New fangled modern camera

[OptiKen]

I was testing and trying out a couple of 35mm cameras yesterday at the park with my grandson. Age, failing eyesight, etc., has me looking for something this old body might be able to find more enjoyable than my '30's folders or older rangefinders. I find myself reaching for my Canon P more often than my Leica IIIf due to the ease of loading (which translates to fewer films getting stuck in the mechanism) and the (IMHO) better, brighter, larger, viewfinder on the Canon. Wanting the size of a barnack I picked up an Olympus OM-1n (1972) to try.
Nice size, comfortable to hold, but I'm having trouble adjusting to it's operation. I'll go to focus and end up changing the f stop instead, etc. I know that in time I will get more familiar with it but for now, it's just awkward to shoot. It doesn't feel 'natural'. I'll develop what I shot and determine then if I want to get 'familiar' with the OM-1n.
On the other hand, I also tried out an Agfa Super Solinette 35mm folder (1954) once the film ran out on the OM-1n.
Wow! What a sweet little camera that is! I'm interested to see how the prints come out from that one. Yesterday using the Agfa was like putting on a glove. Perfect fit and totally natural.

 

[John Bragg]

Persist with the OM1n and it will reward you. They are charming cameras just a little different. I picked mine up the other day after a few years of using Leica and Nikon and it was like coming home. It partners Leica well as they both focus the same way. Nikon is opposite so less intuitive to a leica user.

 

[CMoore]

It would not take the P lens obviously, but.....after the F-1, the Canon AT-1 is about the "best" 35mm shooter they made.
All manual, with a nice Needle Meter, and it takes the very well made and "affordable" FD lens. I always thought it was an underrated unit, but I suppose by the time it came out, manual cameras had fallen out of vogue.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Another possible option would be a nice Canon FTbn-QL with a 50/1.4 SSC. Not as small as an OM-1n, but, pretty durable. With one of the CrisCAM MR9 battery adapters, you'd be good to go.

Or, if you want to try Nikon, a Nikomat FTn with 50/2 Nikkor would be a decent choice. Use the same adapter as what would be used in an OM-1n or FTbn-QL. About the same size as the Canon body, so a bit larger than the Olympus. Focus and aperture rings are configured how Pentax lenses are, so they are backwards, but you'd get used to it pretty quickly.

-J

 

[Jesper]

Sometimes camera and photographer just isn't compatible. I really like Hasselblad but I rarely ever use mine because of this. Nothing wrong with the camera or me, it is just the wrong combination. Probably you experience the same thing with your OM1. From my own experience I would say go with any camera that feels right and ignore the ones that don't. Feeling awkward about handling the camera will not benefit your pictures no matter how high the quality of the camera is.

 

[tedr1]

I agree, when you already have eye hand coordination developed for a certain kind of camera control layout, and you are not shooting enough hours a day to quickly build up new coordination, then life is too short to mess with uncomfortable control layouts. Switch to something that works the same way as you already are skilled at, the pictures will show a difference from being made by a comfortable photographer.

 

[ColColt]

I started out with Nikon and then added the Leica RF. Later yet I added the Pentax 6x7. I still have all of them but have found as I've gotten older I shoot the Leica more than the Nikon and even less with the 6x7. I think primarily it's due to size, weight and noise. You won't be able to do a lot of discrete street shooting with a Pentax 6x7 and the action of the mirror can be heard half a block away. With the Leica you can blend into the wallpaper and shoot without being heard. Candids are easy enough with it as opposed to even the SLR "middle weight" champion, the Nikon(or Canon, etc).

We're all different and that's why we have a vast array to choose from. I'm glad we do.

 

[Alan Gales]

Have you heard about that new fangled modern camera feature called autofocus? It can be great for failing eyesight!

 

[thuggins]

Have you heard about that new fangled modern camera feature called autofocus? It can be great for failing eyesight!

The viewfinder of the OM is big and bright enough and with sufficient eye relief that the entire field of view and the meter can be clearly seen while wearing glasses. Combine this with the variety of focusing screens and the ease with which they can be interchanged, and my weak old eyes still have no problem focusing an OM. As for the controls not feeling "natural", surely you understand that this is a euphemism for "I learned on a camera that has a different layout and I'm loathe to learn something new". Apart from the fact that all Zuiko OM primes have the aperture closest to the nose of the lens, the aperture and focus rings have a very different feel; the focus ring is rubber with a knurled pattern and the aperture ring is aluminum with ridges. They can be easily distinguished without looking.

Give the OM a fair try. It is a remarkably simple and intuitive camera to use.

 

[Alan Gales]

The viewfinder of the OM is big and bright enough and with sufficient eye relief that the entire field of view and the meter can be clearly seen while wearing glasses. Combine this with the variety of focusing screens and the ease with which they can be interchanged, and my weak old eyes still have no problem focusing an OM. As for the controls not feeling "natural", surely you understand that this is a euphemism for "I learned on a camera that has a different layout and I'm loathe to learn something new". Apart from the fact that all Zuiko OM primes have the aperture closest to the nose of the lens, the aperture and focus rings have a very different feel; the focus ring is rubber with a knurled pattern and the aperture ring is aluminum with ridges. They can be easily distinguished without looking.

Give the OM a fair try. It is a remarkably simple and intuitive camera to use.

I am glad that the OM cameras have large enough and bright enough screens for you. I really like the OM cameras and bought an OM-1 for my daughter. She loves it!

A big bright viewfinder is certainly advantages but autofocus can help too. I don't know how bad the OP's eyes are. Also the thread mentions modern camera so I'm a little confused.

I used to be real comfortable with my Contax 139 camera. All other cameras felt awkward to me so I understand where the OP is coming from. Since my Contax 139 I owned a couple Contax 167 MT's, quite a few medium format cameras, a few 4x5's, an 8x10, 3 digital cameras and a couple 35mm Stereo Realist stereo cameras. I no longer feel awkward shooting other cameras.

 

[OptiKen]

I mentioned 'modern' camera because it was built in the 70's and I'm mostly a 50's or older sort of shooter. I picked up the OM-1n because of it's classic looks, size, and relatively light weight. And with the exception of the light meter which I can use or not, it is a battery-less camera. I find most auto-focus slower than I would like and a real problem in low-light situations but I am sure I'll end up moving to it in time....or moving back to it since I have (among other cameras) a beautiful Olympus E-3 and an E-520 - both of which have served me well yielding beautiful pictures. I enjoy the film experience much more than the digital so this is where I am coming from.
The OM-1n is a beautiful camera and I'm sure that it will only take a little time for it's operation to become natural and intuitive to me. It will just take a little more than 1 roll for me to reach that level of familiarity. The camera I picked up came with a 35mm-70mm zoom lens while I really prefer prime lenses. I've since acquired a 28mm and a 50mm that will cover most of my needs. I'm looking forward to really experiencing the camera at the end of the month when I'll be camping out in AZ for 4 days.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've never shot autofocus on the later 35mm cameras. I used to own Pentax 645n and 645Nll cameras. Autofocus was slow but fine for shooting people at events. For shooting sports I used a Nikon D300 which had fast autofocus. Zooms are great for sports but I'm with you about preferring primes for most everything else I shoot. I owned 5 prime lenses for my old Contax 139 35mm camera.

It sucks getting older. I used to have eagle vision when I was young. Have a great time in AZ!

 

[cooltouch]

Well, OptiKen, it looks like you're settling into the Oly system and I'm sure that once you've acclimated to it, you will enjoy it. Me, I've owned a few Oly's over the years and I think they're fine cameras -- but I've just never been a fan of having the shutter speed control so close to the aperture ring. I'm just too used to having a top-mounted shutter speed dial. And even though it sounds like you've made your choice, I thought I'd mention anyway there's another fine shooter out there with the same approximately petite size as the OM-1, but with the top mounted shutter speed dial and LEDs in the viewfinder instead of a needle (better for low light work): the Pentax MX. It's a super little camera, plus it takes Pentax's brilliant K-mount lenses, and like the OM-1, the battery powers the meter only.

 

[Sewin]

Yes,

That age thing creeps up on you, not being able to read the aperture etc, without specs is a pain.

I too find focusing difficult sometimes.

I have to admit I do find autofocus useful on my digi. Nikon which allows me to concentrate more on the other camera settings in the viewfinder.

 

[John Bragg]

I love my OM1n, but I also find my autofocus Nikon F5 and F100 are a breeze to use with ageing eyesight. I also prefer primes to zooms, either autofocus or manual work just fine with these cameras.

 

[cuthbert]

Few options on the table:

Nikon FM
Pentax MX
Praktica B
Fuji ST705