Nikon FM2n or Olympus OM1?

[RMP-NikonPro]

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

Simple!!

 

[sangetsu]

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.

Actually, the Olympus shutter speed ring is easier to turn with gloves than the small, top-mounted dials which many cameras are equipped with, and the aperture on the front of the lens is much easier to turn with gloves than those lenses with a narrow aperture ring located between the focusing ring and the camera body.

I was out this week with my OM4Ti and my old Canon F1n, and, while wearing gloves, I found I could make adjustments to the Olympus far more easily than to the Canon. The one advantage that the Canon had was that the lens focusing rings are bigger and therefore easier to use, but this is only because the FD lenses are about 1/3 larger than their OM counterparts of the same focal length.

 

[BetterSense]

I think the shutter speed ring is more manipulable as well, but for me the chief advantage is being able to feel the shutter speed without having to look at the dial, and being able to change the shutter speed without taking your right hand off the button or your right grip off the camera. When I walk indoors, I will just reach down and change my camera to indoor exposure settings with one hand, without looking. With the camera around my neck, I have often changed apertures, changed shutter speeds, racked the focus to infinity, and fired the camera with my pinky, all with one hand. I have big hands, but I've never wanted a big camera.

 

[Rick A]

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...

Neither -- you want an OM-3. Same rugged build and ergonomics of the OM-1, with superior metering. Spot metering with shadow or hilight biasing or average. Titanium shutter curtain, fully manual and fully mechanical.

Rick

 

[JimCouch]

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.

You are correct about the positioning, but it is fact very easy to manipulate, even with gloves. I shot with OMs for twenty or so years, much of it climbing year round, much of it with gloves on.

It is a personal preference thing, generally people either love it or hate it!

Speaking of personal ergonomic quirks - never did get along with Nikons all that well, the 'clever' on/off switch incorporated into the wind lever never worked for me. I am left eyed, so I was always pushing the lever back in and shutting off the camera. I remember the first time I tried one i could not figure out how such a well respected brand could make such a big mistake. At the time I did not realize that most folks are right eyed and it would then present no trouble!

That said the Nikons are wonderful cameras, as are the OMs, and both hold up well. My OMs went through years of VERY hard use in less than ideal circumstances.

 

[JimCouch]

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.

The OMs were known for having the bright, large viewfinders. As for filters you are very wrong about Olympus. Olympus OM Zuikos all used 49mm filters for the smaller/lighter/slower lenses and 55mm filters for the fats glass. The only exceptions to that were a few of the super wides and long teles and a couple of the very late zoom lenses.

You could get a set of lenses ranging from 21 to 200 with 49mm filters. If you wanted faster glass you would be using 55mm filters in the same range. Most of the longer teles and the 18mm use 72mm filters.

 

[John Hermanson]

OM-1/1N bodies that I resell have been converted to MS76 type battery (357, SR44W, G-13, MS76, KS76, 303, S76). Meters are linear after conversion. Meters are not linear if you happen to use alkaline 625a or 625u. John, www.zuiko.com

 

[Pumal]

I atest to that. I have rewired mines.

 

[Moose38]

I like both camera's. I used to be a big Olympus fan. To me this camera was more geared to the macro photographer. Nothing is Wrong with that if it's your intentions. Yes it can be used for other things. But if you get a old Catalog. You'll see there were more Macro accessories for these camera's than any other company made at the time. let me tell yeah they make real good Macro Photo's. The Nikon is better served as a good all around camera.

 

[Ken N]

Neither -- you want an OM-3. Same rugged build and ergonomics of the OM-1, with superior metering. Spot metering with shadow or hilight biasing or average. Titanium shutter curtain, fully manual and fully mechanical.

Rick

Almost correct. The shutter curtain in ALL single-digit OM-bodies is the horizontal cloth unit. There were variations in certain mechanisms and dot patterns through the years, but generally speaking the shutter curtain remained constant throughout the line.

The OM-3Ti, as with the OM-4Ti/4T bodies have titanium top and bottom cover plates. The top plates actually sit just a touch higher than non-titanium bodies because Olympus added improved weather sealing on these bodies.

I have an OM-3Ti as well as the OM-4T, an OM-2S and have owned an OM-1md, OM-2md and OM-4 through the years. Hands down, my favorite camera of the bunch is the OM-3Ti very closely followed by the OM-2S. The OM-4T(Ti) is more usable than the 3Ti, but there is just something indescribable about the 3Ti. If I could have just one and only one OM body, for me it would be the 3Ti. It is a camera that far exceeds its specifications. When event/wedding shooting, though, I tend to use the OM-4T more because it is already banged up and a working camera takes a lot of abuse--especially when hanging two cameras on the neck/shoulder. There is that little thing about auto-exposure too, but that's pretty secondary.

Years ago, when growing up and buying my first cameras, I really really wanted Nikon. My father and oldest brother shot Nikons/Nikkormats. I couldn't afford them, though. When buying my first SLR (I shot Yashica GSNs for a good 10 years), I got an OM-2S because it was "like a Nikon, only less expensive and smaller." That was in 1986 and I've never managed to break away from Olympus yet. Every couple of years I get spring fever, but never manage to actually switch.

Ken N
www.zone-10.com

 

[Pumal]

I've used one of my OM-1 for endoscopic work.

 

[Moose38]

I should have stayed with olympus. But 10 yrs ago after dad stepped away from photogragphy. I was given all his canon Gear. In some of the gear contained was 3 usm leneses one of which was 400mm 2.8. So i moved on to Canon & never looked back.

 

[Mike1234]

I've owned them both... and loved them both. But I would opt for the FM2n for the faster flash synch.

 

[haziz]

Definitely the Olympus OM1! I have both. The Nikon is a competent camera, but the Olympus is like a mechanical jewel.

 

[mrred]

The FM2n is a much more modern camera and will use the modern Nikon lens (not G or VR series). It also takes the newer batteries. I have both and I share lens with my bigger Nikon brothers. When I use my OM, I tend to bring a fair amount of duplicated lens. But pushed in a corner.........I would not feel slighted with either.

 

[Xmas]

#thread resurrection alert
Wooiooooo aaaaaaah
Wooiooooo aaaaaaah

 

[flavio81]

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.

I would like to see the list of optical innovations by Olympus. Because I know of no one. With Canon and Nikon i can list quite a bit of innovations -- fluorite glass, aspherical elements, hybrid asphericals, glass-molded asphericals, modern 2-group zoom theory, first perspective control lens, modern wideangle retrofocus designs, floating system ("close range correction"), fastest 24/50/85/300 lenses of the era, first tilt-shift lens, first japanese zoom, widest non-distortion lenses, etc.

As for the 24mm 2.0 zuiko (1974), by 1975 Canon had a f1.4 24mm with aspherical lens element; i guess Olympus wasn't so much advanced then. By the way in the early 70s their lenses stayed single coated for the most part, where Pentax, Zeiss, Canon and Nikon were already multicoating them. The 24/2.0 Zuiko so hyped in the above post was not available with multicoating until 1978 (!!)

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.

I saw the same test and agree. The Zuikos' figures -except for the special macro lens- were unremarkable, not bad, but not way the top, and always with performance below Leitz, Canon and Nikon.

There is a reason for it and it's compactness. Lens designers know that to shrink a lens smaller than the competition, compromises must be made.

 

[Xmas]

I'm still using their small light single coated lenses
Can't abide big heavy or multi coated...

It is the print that counts.

If you need heavy fit some DU to gbag.

 

[flavio81]

I'm still using their small light single coated lenses
Can't abide big heavy or multi coated...

As i said on other thread, all major manufacturers make good enough lenses. And for most prime lenses single coating works just fine.

But i was contending the idea that somehow the Zuiko lenses were magically above the rest. I'm a bit fed up with the hyping of the Olympus OM system on forums. Too overrated!

 

[Xmas]

Olympus started the trend to small, light, easy to use and cheap, high volume.
Some pros used them.
All the manufacturers are hyped. Even ones that get third parties to manufacture...

 

[MattKing]

Olympus started the trend to small, light, easy to use and cheap, high volume.
Some pros used them.
All the manufacturers are hyped. Even ones that get third parties to manufacture...

Actually, I think Canon started the trend to "easy to use and cheap, high volume" with the AE1.

 

[Nodda Duma]

As i said on other thread, all major manufacturers make good enough lenses. And for most prime lenses single coating works just fine.

But i was contending the idea that somehow the Zuiko lenses were magically above the rest. I'm a bit fed up with the hyping of the Olympus OM system on forums. Too overrated!

Flavio you know I'm a lens designer and I agree with you 100% on optical performance and compromise for size, but I still like the images that my Zuiko 50 1.4 makes. Even though it is softer than my Nikons wide open, there's something real nice to the color rendition that I see in prints from this lens that makes me keep it around. That of course is in the spectral transmission and in how the lens handles stray light, narcissus, and ghosting.

By the way the Zuiko 50 f/1.4 is one of the designs in my prescription database

 

[cuthbert]

Actually, I think Canon started the trend to "easy to use and cheap, high volume" with the AE1.

For me the AE1 was cheap to manufacture (a Olympus OM or a Pentax K feel more substantial) and with electronics in order to let people think less and less, in short the first step towards automation.

The OM was remarkable because like other cameras of the era (Fujica and Spotmatic) it pushed the idea or miniaturisation and proved that a SLR could be as small or smaller than a rangefinder and not just a big and clunky machine.

 

[MattKing]

For me the AE1 was cheap to manufacture (a Olympus OM or a Pentax K feel more substantial) and with electronics in order to let people think less and less, in short the first step towards automation.

The OM was remarkable because like other cameras of the era (Fujica and Spotmatic) it pushed the idea or miniaturisation and proved that a SLR could be as small or smaller than a rangefinder and not just a big and clunky machine.

You are "preaching to the choir.

My pre-MD version of the OM-1 was purchased new in 1974. I still have four different OM bodies, although currently no OM-1s are in that group.

But I sold way more AE-1s (they appeared on our shores either late in 1976 or early in 1977).

By the way, the OM-2 preceded the AE-1 by a year (introduced in 1975 vs 1976) so I wouldn't attribute the move to automation for the user to the AE-1. Automation in manufacture - almost certainly.

 

[flavio81]

Flavio you know I'm a lens designer and I agree with you 100% on optical performance and compromise for size, but I still like the images that my Zuiko 50 1.4 makes. Even though it is softer than my Nikons wide open, there's something real nice to the color rendition that I see in prints from this lens that makes me keep it around. That of course is in the spectral transmission and in how the lens handles stray light, narcissus, and ghosting.

By the way the Zuiko 50 f/1.4 is one of the designs in my prescription database

Hi Nodda Duma,

Yes, on other thread i remarked that ALL 50mm are sharp enough for practical purposes, and that finer points such as "bokeh" and color rendition should guide you.
I'm taking note on your Zuiko 50/1.4 recommendation, although if I buy an OM camera again, i think i'll settle for an even smaller lens.

PS: Soon i'm gonna open a thread on the Canon FL 85-300/5.0, as soon as I get my negatives developed. I look forward to your comments once the thread is opened!