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

[ic-racer]

43 years ago my older brother got an OM-1 for his birthday. I got a SLR also, but, as was always the case, I got something inferior. I got a Zenit-E
My brother still has the OM-1, and he still won't let me use it.
I got rid of the Zenit-E and traded for a Fujica 701 in short order. I can't seem to get away form Zenit-E though. A few years ago my father was given a box of cameras and he passed them along to me. Low and behold there was a brand-new Zenit-B in the box. Still had the original sales slip from the 1970s.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I have to say that it's very refreshing getting back to just an OM-1 and a 50mm lens. I have some lovely Nikon SLRs, a great F4 and a lovely FM3a (the only camera I have ever bought new, just because they were going to be discontinued and I really wanted one), but there is something about the simplicity of a good viewfinder, match needle metering and one lens.

 

[John Bragg]

I have to say that it's very refreshing getting back to just an OM-1 and a 50mm lens. I have some lovely Nikon SLRs, a great F4 and a lovely FM3a (the only camera I have ever bought new, just because they were going to be discontinued and I really wanted one), but there is something about the simplicity of a good viewfinder, match needle metering and one lens.

Indeed there is. I rarely used the 50mm f1.8 before, but the "made in Japan" example I have is razor sharp and they can be found for peanuts ! I cant wait for my next outing with it. 50 lenses in general are the hidden treasures of most camera systems and this one gives any lens a run for its money, Zeiss and Leica included !

 

[xtolsniffer]

I tend to use mine with the 50mm f3.5 macro. It just gives me a little more close-up focussing which I tend to prefer, and the viewfinder on the OM1 is so bright that the loss of almost a couple of stops over the f1.8 is not that significant.

 

[thuggins]

I've got one of those where it looks like the "O" fell off, and it just says "M-1". Do you think that is some sort of defect? <eg>

 

[Xmas]

I've got one of those where it looks like the "O" fell off, and it just says "M-1". Do you think that is some sort of defect? <eg>

It should say M on the lens as well?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Something like this?

 

[John Bragg]

I've got one of those where it looks like the "O" fell off, and it just says "M-1". Do you think that is some sort of defect? <eg>

The original model was the M1 and it was renamed OM1 after a dispute with Leica. There are very few genuine Olympus M1 cameras about.

 

[CMoore]

I have a Canon A-1 and AT-1 with a bunch of lenses.
Nikon F2 and FM, also with a bunch of lenses.
THAT is the only reason I do not (yet) own a OM1-OM2.
I am almost 56 years old, and will not be living another 56. The Olympus is so affordable now, I should probably just drop a few hundred and own a decent piece of Film History.
Then I start to think about the Nikomat as well.....what a vicious cycle.

 

[ColColt]

I've always pretty much been a Nikon/Leica sort of guy but have really considered a Canon F-1(old style) lately. Sometimes the bug just bites.

 

[thuggins]

It should say M on the lens as well?

Yes, it came with the original M -System 50f1.8 lens. I believe Oly made about 8 primes and a zoom for the M. Although I may be enough of a fanatic to track down a complete set of FTL lenses I draw the line at searching for the M's lenses. I already have all the OM primes except the 55f1.2, anyway, and don't need any more duplicates.

 

[darinwc]

i have OM1, 2, 4, and PC. I have a good collection of lenses: 21/3.5, 24/2, 28/3.5, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/2 macro, 85/2, 100/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/4, 300/4.5.

Hmm kinda went crazy buying them all. And I havent been using them at all lately, as I've been using many vintage cameras of the 50's.
Currently wrestling with a Nikon S2, but I think my affair with that will be over soon.

 

[onre]

I have an OM-2N and I think it is great. I only have 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 but this seems to be enough for what I do. I could use a 35 instead of the 28, but haven't bothered finding one. The optical quality of lenses is excellent in my opinion. Also, the size of the whole system does not cease to amaze me. It all fits in an old Lowepro Nova Mini bag, and there's even space for film.

 

[ph]

Hmm, only half a year or so since I cleared out almost all OM stuff (no, not the excellent Olympus bellows, its 135macro+ variable extension, the 50\2 macro, the ringflash and its cross polarizer, but brochures, directions for use, OM 4, lenses, screens etc. etc. went).

I now use an Olympus F digital (plus some manual optics, plus a fullframe). The F is not perfect (too many dials while there are just 3 variables: distance, aperture and time (plus ISO), and the buttons keep trying to take control since there is no "off" choice for all of them).

Some film stuff is kept for occasional use, and I sometimes bring out ancient optics. Usually with entirely satisfactory results.

p.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I have an OM-2N and I think it is great. I only have 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 but this seems to be enough for what I do. I could use a 35 instead of the 28, but haven't bothered finding one. The optical quality of lenses is excellent in my opinion. Also, the size of the whole system does not cease to amaze me. It all fits in an old Lowepro Nova Mini bag, and there's even space for film.

You're doing well. That's about all you need for a lot of things.
Personally, 28mm /2.8 and the 35mm /2.8 are not only light but also do 90+% of all my photography.
The remaining is split about he 100mm /2.8, a 135mm /3.5 or the 50mm /1.8.
I normally only take an OM-1/2 with 28mm and another one with the 35mm. More recently I've been packing and using the 100mm more often.
Keep shooting film.

 

[Chadinko]

What amazes me is how cheaply all this OM gloriousness can be had. A friend gave me his dad's OM-1N, a 50/1.4, 135/2.8 Komine, and a 28/3.5 and that got me started -- I am still collecting them but I now have the 75-150/4 as well, and another OM-1 body and a winder on each one. I think I have a total of $100 invested in the whole setup and I neeeeeeeed to use it more!! I disassembled the hotshoe and reinforced it (it's cracked) with epoxy resin and that seems to have fixed the wobbly probbly, at least for now, but I don't put flashes on cameras often so it's not really that big a deal. Just leave it on there because I don't want to lose it.

I actually have them with me at work today so I'm planning to burn off some film this afternoon.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Being relatively new to the OM system - I bought an OM-2n last month - I'm a little bit surprised to learn that only the 50 and 55mm lenses are faster than f/2. All of the wide and tele lenses are f/2, f/2.8, or slower.

Being that my only lens for 15 years was a 55/2, I'm not bothered by what Olympus chose for their lens system, though most of the other big players in the market usually offered faster glass.

All said, I love my OM-2n and its 50/1.4 - it's a fun camera.

 

[CMoore]

^^^^^^^^^ I just bought an OM-1n.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like the lenses under 50mm are generally more expensive than similar lenses for the Canon FD and Nikon F mounts.
Anybody else experience that.?
Thanks

 

[Les Sarile]

^^^^^^^^^ I just bought an OM-1n.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like the lenses under 50mm are generally more expensive than similar lenses for the Canon FD and Nikon F mounts.
Anybody else experience that.?
Thanks

There are desirable lenses on all mounts. Condition, availability and locality also tends to influence prices.

 

[onre]

I think I paid 40 € for my 28 mm 2,8 - near mint, including hood and original box. Dunno if you can get anything for Nikon F-mount at that price.

I shot this with the 135 mm:

Absurdly good lens, in my opinion.

 

[flavio81]

If you can believe it Yoshihisa Maitani didn't even want to develop yet another 35mm SLR except that he felt the cameras on the market were too large and heavy. Been a few years since I was in Tokyo and I can appreciate that perspective especially when you have one on a neckstrap.

This comparison is a bit unfair because the cameras are not equivalent:

- The Canon F-1 has metering built in. The proper comparison would be with the F2 with a Photomic finder. In which case the Nikon F2 becomes as tall and probably heavier, plus a bit less beautiful.

- The OM-1 does not have a removable pentaprism, this is an obvious size and weight advantage. But it also mean they are not comparable cameras.

- I think not even a faitfhful Olympus fan would claim that the OM-1 is as bulletproof as the Nikon F2 or the Canon F-1. Sure, the OM-1 is very well built, and durable, but the Nikon was used in the war, and there are stories of peoples in this forum of Canon F-1s falling from a cliff and surviving, or being washed with running water...

 

[onre]

F-1 isn't that bulletproof either. At my work, when going through used cameras, I have a specific quick test for F-1. Put it on the shutter speed tester, turn the dial to the fastest speed, fire. If it's less than 100 percent slower than it should be, it's a good one. What I usually see is something between two and ten milliseconds.

 

[flavio81]

I think I paid 40 € for my 28 mm 2,8 - near mint, including hood and original box. Dunno if you can get anything for Nikon F-mount at that price.

I shot this with the 135 mm:

Absurdly good lens, in my opinion.

I'll put my flame suit on and i'll have to put a little rain on the parade:

This is something i've often repeated regarding the compact 35mm SLR lenses including Zuikos: Something has got to give.
For example the Canon FL 135/2.5 and 135/3.5 (older version) had excellent, gorgeous bokeh but were rather big. The modern Canon New FD 135/3.5 did not have the gorgeous bokeh and was much more compact and lighter.

Similar, the Nikon 135/3.5 pre-AI version has excellent bokeh (and yes, you should be able to find one of them for 40 Euros, me thinks). The successor, the AI mount 135/3.5 did not have such nice bokeh, but was smaller and lighter. I owned both. Both of them sharp as a tack.

Here i see a sample of the Zuiko 135 and i'm sure it's a lens even more compact than the equivalent Canon FD and Nikon AI-mount equivalents, but I can't help but feel that I don't think that's a good bokeh for being a 135mm lens, and whenever I use a 135 i want to have very "3d-like", smooth out of focus effects. For what's it's worth, my current champion for it is the Super-Canomatic R 135/2.5 lens (circa 1959-61), fantastic.

And huge, and heavy.

So, something's got to give.

 

[Les Sarile]

- The OM-1 does not have a removable pentaprism, this is an obvious size and weight advantage.

There is no denying the genius of Yoshihisa Maitani and the Olympus team. Not only did they hit their design target but they also changed the camera landscape and we all benefited from it.

 

[Les Sarile]

I'll put my flame suit on and i'll have to put a little rain on the parade:

This is something i've often repeated regarding the compact 35mm SLR lenses including Zuikos: Something has got to give.

I am certain if you have actual irrefutable proof of your assertion that this would just be facts instead of something inflammatory.