Manual focus glasses - Nikon or Olympus?

[M-88]

*Shrugs* I still shoot with an Olympus m4/3 12MP camera and have zero issues with IQ at 1600ISO and A4 print size.

I should have mentioned that my camera was Olympus E-600 dating back to god knows when. 2008 I think. Surely 4/3 sensors would have improved after a huge success of digital PEN models.

The major difference will be in the cameras, not the lenses. A Nikkormat or Nikon F/F2/F3 will be far more rugged than an OM-1/2. Even a Nikon FM2/FE2, which are really good cameras.

On the lenses, ordinary lenses are Ok in any good brand, however Nikon (and Canon) have more variety.

If you like the small form factor of the OM cameras, consider the Pentax MX, which is even smaller, and in my opinion better built, more rugged, more ergonomic, and with a wider variety of lenses available. Also, Pentax lenses (in particular the original K series) are some of the best built lenses ever.

Ruggedness of OM bodies is enough for me, I'm not playing football with cameras. And yeah I have considered Pentax MX, especially because my current DSLR is Pentax and it would be enormously beneficial in terms of compatibility. Unfortunately MX is also quite pricy, more so than Olympus OM-1/2.

Both brands are better lenses than you and I are photographers.

Haha you made my day!

I have used both Nikon and Olympus, got more than 12 Nikon lenses and about 5 Nikon bodies (F, F2, FM, F4, FE2) and about 15 Zuiko with about 5 Olympus bodies (2 OM1,OM2, OM4 and OM4T).

Both are great lenses and, to be fair, I cant distinguish pictures took with one or the other.

That said, I use the Olympus more that the Nikon because Olympus offer (on my eyes) the same quality but on smaller package. I specially like the 35 3.5 and the 100 f/2.8, but they are all small in package.

Also, I really like how these lens look on my Canon 6d

Regards

Marcelo

Guess whole world should bow to Mr. Maitani for cramming everything in that tiny body.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

One digit OM's (OM1,OM2, OM3 and OM4) are great for the advanced amateur environment.

Two digit OM's (OM10, OM20,etc.) is not as good, although they are not flimsy either.

One need to keep in mind that Nikon/Canon where thought for the rugged professional use (combat field, hard core journalism, etc.) while Olympus OM where focused on the advanced amateur environment (equally rugged outdoors trips, not so carefully family use, etc.). I know of someone which life was saved from a bullet by a F2. Are you planning on stopping bullets with a camera?

I've used OM for hiking trips, and have dropped both the OM1 and OM4's more than once with no problem. I would considered this cameras ruggedness equal to my Leica M6/M3. Neither Leicas or Olympus had needed repair due to hard use. Only Issue I had with Olympus was with a OM2 with faulty electronics.

By the way, I have 3 Nikons that had died on me (including an F4) so yeah, they are both man made machines, equally subject to failing.

Best regards

Marcelo

 

[M-88]

And that's why I feel more comfortable with OM-1: it's mechanical, I can repair it on my own, while if something happens to circuit boards of my OM-4, I should hang myself.

I also like clockwork sound gears make on slow speeds.

 

[Vincent Peri]

Nikkor lenses are better built than Olympus lenses. I tried an Olympus lens or two back in the late 70's/early 80's, and when I squeezed the focusing ring, it wouldn't turn any more. That doesn't happen to Nikkors. Olympus uses less metal to save weight.

 

[flavio81]

Ruggedness of OM bodies is enough for me, I'm not playing football with cameras. And yeah I have considered Pentax MX, especially because my current DSLR is Pentax and it would be enormously beneficial in terms of compatibility. Unfortunately MX is also quite pricy, more so than Olympus OM-1/2.

Guess whole world should bow to Mr. Maitani for cramming everything in that tiny body.

He did it via disregarding ergonomics. Shutter speed around the lens mount, and having a big ASA dial on top (where the shutter speeds should be) was a joke. The big viewfinder, a gimmick - the eyepoint is very short, Maitaini's way of saying "f*** you" to eyeglass wearers. Why do you think the Nikon F3HP viewfinder is highly regarded? High eyepoint, just the opposite.

Sadly Maitani was very influential and started a trend of nonsense on camera and lens design -- placing compactness above everything else.

Finally, returning to topic, if you are looking for spectacular image quality you should move to medium format; a 6x4.5 SLR is still portable and will leave any 35mm system in the dust regarding image quality.

 

[M-88]

I already had 645 SLR and found that I didn't use 35 mm anymore and 120 format was too expensive for me as for someone who shoots film just for fun. So with great regret I had to sell my 645.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Nikkor lenses are better built than Olympus lenses. I tried an Olympus lens or two back in the late 70's/early 80's, and when I squeezed the focusing ring, it wouldn't turn any more. That doesn't happen to Nikkors. Olympus uses less metal to save weight.

Like everything on life, YMMV. Had the same issue with Nikkor lens . I suppose its related to lubricant gone bad or how well previous owner handled the equipment?

It is more like they where over designed, which would be good depending on the use you are going to give to the lens.

Nikon main focus was military class ruggedness while Olympus focus was size and portability (care to compare F4 vs OM4?).

I suppose is like comparing a Military Hummer vs a Toyota. My Corolla may not be as rugged as the Hummer, but still running great since 1997.

Only complain against Zuiko is that, somehow, bugs find their way to the optics more often than any other brand .

Regards

Marcelo

 

[M-88]

I agree that Nikon lenses are much more durable and rugged, but if we compare build quality, nothing ever beats Zeiss and Leica. And I find Zuiko to be of acceptable quality. Alas, fungus is a much more frequent problem with Olympus that any other brand.

As for the ergonomics, I on the contrary like the shutter selector around the lens very much. It means I don't need to remove the camera from my eye in order to change speed.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

He did it via disregarding ergonomics. Shutter speed around the lens mount, and having a big ASA dial on top (where the shutter speeds should be) was a joke. The big viewfinder, a gimmick - the eyepoint is very short, Maitaini's way of saying "f*** you" to eyeglass wearers. Why do you think the Nikon F3HP viewfinder is highly regarded? High eyepoint, just the opposite.

Sadly Maitani was very influential and started a trend of nonsense on camera and lens design -- placing compactness above everything else.

Finally, returning to topic, if you are looking for spectacular image quality you should move to medium format; a 6x4.5 SLR is still portable and will leave any 35mm system in the dust regarding image quality.

I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinions and tastes.

For me, I don't really have any issue with neither Olympus nor Nikon ergonomics (I'm a glasses wearer).

Regards

Marcelo

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I agree that Nikon lenses are much more durable and rugged, but if we compare build quality, nothing ever beats Zeiss and Leica. And I find Zuiko to be of acceptable quality. Alas, fungus is a much more frequent problem with Olympus that any other brand.

As for the ergonomics, I on the contrary like the shutter selector around the lens very much. It means I don't need to remove the camera from my eye in order to change speed.

Agree about fungus. Although I had those even on Leica and Zeiss as well .

Best regards

Marcelo

 

[flavio81]

I agree that Nikon lenses are much more durable and rugged, but if we compare build quality, nothing ever beats Zeiss and Leica.

I would say Pentax takumars matches them. Seriously.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I would say Pentax takumars matches them. Seriously.

+1 I'm still to find an unusable Takumar as of today. Pretty rugged stuff. No the top of the line glass materials perhaps but they where/are pretty durable.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[M-88]

Are talking about M42 Takumars? Because I find nothing extraordinary about A and M series of K-mount lenses

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Are talking about M42 Takumars? Because I find nothing extraordinary about A and M series of K-mount lenses

Umm not optics extraordinary if that what you are referring to. IMHO, average stuff, neither bad nor excellent. I was talking about ruggedness and durability. Got some Takumar lens, in many mounts (from M42 to Pentax 645 lens) and they are pretty well made.


Regards

Marcelo

 

[M-88]

Umm not optics extraordinary if that what you are referring to. IMHO, average stuff, neither bad nor excellent. I was talking about ruggedness and durability. Got some Takumar lens, in many mounts (from M42 to Pentax 645 lens) and they are pretty well made.


Regards

Marcelo

I wqs referring to ruggedness. Looks like I had bad samples then.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I wqs referring to ruggedness. Looks like I had bad samples then.

Yeah perhaps I got good/well cared examples . Also, because I use more the Olympus/Leica or 120 more, Takumars get to stay at home so don't really use them that much. Perhaps that's why they are on good shape?
Regards

Marcelo

 

[flavio81]

Are talking about M42 Takumars? Because I find nothing extraordinary about A and M series of K-mount lenses

M42 Takumars. I own Nikon and Canon lenses from the 60s to current era, and the Takumars have notably better build quality.

From my own lenses i'd rank the build quality like this:

1. M42 Takumars
2. Nikon pre-AI lenses and Canon FL/R lenses
3. Canon FD lenses
4. Nikon AI lenses and Canon New FD lenses
5. Canon EF lenses (first gen) and Nikon AF lenses (first gen)

 

[MattKing]

If you are left handed like I am, having both the shutter speed and aperture dials concentric with the lens makes Olympus OM (and Nikkormat) cameras highly desirable.
I've been using OM equipment since the OM-1 was new in the 1970s. At various times my usage has been quite heavy. I have had exactly one instance of a malfunction that required a repair - a mirror that came loose and required re-attachment - in all that time. I've also had a couple of CLAs done on cameras, and I have a lens that I bought used with a poorly re-glued focus ring on it that I should get around to doing something about some day. One of my lenses should probably be serviced as well, because the focus ring rotates too easily.
I no longer have an OM-1, but have instead an OM-G, an OM-2s, an OM-2n and an OM-4T. Lenses (all Zuiko) include 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 1.8 and 3.5 macro, 85mm f/2, and 75mm-150mm f/4. I think I have a Tamron 70-210 macro zoom somewhere that came with a body and I have never used. I also have a wretched Vivitar 24mm f/2 In a drawer somewhere with the worst build quality of any lens I have ever tried to use.
Nikon and I have never got along well, but I have used a fair bit of Canon equipment.
In essence, I don't think you can make a bad decision if you are deciding between the major manufacturers of 1970s - 1980s 35mm SLRs. It may, however, be possible to make a choice that is slightly less suited to your preferences and needs than something that may be offered by an alternative. It also may be possible to decide on one choice when another, equally valid choice may be better for you given issues of local availability of used equipment.
In the 1970s and early 1980s I worked as a camera salesperson. One of the biggest challenges was convincing customers to make their decisions based more on their own personal preferences and needs than what the reviews and magazines were trumpeting. For most people, ergonomics are way more important than what a reviewer or spec sheet might emphasize.

 

[MattKing]

One further point - unlike the digital world, cameras of the 1970s and 1980s were fairly mature technology. The subsequent addition of auto-focus was important, but really the changes during the decade between 1975 and 1985 (as an example) were much more refinements than anything else.
In the digital world we are probably reaching a similar plateau. You mention the poor high ISO performance of the sensor on your old Olympus digital body. Like as not it isn't the sensor that is the problem, but rather the combination of the sensor, a much older processor and much older firmware. It is in the area of improvements to the processing that most of the progress has been made with respect to digital imaging.
Ironically, my 1970s era OM-1 would be a much better camera now if I hadn't traded it in and was still using it. That is because the current films are in most cases much better than the films of the mid 1970s.

 

[M-88]

One further point - unlike the digital world, cameras of the 1970s and 1980s were fairly mature technology. The subsequent addition of auto-focus was important, but really the changes during the decade between 1975 and 1985 (as an example) were much more refinements than anything else.
In the digital world we are probably reaching a similar plateau. You mention the poor high ISO performance of the sensor on your old Olympus digital body. Like as not it isn't the sensor that is the problem, but rather the combination of the sensor, a much older processor and much older firmware. It is in the area of improvements to the processing that most of the progress has been made with respect to digital imaging.
Ironically, my 1970s era OM-1 would be a much better camera now if I hadn't traded it in and was still using it. That is because the current films are in most cases much better than the films of the mid 1970s.

I'm right handed, but it makes perfect sense to use one hand to adjust aperture, focus and shutter while holdin the camera and pressing the shutter with another. Especially when shooting in portrait orientation.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

There's one thing to note about OM lenses: lenses faster than f/2.8 are harder to find and Olympus made few OM lenses faster than f/2. The 50/1.4 and 1.2 are exceptions.

Nikon, however, has many more focal lengths at f/2 or faster.

This may not matter to you.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Sadly Maitani was very influential and started a trend of nonsense on camera and lens design -- placing compactness above everything else.
...

I know very little about Japanese culture, but it seems that in many areas, especially electronics, they enjoy small objects in preference to large. Handheld amateur (HAM) radios being one example where the radios have become progressively smaller.

 

[darinwc]

"Sadly Maitani was very influential and started a trend of nonsense on camera and lens design -- placing compactness above everything else."

-i thought Oskar Barnak ,started that trend long before maitani.

Regarding the Pentax lenses.. I've never had to repair any of the takumar lenses I have had. So I don't know how they are built inside. -but maybe that will tell you something

 

[darinwc]

To the op.. my go to portrait lens is the Olympus 100mm f2.8. I prefer it to the 85mm f2, and it costs half as much!

 

[M-88]

Regarding the Pentax lenses.. I've never had to repair any of the takumar lenses I have had. So I don't know how they are built inside. -but maybe that will tell you something

I had to repair "M" series 50 mm f/2 Pentax lens. It's mostly metal, with one part of helical mechanism made of plastic, along with aperture ring. Whereas later issue Zuiko 50 mm f/1.8 has much more plastic parts and is admittedly much harder to put together back again.

To the op.. my go to portrait lens is the Olympus 100mm f2.8. I prefer it to the 85mm f2, and it costs half as much!

From the OP: Its average price is equal to what OM-1 and OM-4 cost me together. But point taken, 135 mm lens is difficult to use for portraits sometimes.