Build quality down the generations

[wiltw]

OK, thanks, but like I said that wasn't the point of the story.

But it does point to the fact that one has to be very 'ham-handed' to put fingers into an 18mm x 24mm opening of a half-frame camera!

 

[BMbikerider]

I had 2 F4 and ended selling them mostly because of weight and ergonomics. Sure, it was build like a rock with tons of features but so was Olympus OM4 and it was way smaller. Still got my 3 OM4 by the way.

You have got to consider the difference between the F4 and the Olympus model and the purpose they were designed for. The OM range including the 1, 2, 3, 4 (Ignore the double figure models) were good and many are still working and working well, but they were not designed for the heavy thrashing day in and ay out that a camera from a pro range in the Nikon line up would have to put up with. I have had 3 or 4 F4 models and would still have one were it not for the weight, and actual physical size. There is no argument that an F4 is a BIG brute of a camera (compared to other models(Apart from an F5)

In the days before I went totally Nikon and saw the light, I owned and use 2 x EOS1n cameras. They may not have been but compared to an F4 they seemed a little bit fragile and they did not last long in my ownership.

Then looking further back. Just look how many Canon F1 or F1n models that come up for sale compared to Nikon F2 models. That alone for me tells me a lot.

 

[film_man]

They didn't fail. By the way you just used up the 36 sensors in your load. They are one time use sensors.

Yup...so are the batteries. Yet, some people consider one as an inevitable function of the camera and the other as a failure.

 

[guangong]

I use autofocusing on the cameras that have the feature. It is a convinience that has my interests in mind. For the cameras without autofocus, I still use them. It is just one of the options I use. Sometimes I use the exposure of the builtin light meters as shown. Using autofocus and autoexposure does not make be a bad person.

My Contax T3 has autofocus, and I use it. I was speaking in terms of build quality. From that perspective, each and every add on is something that can go wrong. For certain kinds of photography, such as wild animals or sports, of course autofocusing is a big assist. I live adjacent to a very large state park with visits from a variety of animal...bears, bobcats, chayotes, etc., where I wouldn’t even need auto features. But I am a lousy wildlife photographer because I forget to take pictures while observing my visitors.
Even my Nikon F and F2 only keeps working because fitted with plain prism...the meter-prisms are long dead!
Anybody who likes bourbon can’t be all bad!

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

You have got to consider the difference between the F4 and the Olympus model and the purpose they were designed for. The OM range including the 1, 2, 3, 4 (Ignore the double figure models) were good and many are still working and working well, but they were not designed for the heavy thrashing day in and ay out that a camera from a pro range in the Nikon line up would have to put up with. I have had 3 or 4 F4 models and would still have one were it not for the weight, and actual physical size. There is no argument that an F4 is a BIG brute of a camera (compared to other models(Apart from an F5)

In the days before I went totally Nikon and saw the light, I owned and use 2 x EOS1n cameras. They may not have been but compared to an F4 they seemed a little bit fragile and they did not last long in my ownership.

Then looking further back. Just look how many Canon F1 or F1n models that come up for sale compared to Nikon F2 models. That alone for me tells me a lot.

I get your point, but please realize that a camera is not a hammer. I've been using the same OM4t since the 80's . Used on profesional use and it is still going strong. Had been send twice to repair but otherwise working great Same with my OM1, Using it a lot since the 90's. These are not shelf queens but beater cameras. And yes, I used both the F2 (had two of them) and F4 but sold them since they where not to my liking.

Sure, Nikon's are strong enough to be used as hammers but if I wanted that I would get a Stanley hammer.

 

[BMbikerider]

get your point, but please realize that a camera is not a hammer. I've been using the same OM4t since the 80's . Used on profesional use and it is still going strong. Had been send twice to repair but otherwise working great Same with my OM1, Using it a lot since the 90's. These are not shelf queens but beater cameras. And yes, I used both the F2 (had two of them) and F4 but sold them since they where not to my liking.

Sure, Nikon's are strong enough to be used as hammers but if I wanted that I would get a Stanley hammer.

That is not the point. A camera is not a hammer! so comparing it to a hammer is nonsensical!

It is a an instrument of a finely balanced blend of workmanship, electronics and engineering. A camera such a such Olympus OM series 1/2/3/4 as good as they were/are not designed to be used as seriously hard working professional tool. If they were as hardy as the Nikon f/f2/F3/f4 or f5 or the Canon models they would have been up there in the line-up with press photographers where they literally were the bread and butter tools of the trade. Apart from having designed-in longevity, under harsh working conditions possibly another reason they were not used, was they were physically too small! A press photographer works outside in all conditions and when out in cold weather would wear gloves which would make it awkward to operate a comparatively small bodied camera like an Olympus.

If there was a demand for a full pro bodied camera on par with the likes of Nikon or Canon they would have been made. As I understand it the only Olympus camera that even came close was the OM3 and they are a rare as hens teeth these days

I am not saying Olympus cameras were poor or badly made, far from it. they were simply not made for that job where 10 --20-- 30 and possibly more cassettes of film would be used each and every working day. Even then the working life could be as short as 6-9 months

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Got your point BMbikrider.

I suppose horses for courses.

Marcelo

 

[Sirius Glass]

Got your point BMbikrider.

I suppose horses for courses.

Marcelo

But he rides bikes not horses.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

But he rides bikes not horses.

Because bikes have better build quality?

 

[wiltw]

Because bikes have better build quality?

You cannot put parts into horses to refresh them!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bicycles are not known for leaving road apples along the way. Also they do not eat hay, only money.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

You cannot put parts into horses to refresh them!

So lack modular design then.

 

[guangong]

Bicycles are not known for leaving road apples along the way. Also they do not eat hay, only money.

Anybody who owns horses will tell you that they eat plenty of money.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Anybody who owns horses will tell you that they eat plenty of money.

And it goes right through them.