Nikon FE2 vs Olympus OM-4T(i)

[faberryman]

And of course those Leica lenses which are generally smaller than their SLR counterparts musts be compromised by size as well.

 

[flavio81]

lack character and are flat as a pancake?

See these:

There isn't anything special or remarkable about the rendering of the lens used in these two photos. Sorry.
"Remarkable" as in "worthy of attention; striking"

What makes you think that only Olympus OM users have lenses with "character" and that Canon and Nikon users have lenses that render "flat as a pancake"? This is something very silly to say.

There are lenses with "character" in almost any brand and indeed in Canon and Nikon systems as well. To put just an example the Nikkor-S 58/1.4. Tons of character. The ones who own it will know what i'm talking about. You can also find many lenses with character in the Pentax M42 system, Minolta (Rokkor 58mm anyone?), and even in the Canon EF system (EF 85/1.8 for example).

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?

Is this a joke? Anyways:

1. You are comparing a March 1960 design (Nikkor-H 28/3.5) with a 1981 lens (Nikkor AI 28/2.8S). That is 21 years of lens evolution between them. Twenty-one years. You are comparing basically the first japanese decent wide-angle lens (Nikkor-H 28/3.5), whose optical design was very very similar to the first SLR wideangle ever, the Angenieux Retrofocus (year 1950 !!), with a lens of 1981 of a totally different and far more advanced design. So you could even say not 21 years of difference but 31.

What i posted previously on this topic was that, all else being equal, trying to shrink down the lens will require to do optical compromises, that is, to do a less-than-optimum correction. And "all else being equal" means the following are equal:

- technology advancements / state of the art
- target cost of manufacturing
- lens speed (max aperture)
- and of course angle of view

2. It depends on the aperture as well. The smaller the maximum aperture, the easier to make a compact lens without sacrifying performance.

 

[MattKing]

I always enjoy it when the Nikon vs. Canon wars spread into other areas of engagement.

 

[flavio81]

I always enjoy it when the Nikon vs. Canon wars spread into other areas of engagement.

There's no war... Sing with me:

Nikon-ee and Canon-ee
live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my gear bag, oh Lord, why don't we?

We all know that 'qupment is the same where ever you go
And there is good and bad in OM
We learn to live, we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive together alive

Nikon-ee and Canon-ee
live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my gear bag, oh Lord, why don't we?

{ set to music: Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder }

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

And of course those Leica lenses which are generally smaller than their SLR counterparts musts be compromised by size as well.

Not really. Most rangefinder lens dont have a retrofocus design, because in a rangefinder there is no mirror to avoid, so their rear element can be closer to the film plane.

Thus, you can make the lens smaller and dont suffer with the same problems the old SLR suffered. New SLR lens design dont really follow this rule, due to modern corrections, materials and design. Of course, this is overly simplifyed.


Regards

Marcelo

 

[faberryman]

My comment was sarcastic. I'm pretty sure there are some sub par big lenses.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

My comment was sarcastic. I'm pretty sure there are some sub par big lenses.

Oh they are. Take a look at old Noctilux or Nokton 50 f/1.1 wide open

Regards.

Marcelo

 

[flavio81]

And of course those Leica lenses which are generally smaller than their SLR counterparts musts be compromised by size as well.

What Marcelo said: Since the lens-flange to film-plane distance is dramatically smaller on a Leica rangefinder (compared to a SLR camera), it opens all kind of freedoms for the lens designer that allows him/her to design smaller lenses, compared to SLR lenses. Or to keep the same size and increase performance of some sort (i.e. less vignetting at full aperture; less chromatic abberration on telephoto lenses).

By the way i just mentioned telephoto lenses. A benchmark of a telephoto is the telephoto ratio, which in "layman"'s terms is a measure of the compactness of the lens. It is a comparison between the length of the lens versus the focal length:

Telephoto ratio = (distance from the outermost lens surface of the objective) / (focal length of the objective)

All lens designers will tell you that if you want to improve the telephoto ratio, that is, to make the lens shorter while keeping the same focal length, will make it more difficult to correct aberrations, one of them being chromatic aberration (the 'purple' or 'green' fringes).

So if you want to shrink down a tele lens and you want to keep the performance, you will either have to increase the cost and difficulty of making of the lens (for example by using really expensive glasses and/or increasing the number of elements), or reduce the aperture (the lens speed, i.e.f3.5 instead of f2.8). Or give up and reduce the focal length (i.e. 180mm instead of 200mm).

So for example if you go buying second-hand lenses you will find many off-brand 135mm lenses from the 1970s that are remarkably short. These are almost always very mediocre lenses, compared to their Canon/nikon/minolta/pentax/tomioka/etc peers.

 

[klownshed]

i have used both Nikon and Olympus systems. A lot. I like both.

What I can say without any shadow of a doubt that any differences in terms of picture quality between the two are insignificant. The type of film used is a far more significant variable. There is as much variation between two Zuikos as between a Zuiko and Nikkor in practice.

They are both very fine systems with lenses (compromised by being compact or not) that are capable of outstanding results.

The biggest limiting factor to either system is the idiot (or genius) with their finger on the button. The variables in the operator make any differences in optics virtually irrelevant. Unless your hobby is taking pictures of test charts and staring at the corners with a loupe.

I have never, ever taken a photo with an OM-4 that I thought in hindsight could have benefited from being taken with my Nikon.

The reason to choose one over the other is far more visceral. Which do you prefer to hold? To use? To interact with? Which one looks best to you? Which one feels better?

As I said, I like both. Either camera is the right choice depending on your personal preference.

Personally I tend to prefer the OMs, with the 2 being my all time favourite camera.

And also because when I have a nail to knock in I use a hammer.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

What i posted previously on this topic was that, all else being equal, trying to shrink down the lens will require to do optical compromises, that is, to do a less-than-optimum correction.

You are forgetting one simple fact: Olympus didn't have fat and heavy lenses to "try to shrink down".
All their existent lenses were small. In fact, Olympus expertise and experience is in the small world of microscopes.
Pretty much the same as Leitz when they conceived the Leica.
Their previous SLR lenses were the Pen F system and the M42 lenses for the FTL. The M42 lenses design were pretty much the same as the early OM lenses.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

As I said, I like both. Either camera is the right choice depending on your personal preference.

Completely agree and I also have some nice Nikons.

Some of my Nikons:
WP_20150922_16_12_36_Pro by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

My most used OM-2N:
DSC_0827 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
The biggest limiting factor to either system is the idiot (or genius) with their finger on the button. The variables in the operator make any differences in optics virtually irrelevant. Unless your hobby is taking pictures of test charts and staring at the corners with a loupe.

I have never, ever taken a photo with an OM-4 that I thought in hindsight could have benefited from being taken with my Nikon.

The reason to choose one over the other is far more visceral. Which do you prefer to hold? To use? To interact with? Which one looks best to you? Which one feels better?
...

Wise words.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
There are very few foreign cars that can keep up with my American car, lets stick with cameras here.
I don't like the Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIs, it is not as good at infinity as the Nikkor 28mm f2 AI. The 2.8 AIs does not deserve all the hype it gets, it was popular because of it's CRC corrections for close work, but how of use bought that lens to use closer than 6 feet? Not me. I have never used the 28mm f3.5 versions but I have read that they are pretty good, but lack the coatings of the newer versions (if that really matters to you). A Minolta 28mm f3.5 MC Rokkor I used was better that those mentioned Nikkors, most of the Minolta wides were excellent right to the corners. With exception to the very newest AF Nikkor wides I like just about everyone wides better than Nikon's. Well, maybe not Miranda's.
My Olympus 24mm f2.8 is a gem, much sharper than my 24mm Nikkors and close tie to my Minolta 24mm f2.8 which was was used by Leica on their "R" SLR's. I'm very fond of the old SMC Takumars as well and would take a LX Pentax over a OM body any day.

 

[CMoore]

They are both very fine systems with lenses (compromised by being compact or not) that are capable of outstanding results.

The biggest limiting factor to either system is the idiot (or genius) with their finger on the button. The variables in the operator make any differences in optics virtually irrelevant. Unless your hobby is taking pictures of test charts and staring at

Truth IS funnier than fiction.
ALL hobbies have this scenario.
With Guitars/Guitar Amps. there is the same type of discussion about:
Tube plate size
Tube construction
What dielectric is in a capacitor
What material the resistors are made of
What material the speaker cone is made of
Magnet material
On and On and On ad nauseum
(Photo)-Idiot/Genius with their finger on the button = (Guitar)-Tone is in the fingers

 

[Les Sarile]

I'm very fond of the old SMC Takumars as well and would take a LX Pentax over a OM body any day.

I really like the LX as well but could not help but think if Pentax would have been on the path to develop it without the influence of the OM's?

There is no denying the obvious influence that the genius of Yoshihisa Maitani brought into the SLR design at the time as all manufacturers shortened or abandoned their current production in favor of smaller and lighter models. Keep in mind this is no trivial matter considering all the engineering and manufacturing that have to happen in order to do this.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
The Olympus OM (M1) influenced the whole industry, all of the major manufactures started making smaller SLR's and tiny lenses. IMO this was a good and bad thing. For some manufactures it gave them an excuse to use plastic to reduce weight and often the image quality of the tiny lenses were not as good as their larger brothers (with a few exceptions). I as well as many photographers that I felt they could hold a bigger heavier body like a Nikon F2 or Minolta XK steadier. The small SLR's were great on vacation with the kids, some of the OM lenses could fit in my pockets. The OM 1-4 were great cameras for astrophotography because of their light weight, bright viewfinder and they had a focusing screen (1-8?) just for that purpose.
Getting back to the LX, I think the camera that influenced it and many legendary SLR's was the Nikon F with it's removable prism. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Miranda, Exacta all had bodies with removable finders, which is the true identifier of a professional SLR camera. Olympus never did.
Rick

 

[mynewcolour]

'the' or 'a'?

'the' sounds like such rigid dogma.

 

[Les Sarile]

Rick,
I think if you have ever been to Tokyo it would pretty obvious why Yoshihisa Maitani was so motivated to make a smaller lighter camera.

Fact is Yoshihisa Maitani even pointed to the Pentax as being "large" which at that time must have been the Spotmatic. As you can see in this short progression, Pentax started with an ideal size and grew.

After the OM's were released, Pentax got smaller. In fact it looks like Pentax LX took it's cues from the original Asahi Pentax.

BTW, when it comes to finders, the Pentax LX took that concept to another level.

The LX was released about the same time as the Canon New F-1 and Nikon F3. The former was not at all anticipated while the latter two were. Pentax design for an interchangeable viewfinder is considerably more elegant then any of the others.