

Of course not. I'm not claiming the OM1 was a bad camera, on the contrary. However it never inspired me to keep it slung over a shoulder permanently, or bumping against another camera as I would a Nikkormat for example. If you're generally careful and keep it bagged the OM1 will probably go on forever. If you need a camera permanently ready, and it'll live in the foot well of a car and generally live a hard life, the OM wouldn't be my first choice.

 

[flavio81]

This is what I would call shameless biasing, not supported by hard evidence.
This is a link you posted in another thread with tests of these lenses.
You might want to review them(...)

But, your precious Canon 55mm /1.2 isn't fault free.
You claimed the Zuiko has more coma, flare and less contrast than the Canon.
In fact the 2 are very similar.

The tests only show part of the story; I say this based on my actual experience using them and i'm positive regarding the difference in contrast.

You can read the tests in many ways. If you want me to pick on a difference that could explain my feelings, it was perhaps the flare levels reported by the test. The Canon has the minimum flare (0.6%) of all the f1.2 lenses on the text, and the Olympus has the maximum one (1.4%). This robs contrast (i often shoot backlit subjects. Perhaps i almost exclusively shoot backlit stuff!)

Again, if we want to read the tests (i prefer actual use, though), i could explain the lesser contrast by looking at the spherical aberration of each lens. A lens with spherical aberration shows the following on the spot diagram:

Each point gets a 'halo' that robs contrast. The definition is there, but the contrast goes down.

More spot diagrams

We don't know more details on the test, but the Oly shows 0.03mm for spherical aberration while the Canon shows "None". Also the Canon is remarkably free of astigmatism on the center and edge. This is good for clarity and for uniform blur or (bokeh), which this lens shows.

This gives you a hint on the "clarity" of the lens, because for the MTF ("contrast versus ines per mm") test they shoot a test chart against a wall, which is a flat subject, and any curvature of field will make a lens look poor on this test; a lens that would otherwise perform pretty good shooting real life subjects, which as you know, are not flat as a wall. The Canon and the Zuiko show rather similar results on the MTF tests, but I contend there is a difference.

Anyways, all these are meaningless numbers, again, the actual image are what counts; actual performance with 3D subjects, foreground, background, longer distances than when shooting a test chart. And you will find the the Zuiko lovers don't rate the Zuiko 55/1.2 highly, while the Canon FD 55/1.2 (and FL 55/1.2, which has identical design, introduced 1968!) is very well liked.

And that was my conclusion as well.

 

[flavio81]

Of all my 15 OM-1 and OM-2 that have the MD logo, only one lost the logo. I it is an OM-2N that I got from a professional. It was well worked, but not abused and well cared for internally. I just replaced the leather with one without a hole for the logo.
It is a piece of plastic glued in place.
Is that important to access the functionality of a camera?

I've also seen some OMs without the logo, it seems it wasn't glued so well.
Is that important to access the functionality of a camera? No, it is not.
But you know, this camera was billed as a "professional", system camera. I haven't seen any part fall down from a Nikon F2 or a Canon F-1...
And the way the film advance was implemented internally is questionable. Advance the film gently on your OM-1s Ricardo, you have been warned. You want your cameras to last. And you don't want to join the Club of OM Owners Who Experience Camera Jamming:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-88646.html

I always wanted to get an OM 1 in good shape for my collection, but so far I find them with some prism desilvering and that rough film advance. Perhaps we Peruvians are brute with equipment. And i fear of the past stories concerning the OM 1's film advance mechanism.

As a comparison, all Nikkormat cameras i've found on the usedhand market work smoothly immediately.

That's my gripe with the system... I can't stand overrated stuff. Is it a good camera? Yes. But some people think this is the superior SLR system.

 

[mynewcolour]

If you like the results then all the more reason to continue using it.

Like I said above, I like the Zuiko lens performance less overall than some other lenses I've tried or owned (Contax, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax).

I've stuck with them because it's a great SLR system: it does what I need just as reliably and at 2/3rds of the size and weight of alternative mechanical, manual systems, without costing a fortune.

I like convenient cameras. Most of the time I'll grab a point & shoot. If my SLR was a Nikon F5 I'd literally never use it.

 

[flavio81]

Like I said above, I like the Zuiko lens performance less overall than some other lenses I've tried or owned (Contax, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax).

I've stuck with them because it's a great SLR system: it does what I need just as reliably and at 2/3rds of the size and weight of alternative mechanical, manual systems, without costing a fortune.

I like convenient cameras. Most of the time I'll grab a point & shoot. If my SLR was a Nikon F5 I'd literally never use it.

I can relate to some of your feelings as well. There is a merit in compactness and low weight.
But i'm used to medium-format cameras, so perhaps my tolerance for size and weight is larger.
The F5 is a monster, though (!)

 

[mynewcolour]

Advance the film gently on your OM-1s Ricardo, you have been warned.

You've been provoked. People have willfully misinterpreted your valid point ... but you're being silly now

 

[mynewcolour]

I can relate to some of your feelings as well. There is a merit in compactness and low weight.
But i'm used to medium-format cameras, so perhaps my tolerance for size and weight is larger.
The F5 is a monster, though (!)

Yeah. I used an extreme (and silly) example.

When I was teaching our SLR systems (film and digi) were all various Nikons. And lovely. The D3 was/is an absolute unit!

 

[CMoore]

Perhaps i should start another thread.?
But this Nikon/Olympus discussion is a topic i have wondered about from time to time.......What is a "Professional SLR" .?
Sometimes just being first in the door gets you a long ways to being "the best".
Was the Nikon F2/F3 a better or better built camera than what was offered at the same time by:
Canon
Olympus
Minolta
Pentax
I certainly SAW more Nikons at Sporting/Entertainment events...but i do not know if that means they made a "better" camera.
I see the term Professional and Consumer Level used all the time, but i am not sure (other than price) what really separates the two.
Did camera companies use that term.? Did Minolta, or whoever, say This Is Our Professional Camera.?
Would a (whatever example you want to use) Canon AE-1P fall apart or break often if used by a professional Newspaper/Magazine/Sports/Travel photographer.?
Thank You

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

don't rate the Zuiko 55/1.2 highly

No, they don't.
There is a debate whether this lens in multi-coated or not. When I compared this lens to the early 50mm /1.4 that is known to be single coated, the results of light transmission are similar and therefore I'm inclined to think the 55mm /1.2 is single coated. This also explains the flare.

And the way the film advance was implemented internally is questionable. Advance the film gently on your OM-1s Ricardo, you have been warned. You want your cameras to last. And you don't want to join the Club of OM Owners Who Experience Camera Jamming:

Oh dear!
Flavio, I work with some second-hand dealers in evaluating their equipment condition.
Do you want to know how many cameras I've seen jammed? There isn't a week I don't see one.
Recently I even saw a Canon F-1N.

These are my OM-1. You can count how many. All working and no jams. I'm particularly delicate with mines and 2 years ago I dropped one into asphalt. There's a nick in the bottom plate, but I just pick it up and is fully working, no jams there.

WP_20160810_12_48_10_Pro by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

All fully working.