Nikon FE2 vs Olympus OM-4T(i)

philosomatographer · Mar 1, 2012

The OM-1 and OM-2 are indeed in many ways actually better-built than the OM-3/4 - anybody who's ever held one can tell. Smoother and possibly more solid. They were professional bodies, built to last. The OM-3/4Ti are just famous for having actual weather seals protecting the electronics etc, but they are not any stronger than their predecessors. My OM-3Ti lightly fell half a meter onto a tile floor (the joy of Cats...), and its (plastic) internal shutter speed coupling ring was buggered, needing replacement. I had to salvage one off an OM-2SP.

Also, the OM-3Ti and OM-4Ti had revised circuit boards that completely solved the battery drain issue of the earlier (plain) OM-3/4. Mine goes for almost a year with moderate use - who could ask for more? Of course, when the batteries in my 3Ti dies, I just go on using it

Anyway, the OP should hopefully have some insight - but not as much as just giving them a try. Granted, an OM-4Ti is not easy or cheap to get hold of, but not impossible either. The real magic lies in the more interesting Zuiko lenses, however. Especially the wide-angle lenses (like the 21mm f/2.0 here) are particularly excellent, better than anything Nikon had to offer:

wblynch · Mar 1, 2012

philosomatographer said:
The OM-1 and OM-2 are indeed in many ways actually better-built than the OM-3/4 - anybody who's ever held one can tell. Smoother and possibly more solid.

Thank you. One swipe of the film advance lever will tell you this.

Ken N · Mar 2, 2012

The film advance in the OM-1 is indeed smoother. But that's probably totally related to the change in gearing in the later models that shortened the stroke. I prefer the raspier ones as I like to get the job done with the quicker, shorter movement.

philosomatographer · Mar 2, 2012

I agree with Ken here, I don't think one can attribute better build quality to "smoother film advance" - it's not about that. If you've ever taken one apart, the OM-1/2 is just that little bit simpler / more solid. I think an OM-1/2 will take a drop to the ground better. Not much, but it's there.

Trasselblad · Mar 2, 2012

Especially the wide-angle lenses (like the 21mm f/2.0 here) are particularly excellent

In an old interview with Maitani-san himself that I read somewhere, any of the F2.0 Zuiko lenses are particularly good. He used to use them himself FWIW. I have the 35mm F2.0 and 85mm F2.0 and I can agree that they are very good indeed. Especially the 35mm - which one can find quite easily and at reasonable prices as well. Not so with the wider ones.

baachitraka · Mar 2, 2012

Trasselblad said:
In an old interview with Maitani-san himself that I read somewhere, any of the F2.0 Zuiko lenses are particularly good. He used to use them himself FWIW. I have the 35mm F2.0 and 85mm F2.0 and I can agree that they are very good indeed. Especially the 35mm - which one can find quite easily and at reasonable prices as well. Not so with the wider ones.

+1, 85mm F2.0 is one of the gem. Some said, 35mm F2.0 exhibit 'Swirl-Effekt'.

kivis · Mar 19, 2012

philosomatographer said:
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!)

You really got me on this one. I pulled out my Nikon F with the original 50/1.4 and yes I am in Heaven.

sangetsu · Mar 23, 2012

There really is no comparing the FE2 with the OM4. I love Nikon gear, and my old black F is my favorite SLR camera, but for a light, compact, and feature-packed camera, the OM4 is nearly impossible to beat. Others have mentioned the meter, which even the latest digital wonder cameras cannot compete with, but there is also the brighter finder, a diopter adjuster (the FE requires screw-in diopter lenses), and, with the T cameras, the ability to use the F280 flash at any shutter speed. The OM is also smaller, and a bit quieter than the Nikon.

As for lenses, I find the plain-Jane Zuiko 50/1.8 lens to be my favorite. Nikon lenses may be more sturdy, but they are also more heavy, and don't seem to focus with the same smoothness/preciseness as the Olympus lenses. Also, I prefer the quality of the images from the Zuiko 35, 24, and 21mm lenses over their Nikon equivalents.

But, after all that I have written above, I actually shoot an FM3A. I feel that the OM system is superior in several ways, but I find Nikon equipment more suitable to myself.

chuck94022 · Mar 23, 2012

kivis said:
Considering 2 of the high points in aperture preferred cameras. Both classics. Which would you choose and why? Don't worry about glass, this camera will hitch it's wagon to a 50mm lens only.

Lots of interesting reading here. Was fun to go through it. Here's my best advice: forget all the nit feature comparisons. Lie down in a quiet, calming room. Close your eyes, and imagine yourself with that strap around your neck, that hunk of metal resting on your chest. First, while relaxed, imagine that chunk of metal has "Nikon" emblazoned on its face. Imagine a deep voice in an echo chamber, saying the word, "NNNiiikkkoonnnnnn". Now do the same exercise, fully relaxed, same chunk of metal, with "Olympus" on its face. The deep voice chants "OOOlllyyymmmmpppuuuuuusssssss".

Which experience made you *feel* better?

That's the camera you're going to take great pictures with.

baachitraka · Mar 23, 2012

OooooMmmm

stradibarrius · Mar 23, 2012

what is the difference between the 4, 4t and the 4Ti. The 4Ti is expensive!

insertwittynamehere · Mar 23, 2012

No illumination on FE/FE2 meter a non-issue

I've been using the same Nikon FE for over 20 years. If I'm shooting by available light, there is always enough light to see the meter to get some idea of where it is. If it's that dark, I'm not hand holding, the camera is on a tripod. Either set it to A and go, or manually set the exposure as you think it should be.

Really with all the cameras I've ever had, I've NEVER used the in finder illumination. In fact, my FM that I just picked up a couple years ago is much more intrusive with the LED's blazing away in the dark!

Just my $0.02, which adjusted for inflation would be about -$36.84

Ken N · Mar 23, 2012

The OM-4 has brass top and bottom covers and first generation electronics. The older ones have a battery drain issue, but later on they were improved.

The OM-4T is identical to the OM-4Ti except the T model was for North America. Olympus differentiated the naming to help get gray-market sales under control. Both have second generation electronics and support the high-speed flash sync. They have Titanium top and bottom covers as well as improved environmental sealing.

There is a later generation of OM-4Ti bodies that had improved electronics for CE certification. At this point, the OM-4 naming was eliminated and the OM-4Ti became universal.

stradibarrius · Mar 23, 2012

I have had an FE for several years and I have really loved it! Only a time or two did I find myself wishing the meter was lit up. That is the only reason for me that makes me vaguely interested. When I looked at the price from KEH I lost my interest quickly!

atomicthumbs · Mar 23, 2012

The OM-4Ti has a light that shines on the lens/shutter/aperture rings when you push a button. That's all you truly need to know.

Ken N · Mar 24, 2012

atomicthumbs said:
The OM-4Ti has a light that shines on the lens/shutter/aperture rings when you push a button. That's all you truly need to know.

The light is only in the viewfinder and backlights just the LCD display. No aperture information in any OM viewfinder.

I had a odd thing happen the other day. My display was dead when I brought the camera up to eye level to take the picture. I lowered the camera, reset the camera, looked through the viewfinder and it was fine. Went to take the picture and the display disappeared again. After a few moments of puzzlement I discovered that I had my left hand over the top and my finger was blocking the window. Only time in years I've done that.

mopar_guy · Mar 24, 2012

Ken, I've done that a few times over the years.

Newt_on_Swings · Mar 24, 2012

Olympus OM4T hands down. The FE2 isnts even in the same class.

I shoot both Nikon and Olympus, the F3T or the FM3a would be a better match up.

I have 3 OM4Ts now, 2 operating, one was stripped for parts to fix the other 2. Personally I think they are the peak of aperture priority manual focus slr design, all wrapped up in the most elegant of packages.

I searched for awhile, but I just cant find it, but there was an awesome article written where testers threw a battery of crazy tests at it, deep frozen, water sprayed, dust cabinet, drop test. And then fired with film. then ultimately stripped down to check for penetration of dust, moisture, or broken parts. It passed with flying colors for its durability and sealing.

Les Sarile · Mar 24, 2012

You can find it here -> The OM4T Crash Test

Rol_Lei Nut · Mar 25, 2012

Les Sarile said:
You can find it here -> The OM4T Crash Test

Interestingly, the Leica R6 (which I consider less tough than the Leicaflexes) did even a tad better in those tests...

Les Sarile · Mar 25, 2012

Needless to say I don't expect to subject my cameras to this but good to know! The R6 score of 88 vs the OM4T score of 87 is a hair better but more importantly which part it did score a point higher on? Anyone know the results for others they may have tested?

kivis · Jan 6, 2013

Oh gosh ugly

Just played with a OM4T. Lots fun but because there is wear and tear on it, I hearby declare it to butt ugly. Looks like when something plastic wears.

wblynch · Jan 6, 2013

Even mature and experienced people might show some wear and tear but that doesn't mean they're butt ugly. They might still perform magnificently.

In the case of photos you can't see the camera looking at the prints

Newt_on_Swings · Jan 6, 2013

The paint never really bonded well with the titanium top and bottom plates so you see them often with wear. I had a pristine body I got used from a laboratory, which wore to that level in about a year of use. The black models seem to wear a bit better but I like silver bodies (in this case champagne).

gliderbee · Jan 6, 2013

I've just read that crash test for the first time (I didn't know about it).

Interesting, but I think the reviewer makes a very common mistake about the lightmeter of the OM cameras, and I would like to know for certain once and for all:

This is what is said in the crash test about the off the frame metering:

"the shuttercurtain contains a complex, computer-calculated field of white dots. This field stands for an average exposure value for your subject. The field is measured by the meter of the camera the moment the shuytter flips up, just before the shutter opens. By means of this, the camera meter can adjust to a change in lighting of your subject in the very last instant and thus expose correctly".

I think this is plain wrong and doesn't do justice to the ingenuity of the lightmeter.

I always understood that the field of white dots on the shuttercurtain is used by the meter to show you BEFORE the exposure what value it measures, but that it adjusts DURING the exposure by metering directly from the film itself at that moment. So, it does not adjust "in the very last instant", it adjusts really while exposing.

This explains why, when "shooting" without film, the exposure time is quite a bit longer than indicated by the meter before pressing the shutter (you don't have to measure it: it's obvious; try with 1/8th to 1/2 of a second: you'll notice the difference): in that situation, during the "expsoure", the camera sees a "black hole" (the pressure plate), since there's no film, and hence uses a much longer exposure time than indicated right before pressing the shutter.

This is also useful when using the Olympus flash: the camera can cut off the flash even DURING exposure. Imagine a lot of photographers making a picture of the same subject, all at the same time, with flash (e.g. newsreporters): the OM will be able to expose correctly, because it will "see" the flashes of the OTHER cameras during exposure and will adjust accordingly while exposing.

I always understood this the case both with the OM-2 and the OM-4. Considering the time when the OM-2 was made, this was revolutionary (but I think often misunderstood and thus underestimated, and the genius of Maitani should not be underestimated).

I don't know if there is or has ever been another camera that can do this. I don't think so.

Stefan.

Nikon FE2 vs Olympus OM-4T(i)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency