Nikon FE2 vs Olympus OM-4T(i)

If I were forced to choose between the OM4Ti and the FE2, I would choose the FE2. I'm sorry, I just don't like having a coaxial shutter speed ring. I don't care for it on the Nikkormats and I've never cared for it on Olympi.

To me, a much more logical comparison would be between the OM4Ti and the F3T. Two titanium-clad pro-level cameras. Not one pro-level and one prosumer-level one.

The F3 doesn't have spot metering, but IMO, it doesn't need it with its extra-tight 80/20 metering pattern. I've shot a lot of slides, with their notoriously narrow exposure latitudes, with the F3 set to aperture priority, shooting in a variety of situations, and I've rarely had a problem with exposure errors. So, chances are, even if spot metering were available, I'd never use it. I also own a Canon T90 and I've never once used its spot metering function.

If I wanted to do a lot of long exposure, low-light photography, I'd rather use a Pentax LX than an OM4Ti. The LX's low-light metering ability is legendary.

OM-4Ti hands down. I like Nikon well enough, I have a few FE-2 bodies and I have some Olympus bodies. But the OM-4Ti is little smaller and more capable than the FE-2.

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.

Click to expand...

You can't make a decision based on specifications and others' recommendations. They both take great photos. Your best bet is to try both hands on and see which one you are more comfortable with.

Nikon FE2 all the way. Olympus OM cameras are a bit overrated in my view. And i have a feeling they're more delicate (OM-1 and -2) than the average high-end camera.

For example the OM-2 supposedly ultra-advanced exposure metering system. In reality, it only works on auto mode. On manual mode you are using the two CdS cells next to the pentaprism which was already a bit outdated for 1975. T
The interesting pattern printed on the circuit curtain was said to be made by "computer analysis of thousands of pictures" but in effect it just behaves as a grey card, it was just a gimmick to make it sell well. How cool it looks, indeed. The auto relies on the reflectivity of the film material, which should vary a lot (B/W and color film are not even of the same color...). Mr. Maitaini claims that on tests they found the reflectivity didn't vary much, but I don't believe it.

The OM-2 have a film advance mechanism that is way too delicate for what was an expensive camera. I've already seen some OM-2 that have suffered the wear of this mechanism.

The OM-4s are just too expensive nowadays for what they bring to the table. At least in my opinion.

If i needed multi-spot metering I would get a Canon T90 (which does it brilliantly) or a Canon EOS 3 (which does this and many other quasi-magical stuff). But really, who needs multi-spot metering when just a simple spot reading or even a partial reading would do? The "heavy center weighted" meter of a camera like the Nikon F3 or the "partial" meter of a Canon F-1 exposes perfectly 99% of all the situations one must find, the other 1% is covered by using your brain.

Even a 'cheap' camera like a Pentax P30 will do perfect exposures on full auto mode if you just use the memory lock to meter, lock reading and recompose. Well, i guess that for the obsessive-compulsive, nothing but a multi-spot would do.

As for the lenses, a Nikon or a Canon allows one to access a very wide array of lenses, and availability of fair-priced lenses is much better.

Here, at least in my country, OM lenses one can find are mostly amateur lenses -- all you see is 28/3.5, 50/1.8, 135/3.5, el-cheapo 35-70/4 zoom, and not much else. And many of them are single-coated because Olympus was very late to the multicoating era. While I can find many interesting (diverse) lenses in Nikon F-mount or Canon FD mount. From the lens availability, it seems that almost no pros used OM cameras, there were no television adverts with David Bailey speaking about Olympus cameras.

As for compactness, yes, sometimes compactness is good, but there are alternatives. For example the Pentax Spotmatic is still a compact camera and its M42 lenses are really compact, not that much bigger than the comparable lenses on the OM system. Build quality of those lenses is almost second to none.
The Pentax M-series (ME, MX, LX, etc) and its lenses are an overall improvement over the OM-system, and it's what I would recommend to a person who is obsessed with compactness and lightness.

The Nikon FE2 is one of the best cameras i've ever used and if it had the provision for mounting pre-AI lenses (like the FE has), then it would be close to a perfect camera. As a poster mentioned, one has to use the cameras, not compare specs. The FE2 does not have any amazing spec (except maybe for the fast 1/250 flash sync), but on actual usage it is just great.

Fortunately, the OP resides in the US, and has access to a wider selection of Olympus glass than you apparently do in Peru, should he decide to go down that route.

flavio81 said:

Nikon FE2 all the way. Olympus OM cameras are a bit overrated in my view. And i have a feeling they're more delicate (OM-1 and -2) than the average high-end camera.
....

Click to expand...

OM-1 delicate? serious? Ive been using a OM-1 for like 10 years and no issues.

The OM-4s are just too expensive nowadays for what they bring to the table. At least in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Not really. Recently I bought a OM4 for $60.00 on the bay. They come out cheap from time to time.

Here, at least in my country, OM lenses one can find are mostly amateur lenses -- all you see is 28/3.5, 50/1.8, 135/3.5, el-cheapo 35-70/4 zoom, and not much else. And many of them are single-coated because Olympus was very late to the multicoating era. While I can find many interesting (diverse) lenses in Nikon F-mount or Canon FD mount. From the lens availability, it seems that almost no pros used OM cameras, there were no television adverts with David Bailey speaking about Olympus cameras.

Click to expand...

See previous post. Most OM lenses arent expensive and are really good.


Dont argue Nikon's virtues though, but I would pick OM4 anytime.


Regards.


Marcelo

cooltouch said:

If I were forced to choose between the OM4Ti and the FE2, I would choose the FE2. I'm sorry, I just don't like having a coaxial shutter speed ring. I don't care for it on the Nikkormats and I've never cared for it on Olympi.

To me, a much more logical comparison would be between the OM4Ti and the F3T. Two titanium-clad pro-level cameras. Not one pro-level and one prosumer-level one.
....

Click to expand...

Seems a logical comparation. Dont have a F3T, would anyone throw their thoughts about those 2?


Regards.


Marcelo

Marcelo Paniagua said:

Seems a logical comparation. Dont have a F3T, would anyone throw their thoughts about those 2?
Regards.
Marcelo

Click to expand...

As you can read above, there are quite a few "I don't like" responses so clearly there are opinions based on personal taste.
Here is a casual list differentiating the two.

• The F3 has many finder and screen options.
• Size and weight - the OM is smaller and lighter.
• Spot metering - the OM has it while the F3 does not.
• The F3 flash mount is not standard but there are Nikon solutions.
• The F3 has faster sync speed but the OM4 has special flash that syncs at all speeds to 1/2000.
• The F3 has the worst viewfinder light switch but shows aperture. It's LCD wasn't suppose to last as long but it has.
• The OM4 doesn't show aperture but the light and info is much better and has built-in diopter.
• The F3 requires two controls to open the film back and disables shutter speed control until film counter shows frame 1.
• The F3 has bulb mode that uses power to keep the shutter open. It also has "T" mode that uses no power.
• The OM4 has bulb mode that doesn't use power.
• The F3 has much smoother film advance then the OM4. The OM1 & 2 film advance were smoother than the OM3 & 4.

Les Sarile said:

As you can read above, there are quite a few "I don't like" responses so clearly there are opinions based on personal taste.
Here is a casual list differentiating the two.

• The F3 has many finder and screen options.
• Size and weight - the OM is smaller and lighter.
• Spot metering - the OM has it while the F3 does not.
• The F3 flash mount is not standard but there are Nikon solutions.
• The F3 has faster sync speed but the OM4 has special flash that syncs at all speeds to 1/2000.
• The F3 has the worst viewfinder light switch but shows aperture. It's LCD wasn't suppose to last as long but it has.
• The OM4 doesn't show aperture but the light and info is much better and has built-in diopter.
• The F3 requires two controls to open the film back and disables shutter speed control until film counter shows frame 1.
• The F3 has bulb mode that uses power to keep the shutter open. It also has "T" mode that uses no power.
• The OM4 has bulb mode that doesn't use power.
• The F3 has much smoother film advance then the OM4. The OM1 & 2 film advance were smoother than the OM3 & 4.

Click to expand...

All in all, they seem quite balanced. My OM1 advance is quite crunchy compared to my OM4

Thanks for the info Les.

Marcelo

Don't know but the Olympus was and is way more expensive than the Nikon.

Les Sarile said:

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 . . .

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Les. The only way you will know if you like it is if you try it. We cannot make that decision for you.

That said, both cameras are excellent. The FE2 is my favorite Nikon. The OM4 is the OM I use most often. You cannot go wrong either way.
Darin

Darin,
I don't think these types of threads has actually ever convinced an OP to make a purchase. For sure we've never changed the mind of those who were already biased one way or another . . .

This thread is now over five years old.

...younger than OM-4Ti

Or the subject Nikons -- in fact, they're older than the OM4Ti.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/050/985/b25.jpg

I have both F3/T's and Olympus OM2N.

- love the smoothness and solid feel of the F3/T - as if molded from a single block of steel

- not fond of LCD display or bogus readings when counter is less than 1

- love the elegance of the OM2N's body and size, love the display, love the easy-to-use exposure compensation dial

- still find the shutter speed ring on the mount awkward

flavio81 said:

Mr. Maitaini claims that on tests they found the reflectivity didn't vary much, but I don't believe it.

Click to expand...

Regarding various films reflectivity, here is an excerpt from Modern Photography May 1976. Conclusion is negligible.

Theo Sulphate said:

- love the elegance of the OM2N's body and size, love the display, love the easy-to-use exposure compensation dial

- still find the shutter speed ring on the mount awkward

Click to expand...

But I must say that putting the exposure compensation dial there was a good idea from Olympus... at least compared to "wasting" such dial for ISO selection on the OM-1.

I think that to have an auto camera (OM-2) with an easily accessible exposure compensation dial, is very nice. It would be even better if the exposure compensation amount was shown on the viewfinder as well. Sadly on the OM-2 the meter needle on auto mode just shows you an approximation of what the real exposure would be. The needle uses CdS sensors on the prism while the actual auto metering uses SPD sensors pointing out to the film plane; totally different systems.

Chan Tran said:

Don't know but the Olympus was and is way more expensive than the Nikon.

Click to expand...

Bought this OM-3 "AS-IS not working" but beautiful cosmetics from KEH that turned out to be in perfect working condition.



The lens was no more then the other brands - all from KEH too.



In the used classic camera market, luck and patience are major factors . . .

While the OM4 is a great camera I'd go with a Nikon because of the lens system. But since you own Nikon's try a OM4. I worked for Olympus Camera, they had a room dedicated to testing equipment, mainly lens tests. We would test our Olympus Zukio's against the competition and often lost. It was always my opinion that Olympus was more concerned by making a compact lens rather than a super (but large) performer. My Minolta Rokkors were often better than the zukios and nikkors. Their were always exceptions of course, in general Olympus wides had an edge over the nikkors and vise versa when it came to 50mm and longer. The engineer I worked with was Tony (last name began with "N" and he was from Japan, we left the company and went on to become the technical editor for Modern Photography magazine. Modern Photography magazine always ran lens tests. (getting off topic) Back in the early 1980's or late 1970's Modern Photography did a lens test of 32, 50-58mm normal lenses from all the major manufactures of the time. I have a copy and would like to scan it and upload it to this forum but I'm not sure where and if there would be any objections. I think that many of you will be surprised by the results. BTW...a Nikon F3, FA, or even a Minolta XD11 is a good camera to compare, not the FE2.
Go ahead and buy that OM4 and have fun with it.
Rick

RichardJack, The OP has long abandoned this thread back in page 3 after trying out a well worn OM4 and not liking it.

I am interested in the tests you conducted - how it was done and the results. You need to use a picture sharing site. Let me know if you need help in this.

RichardJack said:

We would test our Olympus Zukio's against the competition and often lost. It was always my opinion that Olympus was more concerned by making a compact lens rather than a super (but large) performer.

Click to expand...

Rick,

This is what i have been saying repeatedly on this forum for years (part in bold), and of course I occasionally received protests and criticism for saying it.
i.e:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Your testimony supports my claim, so thank you SO much for this post.

Of course, this does not apply to the really specialized high-performance Zuikos like the 350/2.8, etc.

RichardJack said:

Modern Photography magazine always ran lens tests. (getting off topic) Back in the early 1980's or late 1970's Modern Photography did a lens test of 32, 50-58mm normal lenses from all the major manufactures of the time. I have a copy and would like to scan it and upload it to this forum

Click to expand...

Please do, so it complements the test that Jussi (Nesster) uploaded to flickr. Which was the 1977 Pop Photo test:

http://forum.mflenses.com/1977-pop-photo-normal-lens-tests-32-of-them-t18107.html#156302

I've had an OM-1 for years, and have quite a few Nikons. Those are my two 35mm systems. I like them both. My primary Nikon is the FM3a and I really like the Nikon optics. But I still really really like the look of the Zuiko optics (and I have the prescription for the 50 f/1.4). They have their own unique looks.

This thread made me go find a good deal on eBay for an OM-4T. It showed up today and is waiting for me at home. Darn you all! Darn you to heck!

flavio81 said:

This is what i have been saying repeatedly on this forum for years (part in bold), and of course I occasionally received protests and criticism for saying it.

Click to expand...

Of course you did because most of what you said about the OM system isn't true and that is steamed from lack of experience.
Your entire experience of the OM system resumes to an OM-2 with transport problems and a single 55mm /1.2.

It is true that Canon and Nikkor lenses have higher resolution and contrast, but what is the point of all of that if the resulting photographs lack character and are flat as a pancake?

See these:

File0032 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

File0033 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Have a look at the lenses I used.
The first one is with the early silver nose Zuiko 50mm /1.8 and the second one is the later Zuiko 50mm /1.2.

About the bodies, especially the OM-1 and OM-2, they don't have more problems than equivalent Canon, Minolta, Nikon or Pentax.
Most of the time what I see in my experience of as a collector, user and the fact I know many second hand dealers in this country and our pool of bodies in the UK must be a lot more than what is available in your country is that any camera can develop problems if abused or simply for lack of use.

There are, of course, problems that are typical of some models or a series of models.
It is well known the squeak on the Canon A series, or the POD on the Yashica Electro 35, or the mirror motor gears splitting in the Pentax MZ series or rangefinders going out of calibration, etc.

The OM-1 and 2 do have their specific problems: the mirror foam rotting and damaging the pentaprism and they can develop a problem with film spacing due to a hard rubber ring that can break. These are not difficult to repair by a trained repairer. Nor are many problems with other SLRs of other makers.
The OMs aren't worst than any other system.

BTW, going back to the lenses, if what you said is true: smaller and compact lenses can't be better than heavier and larger lenses, then can you answer this question: how come the Nikkor 28mm /2.8 AIS be smaller and lighter than the earlier Nikkor-H 28mm /3.5 Non-Ai and still be regarded as been better optically?

It is a bit like the American cars: big and brash isn't always better.