Nikon FM2n or Olympus OM1?

abudhabiandy · Apr 17, 2009

Hi from Abu Dhabi,

My FM2n is becoming very tired & I'm looking for a replacment. But a quick hunt around ebay & my, Olympus kit is soooooo inexpensive. I guess I could get an OM1 with a few lenses for the same price as a decent Fm2n. Is it cheaper becuase its a much poorer product or is it becuase Olympus has never neen as 'sexy' as a Nikon? I really abuse my kit, back ofa rucksack, Tri X, lots of sand, so whatevers next it has to be robust...

Pinholemaster · Apr 17, 2009

Both a wonder cameras. Have no idea why the price difference. If you can get more with the OM1, go for it. The Olympus lenses are great, and the system is a lot lighter. The advantage of the Nikon is ALL their lenses will work on the body, which means you can use many of the new lenses designs being produced now.

archphoto · Apr 17, 2009

Quote: whaterevrs has to be robust, sand

Forget both camera's and start looking for a Nikonos !

Peter

mrred · Apr 17, 2009

I have 2 OM10s, an OM20 and a crap load of lenses. Yeah, the Olympus are the real deal if you are a manual kind of guy (I am). I keep my Nikon F601 around for when I want auto-focus or something. I am surprised how much I do use the Olympus. Built like tanks and feel like a camera should.

If you need a CLA, this is the guy... http://www.zuiko.com/

If you want to do some research on what you may be looking at on ebay, try http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/

Mark Fisher · Apr 17, 2009

I used a Nikon F3HP at work and hated it due to the ergonmonics. My OM1 is nearly perfect in that regard. I've owned one since 1977 and only recently had it serviced....nothing was wrong, I was tired of dealing with the mercury/zinc air batteries. If you get one, check to see whether the battery has been converted to modern batteries or buy a Dead Link Removed or get it CLAed.

John Bragg · Apr 17, 2009

I own both and they are excellent cameras. If anything, I prefer the ergonomics of the Olympus lenses. The depth of field scales are easier to use and focussing hyperfocally is much easier. They also focus similarly to my Leica lenses and the Nikon lenses are opposite to this. The Nikon is much better suited to fill flash use with a higher synch speed but that seldom matters to me as I rarely use flash....

jmcd · Apr 17, 2009

I had an Fm2n and an OM-1sold the Nikon and kept the Olympus. I like the Olympus' viewfinder and metering system better. However both are great cameras with great lenses.

John Hermanson · Apr 17, 2009

I suggest a 1N as it will have all of the factory updates and bypass the occasional error found in plain OM-1 history (like plastic screw holding battery contact, plastic meter gear that gets chewed up, etc.). John, www.zuiko.com

mgb74 · Apr 17, 2009

Boy, all the sudden interest in OMs.

I have both (FM2 and OM2n). I'm beginning to like the OM more due to size. But FM2n uses commonly available batteries (there are workarounds for the OM1). Used lenses, especially wider than 28mm and longer than 200mm, are easier to find for the Nikon.

Colin Corneau · Apr 17, 2009

If cost is your only consideration then you've answered your own question.

Pumal · Apr 17, 2009

Choosing between the two that you suggest? OM-2n hands down. Lighter. The Zuiko lenses are spectacular. The Metering System was a 'first' in it's day and even now is hard to beat. I prefer Manual and my Sekonic Meter. I have an FM2n and is a sweet camera, but I tend to use the Olympus more often

Vanishing Point Ent. · Apr 18, 2009

The FM2n equivalent is the OM3. Not the OM1. The FM2n is a newer design. The OM2, is an aperture priority camera.

You were asking about all manual cameras. What lenses do you have ? If you're going to shoot on sand, why not get an FM, or OM1 as a " sacrificial lamb ". Then have an FM2n, or OM3, at home as the primary camera.

Let me throw this into the mix; what about a Canon F1n, ( an updated Older Style ).

Pumal · Apr 18, 2009

The Olympus OM-2 is Aperture Priority only in 'Auto'. You can use it in 'Manual' without any problems.

nsurit · Apr 18, 2009

You don't want the OM system, all the bodies and lenses are crap. If you find some cheap, let me know and I'll buy them just to keep other people from being disappointed. I'm such a nice guy that way!

On a serious note, I have all the single digit OMs (with the exception of the 3 Ti) and a multitude of Zuiko and Tamron SP lenses, great cameras and superb glass. Any camera you drag through the sand should not be expected to provide excellent service. If you want a Nikonos, contact me with private message. Bill Barber

removed-user-1 · Apr 18, 2009

I've never owned an Olympus camera, but I once helped a friend sell his OM-1 kit, and an old girlfriend had an OM-2. In each case, I was impressed by the camera's construction, except for the removable hot shoe. Also there is the fact that the lenses themselves have depth-of-field preview (as opposed to a body-mounted lever as in the better Nikons, including the FM series). This makes a lot of sense given that the aperture is in the lens. They are very nice cameras.

Markok765 · Apr 18, 2009

How about a F3? Very durable, reliable, and like pretty cheap from KEH.

denmark.yuzon · Apr 20, 2009

i had the oppurtunity to try both.. but i chose the fm2n over the om2.. so far the only regret i have was the Olympus comes with a 50mm and a solicgor zoom, while the fm2n came with 50mm f/1.8 E.. but, i love the fm2n.. a classic masterpiece..

xtolsniffer · Apr 20, 2009

I have both and FM2n and three Om-1n's (plus an OM-4). I have to say that from my personal experience the OM-1's have let me down on numerous occasions. I may have been very unlucky, many on here have had great experience from them, but that's why I switched to Nikon, and the FM2n feels more robust to me and hasn't let me down so far. The olympus viwefinder is lovely, and they're very small and light, but I never take them out now.

fschifano · Apr 22, 2009

Pinholemaster said:
The advantage of the Nikon is ALL their lenses will work on the body, which means you can use many of the new lenses designs being produced now.

Not true, and you could be seriously misleading the OP. The only sense in which all Nikkors work is that the "F" bayonet has remained the same.

Pre AI Nikkors cannot be used unless they've been modified. Trying to force a pre-Ai Nikkor onto an FM2n will damage the camera.

"G" type lenses with no aperture rings will work with the aperture wide open only. The FM2n has no electrical connections nor electrical communication with the lens. It is strictly mechanical, and "G" type lenses are set from the camera body.

Lenses designed for crop sensor cameras are no good since they don't cover the full 24 x 36 mm frame. Many of these lenses are also lack aperture rings, so those are incompatible on two levels.

Uncle Bill · Apr 22, 2009

I have both an FM and an OM2n. You know what, too close to call and I use both systems a lot and I love them both. Don't forget the Nikon equivalent of the OM2n would be the FE2.

If you already have a pile of Ai(s) F mount lenses, stick with the FM2n.

Pumal · Apr 22, 2009

I have both. They are both great. I like the Olympus better. His metering system is great. The lenses are unbeatable. The only lenses I like better are the Super-Takumars.

nicefor88 · May 2, 2009

If you want some change in your photographic life why not get a FE2?
I understand you'd avaoid buying another FM2. But why not, after all?
I don't like Zuiko lenses, Nikkor are usually give better results. How many pros did you see using Olympus?
Sorry I don't mean to upset OM users. Just my personnal opinion.
:rolleyes:

Hakol Chadash · Dec 31, 2009

I apologize for resurrecting this thread, but since it addresses the very question I am currently in the process of answering for myself I thought it would be simpler to do so than to create a similar thread. Do you consider the FM2's compatibility with modern lenses a major advantage or just a nice feature? Has glass really improved this much since the 70's? And is it possible or convenient to adapt modern lenses to the OM bodies? Also, is the OM really much smaller/lighter than the FM2 in practice? Because according to the specs, the OM is only 30g lighter than the FM2 and a couple dozen square mm smaller. Perhaps the weight and size of the lens makes a big difference? Any other similar size mechanical SLR's I should be considering? Would Pentax MX compete with these two models?

Thanks

mopar_guy · Dec 31, 2009

A little history

The Nikon FM series was first brought out in 1977. The FM cameras are a fair amount smaller and lighter than the older Nikon F and F2. The reason that Nikon brought out a smaller and lighter camera was in response to Olympus and the OM-1 which came out in 1972. Quite a few OM-1's and OM-2's were being sold and Nikon was simply modernizing and trying to offer a comparable camera to bring buyers back to Nikon from Olympus. Both cameras are excellent quality and either should perform very well for you.

I have always been an Olympus user. I have never been let down by my OM-4T which is my main 35mm camera. I really like all of the Zuiko lenses that I own. I have never felt the need for anything different.

wiltw · Dec 31, 2009

nicefor88 said:
If you want some change in your photographic life why not get a FE2?
I understand you'd avaoid buying another FM2. But why not, after all?
I don't like Zuiko lenses, Nikkor are usually give better results. How many pros did you see using Olympus?
Sorry I don't mean to upset OM users. Just my personnal opinion.
:rolleyes:

Nikons were more commonly used by pros, in part due to the fact that newspapers and magazines with staffs had arsenals of Nikon gear already. Nikon so dominated the pro world in the 60's thru 80's!
Plenty of pros used Olympus. if they were not working for publications that had Nikon gear for the staff...expecially if you wanted a more compact and lighter, yet sturdy camera, compared to the Nikon beheamoths.
How many Nikons were taken into space by NASA? Olympus went there!

Nikon FM2n or Olympus OM1?

removed-user-1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency