Actually there was an apollo Nikon F, an F2, a F3, and Nasa spec'ed F4
Nikon FM2n or Olympus OM1?
-
A
- Thread starter abudhabiandy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Very nice 300mm f/6.3 Komura Commercial in Copal 3S
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Very clean 90mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon in Copal 0
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
Want to Buy Folding Pocket Kodak Plate Holders, Cut Film Sheaths, and Ground Glass
- Started by trichrome
Forum statistics
Keep in mind that Olympus made the body and lenses much smaller. Nikon make small body cameras, but they didn't make the lenses smaller as well. The OM-x series was always engineered to meet pro demands, while the Nikon Fm and Pentax Mx were more oriented to the consumer SLR buyer who was attracted by the OM size.
I have both the OM 1,2,4 and the Nikon FE, FE2, and FM and have owned the FM3A.
I'm no pro, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
As said already, the OM series is slightly smaller than the Nikon. The OM lenses are more compact than the early nikkors, but the AIS Nikkors are closer in size.
Both systems have good reputations for reliability and lens performance.
Some major differences are the shutters. Olympus used a horizontal focal plane shutter, while the Nikon FE/FM series used a vertical metal shutter with a higher flash synch speed.
As a system, while I love the Olympus as a small kit, the Nikon system has more lenses available, and better long lens choices.
So if you prefer a small kit with only a few moderate lenses, I would suggest the Olympus. If you plan on needing long lenses or a wide variety, I would suggest the Nikon
I'm no pro, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
As said already, the OM series is slightly smaller than the Nikon. The OM lenses are more compact than the early nikkors, but the AIS Nikkors are closer in size.
Both systems have good reputations for reliability and lens performance.
Some major differences are the shutters. Olympus used a horizontal focal plane shutter, while the Nikon FE/FM series used a vertical metal shutter with a higher flash synch speed.
As a system, while I love the Olympus as a small kit, the Nikon system has more lenses available, and better long lens choices.
So if you prefer a small kit with only a few moderate lenses, I would suggest the Olympus. If you plan on needing long lenses or a wide variety, I would suggest the Nikon
And yes, the Pentax MX compares favorably to either OM or FM.
As much as some people like the ergonomics of the OM, I didn't. The shutter speed around the lens mount ala Nikkormat was inconvenient for me.
Both the FM and MX are more a traditional layout. The MX has the size advantage over the FM and if you have large hands you may want to put a winder or motor drive on it.
The FM for me, is more comfortable.
As much as some people like the ergonomics of the OM, I didn't. The shutter speed around the lens mount ala Nikkormat was inconvenient for me.
Both the FM and MX are more a traditional layout. The MX has the size advantage over the FM and if you have large hands you may want to put a winder or motor drive on it.
The FM for me, is more comfortable.
Who needs it? I've had good luck taking slow-shutter speed pictures with my OM2 by hanging it by the strap and using the self timer. It's well enough damped and counterbalanced that it takes a sharp photo dangling from the strap.
I completely agree. The reflex mirror design on OM cameras is superb and vibration free. This was done by design. With the Motor Drive 2 on my OM-4T, the camera shoots at 5 frames per second AND you can follow a moving subject AND focus the lens.
The OM1 has mirror lockup and it is a breeze to use.
Indeed. Only problem for me is that, I always forget about it!
The only downside I find in the OM1 is mostly the Hotshoe. That dingy scary thing that is so nice, but you always fear to lose it.
Sometimes, it tends to get loose, and if you don't notice it; You'll miss it.
If you extensively use (fill) flash, the FM2 has a nice Sync speed.
Q: Why would fill flash benefit from a high sync speed?
If you are balancing flash and ambient light, I would think you would generally end up with a slower shutter speed.
If you are balancing flash and ambient light, I would think you would generally end up with a slower shutter speed.
Let me play devils advocate for Minolta. Nikon will be more reliable and a camera like the F3 is a true pro camera. The OM's lack highly regarded glass with some exceptions. The arguments for the OM are the size in relationship to the viewfinder and their flash/macro capability. On the other hand the Minolta XD-11 is small and well designed. Leica's SLRs R4 - 7 were based on the XD-11. As notied OMs price reflect their cult status. Minolta is the cost to value leader. The optics are first rate, comparable with Nikon/Cannon and in some cases better. Minolta's color correction is slightly warm vs Zuiko and render good bokeh. The Minolta lenses made in the 80s are small, just a tab larger than OM optics.
That speaks for my experience on flash photography.
Because Darin if the ambient light in the background in bright sunlight meters 1/250th at f11 and you want to fill the shadows to balance the lighting, and the camera only syncs at 1/60 or slower you're snookered, which is why cameras with leaf shutters that sync. at all speeds are so popular with wedding and outdoor portrait photographers.
Could you list some examples of the bad Olympus Zuiko glass? Have you had bad experiences with Zuiko lenses? Sometimes people compare the economy Zuiko lenses with the Pro lenses of other makes which is unfair. A lot of the faster Zuiko prime lenses are as good or better than anything that Nikon or Canon or Minolta was putting out at the time. Olympus was a great lens innovator and the Nikkors were sometimes five years lagging behind Olympus. eg. Olympus 24mm F1:2.0 early 1970s and Nikon 24mm f1:2.0 in the late 1970's.
What a Question? FM2n's are going for next to nothing these days! Just get another!
Mopar; For years I wanted to move from my Minolta SRT/XE-1 to a OM-2. I love the large OM finders. But reports from Pop Photo and Modern Photography 1973 - 80 indicate Zuiko lenses generally have less contrast and resolution across the entire field. Olympus centric web sites also supported the magazine reports. I realize one may never see it when shooting in the field with Tri-X. At the end of the day I stuck with my Minoltas and Medium Format gear.
Popular Photography, May 1976, published an article titled 32 Normal Lenses. The Zuiko 50 had higher than average flair and barrel distortion. Minolta's 58mm f/1.2 was rated higher than competitors fast glass, (Leica included). I have read the Zuiko 50/1.4, the normal macro, and 28/2.0 are very good with excellent bokeh. Mike Johnson, the photo reviewer, specifically mentioned the 50/1.4 as a favorite.
Popular Photography, May 1976, published an article titled 32 Normal Lenses. The Zuiko 50 had higher than average flair and barrel distortion. Minolta's 58mm f/1.2 was rated higher than competitors fast glass, (Leica included). I have read the Zuiko 50/1.4, the normal macro, and 28/2.0 are very good with excellent bokeh. Mike Johnson, the photo reviewer, specifically mentioned the 50/1.4 as a favorite.
If I remember correctly, there were at least two and maybe three versions of the Zuiko 50mm 1:1.4 with some problems in earlier versions. The last revision (serial # above 1,100,000) was reportedly the best and some users did not like the early version and some liked them especially well. Quite a few of the Olympus lenses were "improved/redesigned" in the late '70's-early '80's. Some of the best Zuiko glass was brought out in conjunction with the OM-3 and OM-4 in the early 1980s (eg: 180mm f1:2.8, 180mm f1:2.0, 250mm f1:2.0, 350mm f 1:2.8, 100mm f1:2.0).
Well known weaknesses in the OM lens line are zooms and super-tele lenses.
Richard, thanks for citing sources.
Well known weaknesses in the OM lens line are zooms and super-tele lenses.
Richard, thanks for citing sources.
I know I have a silver-ring 50/1.4 that flares like crazy shooting into the sun, worse than any other lens I have. Its performance otherwise seems fine to me; I only shoot B&W and a little bit of flare never hurt anything as long as it's not actually visible in the print.
Mopar; How do you identify the 1980s Zuiko glass? Early 1970 Zuiko glass had markings for elements/groups and later multi-coatings. If I was considering a Nikon or OM, I would pick the Nikon FM/FE/F3 or look at Minolta. Price/reliability is just two of the factors.
Can one date Zuiko lenses? Not really. I believe that Olympus was not well known for discussing production changes to their lenses. I have seen quite a few charts and tables that list specifications on Zuiko lenses and every one has the following disclaimer: "Specifications subject to change without notice."
There are a few loose rules that generally apply. The earliest lenses for the OM system have a silver ring at the front where the filter screws on as well as a silver ring at the front of the aperture ring. Such lenses generally have a letter code to indicate how many elements the lens has (A=1, B=2, C=3,etc). I have one of these 50mm f1:1.4 "silvernose" lenses and the identification ring on the front of the lens is stamped: "Olympus OM System G. Zuiko Auto-S 1:1.4 f=50mm 470854".
It was once said that John and Horace Dodge did not have "Model years" for their automobiles and that they had a policy of constant improvement or in other words they made improvements whenever they wanted. I believe that Olympus operated in much the same way. By the late 1970's a lot of OM lenses were being "improved". Also there was an effort to modernize the look of the entire line. The silvernose was eliminated and identification stampings no longer used the lettering nomenclature. The letters "MC" (to indicate Multi-Coating) were commonly used. That does not mean that earlier lenses were not multicoated. For example a 50mm lens from this period may have been labeled: "Olympus OM System Zuiko MC Auto-S 1:1.4 f=50mm 900xxx".
My late 50mm Zuiko lens that I purchased new in about 1986 has the following marking: "Olympus OM System Zuiko Auto-S 50mm 1:1.4 1153506 Japan". Some of the lower production late mode lenses may have continued to carry the "MC" stamping. There was certainly a fair number of variations in labeling for the various focal lengths at different periods.
Dave
There are a few loose rules that generally apply. The earliest lenses for the OM system have a silver ring at the front where the filter screws on as well as a silver ring at the front of the aperture ring. Such lenses generally have a letter code to indicate how many elements the lens has (A=1, B=2, C=3,etc). I have one of these 50mm f1:1.4 "silvernose" lenses and the identification ring on the front of the lens is stamped: "Olympus OM System G. Zuiko Auto-S 1:1.4 f=50mm 470854".
It was once said that John and Horace Dodge did not have "Model years" for their automobiles and that they had a policy of constant improvement or in other words they made improvements whenever they wanted. I believe that Olympus operated in much the same way. By the late 1970's a lot of OM lenses were being "improved". Also there was an effort to modernize the look of the entire line. The silvernose was eliminated and identification stampings no longer used the lettering nomenclature. The letters "MC" (to indicate Multi-Coating) were commonly used. That does not mean that earlier lenses were not multicoated. For example a 50mm lens from this period may have been labeled: "Olympus OM System Zuiko MC Auto-S 1:1.4 f=50mm 900xxx".
My late 50mm Zuiko lens that I purchased new in about 1986 has the following marking: "Olympus OM System Zuiko Auto-S 50mm 1:1.4 1153506 Japan". Some of the lower production late mode lenses may have continued to carry the "MC" stamping. There was certainly a fair number of variations in labeling for the various focal lengths at different periods.
Dave
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 34
- Format
- 35mm RF
Not addressed so far is the ergonomic difference, especially the shutter speed dial. On the Olympus - going from memory - the shutter speed is set with a ring to the rear of the lens mount. If you shoot during the winter and wear gloves, this can be a major pain - again going by memory. The Olympus bodies and lenses held up well for me when I used them for newspaper work, but so do the Nikons, which are still in use for longer lenses than Leica M provides.
The compact Minolta XD-11s have a brighter viewfinder than cameras of that period. The Rokkor X lenses are well made, centered, and have a modern multicoatings to balance the color between the lens range. The early ones have the same 55mm filter size for most of the lens range. A big advantage vs Nikon/Cannon/Zuiko/Pentax.
Having within the last year acquired both a om1 and an om2, I have bought some lenses recently (off the 'bay) to go with them. I have 35mm-1:2.8; 50mm-1:1.8 (the supposedly best "made in japan" version); 35-70mm-1:4; 70-150mm-1:4 and all four together have cost me less than £80.
One of my favourites is actually the 35-70 1:4 which is supposed to be the "budget" zoom compared to the 1:3.5/4.5, but to me it is just fine - certainly crisper than an EF35-70 I have on a canon EOS. Quite honestly, I am not seeing any significant difference in quality between the primes and the zooms, and personally, I can't really see the benefit in going for much more expensive versions from the zuiko range just for an extra stop.
What I am trying to say is that OM's are inexpensive, and the mid-range glass is extremely inexpensive yet it all handles and feels like quality kit, which it is. I think to talk about "good" and "bad" is over emphasising very small variations in a range from good to excellent - I am not aware of any real dogs in the zuiko line-up - none of mine anyway. Why not just buy some and give it a spin? I think you will be perfectly satisfied.
One of my favourites is actually the 35-70 1:4 which is supposed to be the "budget" zoom compared to the 1:3.5/4.5, but to me it is just fine - certainly crisper than an EF35-70 I have on a canon EOS. Quite honestly, I am not seeing any significant difference in quality between the primes and the zooms, and personally, I can't really see the benefit in going for much more expensive versions from the zuiko range just for an extra stop.
What I am trying to say is that OM's are inexpensive, and the mid-range glass is extremely inexpensive yet it all handles and feels like quality kit, which it is. I think to talk about "good" and "bad" is over emphasising very small variations in a range from good to excellent - I am not aware of any real dogs in the zuiko line-up - none of mine anyway. Why not just buy some and give it a spin? I think you will be perfectly satisfied.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |