Nikon FE2 vs Olympus OM-4T(i)

Completely read that wrong Dave! Since I have a body or two from each brand - as well as various oem and third party lenses, I have never even considered if each focuses a particular way. I am certain the OP can account for one alien system.

Les, here's the thing. I often see this kind of question asked. It goes something like this: "Hi, my name is ______, and I am a long time Nikon user. I have always wanted to try an Olympus camera and I bought an OM-4T. I could never really get used to it because the shutter speed setting around the lens mount was wrong and the control layout was different and the lenses focused backwards. I never really got along with the camera and ended up selling it."

The OP didn't say anything about having either system did he? Focus direction is therefore moot.*

*I got to use moot in a sentence. )

FWIW, I bought an OLY & did what Mopar guy said, layout & aperture ring didn't fit me.

The OP's signature lists Nikkormat FTN, Nikon F, and Nikon FE.

Personally I find that the only way to know if you like a body - or system, is to get your hands on it. I believe in immersion . . .

Why choose? Get both!

Chris Nielsen said:

Why choose? Get both!

Click to expand...

Or get the Nikon and lots of film.

The on-off switch on the FE2 is the advance lever- you have to rotate this out by some degrees to get the camera (light meter and electronically timed speeds) to work. Me being left-eyed I found this unworkable: the lever pokes into my skull. If this bothers you also, get the Olympus (or a Nikon F3).

The Olympus doesn't have an on-off switch, it's always ready for use . The viewfinder display has an illuminator so it's easy to read in dim light. In auto the meter reads down to (if I remember correctly) EV -5. The metering system overall is second to none imho.

Same reason I did not enjoy the FE, kept poking me in the eye. sold it back almost immediately. The OM cameras are nice, I have a OM1 and it just feels perfect for me.

RH Designs said:

The Olympus doesn't have an on-off switch, it's always ready for use .

Click to expand...

While its metering system is, indeed, second to none, early OM-4's eat batteries when sitting idle. Some OM-4 and all OM-4T models have improved circuitry (indicated by check battery light and beeping stopping after about 30s), but it's also consuming some battery power when idle. In my experience, a pair of silver oxides can be fully exhausted in about 4-6 months even if you're using the body very lightly.

Or you could do whatI read on the internet a couple of years ago, for all models of the OM2SP, OM4 and OM4T/i when not being used turn the shutter speed dial to B this disconnects the battery circuit and prevents battery drain. I have been doing this for a couple of years with no adverse effects and no battery drain on my OM bodies, I also do it with my OM2ns.

Camtech said Olympus was no longer providing service, however I'd bet Camtech is providing the same great service they always have provided. Bill Barber

I hitched my horse to the OM wagon back in 1986 and am still using them as my primary axe of choice even today in the world of digital. I only shoot that ugly digital stuff when I need to...

So, what about that OM4T(i)? It rocks, dude. The metering system is so unique and works in a jaw-dropping simple manner even though the level of exposure complexity is high. However, few people have actually exploited the capabilities. Honestly, it was many years before I ever tried using the HiLite and Shadow buttons. Once I did, it was Three months before I used anything else.

The multispot metering is also unbelievable for use with the Zone System. When in manual exposure mode, you take spot readings of the various brightness levels in the scene than you adjust your expose until all the dots line up on the exposure scale where you want them. It's a simple matter to place readings on any zone. I have a Sekonic meter which has this capability, but just as with every other meter, it Requires much more intrepretation. The OM3/4 bodies resolve this with a brilliant metering display.

ken

i like the way the FE2 feels in my hands. The only thing I might criticize is that there is no in-viewfinder meter reading illumination that you can count on in low light situations. So you just set it to A and pray.

By comparison, the OM4-T that I owned handles very well, and has an excellent set of lit readouts for use at night. The spot meter capabilities and the accuracy of the meter are extremely underrated. The viewfinder is much nicer than the Nikon FE2s. The only negatives I have for this camera, compared to the FE2, is the 1/2000 maximum shutter speed. And to me, that's not anywhere near a dealbreaker. This is a fantastic camera.

Something to consider: lenses. It's easier to get Nikon lenses for a smaller amount of money. I'm not a fan of the color rendition of my 24mm Nikkor-N (uncoated, which probably why the colors look..off), or the sharpness of my Nikkor 35mm F2 AI. However, these lenses are cheap and easy to find, which can't always be said for OM stuff. Also, there are PLENTY of knockout lenses in the F mount made by Nikon and various 3rd parties. I love my 105mm f/2.5 AI Nikkor. My 50mm f/1.4 AI is wonderfully sharp by f/2.8.


I did not have too much time with my OM 24mm f/2.8, or 50mm f/1.4, but I loved the results of my OM 50mm f/1.8 and pricey 85mm f/2.0.

Parkpy, if you tried a 100/2 or 90/2 or a 35-80/2.8 you'd be highly tempted to just sell all the Nikon stuff. It's not that the other lenses are bad, but these are in a whole nuther league.

parkpy said:

I did not have too much time with my OM 24mm f/2.8, or 50mm f/1.4, but I loved the results of my OM 50mm f/1.8 and pricey 85mm f/2.0.

Click to expand...

The OP is looking to get a 50mm lens for right now. The OM-System has a lot to choose from in the standard focal lengths, depending what you are looking for. My latest 50 is the 50mm f2.0 Auto Macro. It is quickly becoming my go-to lens.

kivis said:

Considering 2 of the high points in aperture preferred cameras. Both classics. Which would you choose and why?

Click to expand...

I bought my first OM-4T in November of 1987. I still have the camera. I bought the OM-4T as an upgrade to an Olympus OM-2S Program. The only other camera I was considering at the time was the Nikon F3HP. At he time I was using the OM-2S as Aperture Preferred Auto 75% of the time and Manual Mode 25% of the time. I remember my thought processes were as follows: 1) features of the camera body and building a selection of lenses to suit my needs. Some of the features that I liked for the Olympus were: 1) available Aperture Preferred Auto mode or Manual Mode each with an electronically controlled shutter, 2)Flash synch up to 1/2000th sec., 3)Spot metering with Multi-Spot averaging. I also owned several OM Zuiko lenses which I liked.

For me, the feel of the Olympus OM cameras in my hand was also important. I like the size and the way the an OM camera is used is very easy. You hold the camera in your left hand. The three most important controls (shutter speed, aperture and focus) fall right to the fingertips of your left hand. You can get a feel for the shutter speed that is set by feel and you don't even need to keep track of it in the viewfinder. I can Pre-set an Aperture depending on the film selected, brightness of the scene, depth of field desired or other considerations. Any of the other controls are very unobtrusive and you can ignore or use them any way that you wish.

I've used both systems in my past professional career, finally favouring the Nikon system for the following reasons:

The MD12 motordrive quicker and more straightforward to connect than the Olympus equivalent.
The flimsy cover over the drive connection point of the OM's is easily dislodged and lost.
The FE2's flash sync of 1/250th for all flashes is far superior for fill-in flash than the 1/60th on OM's.
Nikon (in UK) still offer repair service for FE/FM series. Olympus only interested in digital users.
OM4's heavy on battery power. FE's & FE2's battery use much more frugal.

In general terms I found Nikon SLR's stood up to the demands of professonal use with more reliability than the OM's, which needed rather too many trips back to the repair shop, although I realise the OP will not necessarily be putting it to this kind of use.

There are a couple of areas where an Olympus OM4-Ti (or OM-3Ti) are simply unbeaten - in absolute terms - compared to other 35mm SLRs:

• Viewfinder size and brightness, especially with the 2-series Lumi-Micron Matte focusing screens. It's unbelievable, the view is literally as bright and crisp as seen by the naked eye, and better even than the best glass rangefinder viewfinders (e.g. Leica M3)
• Ergonomics: Ability to operate by feel, because of co-axial shutter speed, focus and aperture controls all focused around the lens axis, operated by the left hand. No other SLR can be operated "by feel" like an OM, period.
• Physical size and weight: These bodies are TINY, but very robust (see OM-4Ti crash test). Not Nikon F robust, but among the most robust electronic film SLRs you'll encounter.

The interesting thing is, these attributes don't necessarily make them "better" unless you really value them. For example, I spend as much time with my plain-prism Nikon F these days than what I do with my OM-3Ti. There is absolutely no question about it that the Nikon F, or the early (metal scalloped focus ring) Nikkor lenses are built to a much higher standard than the Olympus gear. Old Nikkors are built to the highest mechanical standards ever achieved by anybody (including Leica) as far as I am concerned.

Want a simple test? Squeeze your Olympus Zuiko lens really hard between your fingers while focusing - you'll feel increased resistance or possibly be unable to focus at all. Squeeze a 1960s Nikkor 50mm f/2.0 for all it's worth (this was one of their cheapest lenses) and the focus is still smoother and better dampened than even new Zeiss ZF lenses, which feel like giant off-brand 1970s cheapies by comparison.

Is this important? Probably not - the Zuikos are lighter, and very often optically better, than their Nikkor counterparts. The marvelous Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 is as small as a Nikon 50mm f/2.0! However, my 50-year-old, never-serviced Nikon F leaves me with no doubt that it'll be working in another 50 years' time (when it's a 100 years old). Not so for the Olympus / Zuiko equipment I have, which are all in various states of operational smoothness, etc. But the Nikon equipment weighs a ton, and is much more primitive. I am certainly extremely happy in using both the ultimate finesse that the SLR world has ever achieved (OM-3Ti, OM-4Ti, Zuikos) and the ultimate unbreakable, simple SLR (Nikon F). I am hard pressed to pick just one.

I am comparing to Nikon's ultimate SLR here - the F - and not a more budget-oriented SLR like the FE series (because I use an F, and have only held an FE2 once). I like not being distracted by silly light meters these days, which is why the F appealed to me. Compared to an FE(2), I would probably choose the OM-4Ti every day. The lenses focusing the "wrong" way will get to you though!

(Nikon's way is "wrong", of course, and not Olympus' - older or not!)

Largely agree with the above. I'm sure the majority of photographers, who do not need the ultimate "toughness" of the Nikon brand will be perfectly happy with the OM series. When the Nikon F was first produced, it was aimed at pros. Nikon did their homework and they realised that what professionals (particularly those involved with news photography) demanded from their cameras was the ultimate in reliability, which meant the ability of the camera to withstand every kind of abuse and yet carry on working in all weather conditions. Consequently elements of the "tank like" build quality have filtered down to their later FM2's & FE2's as well.

Today the demands (even from pros) are different. In a media world that is now celebrity driven rather than news driven, they want maximum megapixels. Toughness of build is no longer the primary requirement.

Back in the 70's & 80's when I was active as a pro., the OM series were popular for a while and were regarded as being nice cameras for feature work, (for instance they were popular with fashion photographers) but lacking the ultimate strength to take the battering from day to day news photography in all kinds of weather. Nikon and Canon with its F1 were favoured here. Yes they tended to be on the heavy side and not particularly compact, the penalty paid for that extra sturdiness.

Even better if you find a good OM-2sp

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the OM-1, OM-2 and especially the OM-2sp are not in the same league as the OM-3 and 4. The lower numbered were consumer models, whereas the 3 and 4 were for the professional market, thus manufactured to completely different standards. When it comes to the OM-2sp in particular, it was one of the most unreliable of the lot. Ask John Hermanson of zuiko.com (he is simply THE best OM repairman there is) if in doubt.

The OM-4T(i) does not have the earlier plain 4 battery problems. In addition, they added much improved seals for weather proofing, plus fast flash synch but only when using the F280 flash unit and then only at very short distances...to be honest, not very useful practically speaking.

The well known (and excellent) spot metering apart, even in non-spot mode, the OM-4 center weighted metering is a stellar performer. Nikon did not match it until the advent of 3D matrix metering - and some even argue it still couldn't match the OM metering system. Personally, because the standard metering is already very good, I find that I don't use the spot metering very often at all. But sure, when you have wildly varying contrasts in a scene, the spot metering is God sent.

The biggest downside of the OM system, of late, is that due to the 4/3 crowd and adapters, prime Zuiko glass has risen in price considerably. Luckily, I bought my kit(s) long time ago..

for all models of the OM2SP, OM4 and OM4T/i when not being used turn the shutter speed dial to B this disconnects the battery circuit and prevents battery drain

Click to expand...

From what I have heard, this method doesn't work. Perhaps John Hermanson can tell if it holds true or not?

At any rate, battery problem on the 4T(i) is a non-issue, because they all have a different circuit to the plain 4 of old. My OM-3 does use its batteries a bit quicker than my 4Ti, but not to the extent that it bothers me. Plus on the 3, the batteries only drive the metering anyhow. And who needs metering at all times anyhow?

The OM-1, 2 and 2SP are built at least as well as the 3 and 4. It's the double-digit OMs such as the OM-10 and OM-40 which are the consumer-grade bodies. That said my OM-2SP is the only one which ever gave me any trouble, the ISO dial is intermittent.

Switching to "B" does not disconnect the batteries - I've tested that on an OM-4 and OM-2SP, the current draw on "B" is the same as other speeds. I have an early OM-4 and don't find the battery consumption a problem. It's a small price to pay for having the camera instantly ready to take a shot at any time without having to bother about switching it on.

I find the battery drain issue a bit interesting. Battery life in the cameras largely remain the same regardless of how much you use the camera. Might as well shoot.

The ruggedness of the OMs have been just fine for me. They aren't wimpy. At this point, since most of use d.....l for most of our shooting, the wear and tear on the film bodies is nil.