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.I am confident you are a better judge of that scene
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
There's no doubt the OM1 was a lovely camera, but it wasn't the SLR Leica it was sometimes billed as.
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 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.
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!
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.
What cosmetic parts fell off your OM1. The only cosmetic part I can think of is the little plastic MD logo.Cosmetic parts fell off my OM1 even though it was always kept in a never ready case.
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.Logo, self timer insert, it was along time ago I don't recall every part.
This is what I would call shameless biasing, not supported by hard evidence.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)
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.Is that important to access the functionality of a camera?
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.
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?
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.
Advance the film gently on your OM-1s Ricardo, you have been warned.
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 (!)
No, they don't.don't rate the Zuiko 55/1.2 highly
Oh dear!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:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?