The battery drain in OM-3 would probably be same as it was in older OM-4 circuits. Drives me nuts in the OM-4. In the OM-3 I would feel confident going out that I would not miss shots for not having battery. With the OM-4 you only have 60 and B without battery. Not enough to make it through the day. As a result I always carry 6 batteries, and it's always been enough. But I often miss shots.I meant to ask The Forum....... from the website "the electronics has been improved to reduce the battery drain that was clearly too high in the OM-3"
Was the battery just hit hard during metering, or was it a situation where the battery was drained whenever it was in camera.?
Thank You
Wow..... it is that bad huh.?The battery drain in OM-3 would probably be same as it was in older OM-4 circuits. Drives me nuts in the OM-4. In the OM-3 I would feel confident going out that I would not miss shots for not having battery. With the OM-4 you only have 60 and B without battery. Not enough to make it through the day. As a result I always carry 6 batteries, and it's always been enough. But I often miss shots.
Have had my eye on OM-3 for a long time, and it's supposed to have higher build quality than OM-1, but the OM-1 has kept shooting reliably...
It ought to, as the OM1 came out 5 years sooner. Pentax's small bodies are a direct response to the revolutionary OM1.I have an OM1 which has a broken meter, bought to compare against my MX (MX feels more refined).
You made the right choice, but maybe for the wrong reason, hehehe.I was going to buy an OM10 as this was one of the bodies I was looking at for my first SLR in the '80s (ended up with a K mount ME Super clone) but the OM1 was cheaper.
I have a general feeling that OM cameras are slightly less reliable than the other main brands.
I have had problems with the meter in most of them, and there is the infamous foam issue where the foam padding around the prism will deteriorate and creep over the edges and sometimes tarnish the silver coating.
This is the case way longer into the series than it should have been.
Other than that, the lenses while very nice feeling, also seem flimsy to me.
As in the mechanics inside not being as durable as other brands.
Stop down springs being lose or broken and the grease around the helicoil being unusually stiff, are more concrete examples.
The lens optics while good are perhaps generally the least good among the main five Japanese brands.
The wides are famous, but the Minolta 24 2.8 and AiS 28 2.8 are better for example AFAICS.
The rest of the lineup is good but not stellar.
The Plain Jane 50mm 1.8/7 or 1.4s also seems to be the “worst” among the peers.
Never had any of the above mentioned problems with "n" versions of OM-1 and OM-2. Not to mention OM-2S and OM-4. Theoretically (and apparently - in practice as well), "n" versions contain all the improvements that have been made to OM-1/2 throughout the years of production. So when buying those two models, it is always a good idea to go for "n" and disregard the older ones.I have a general feeling that OM cameras are slightly less reliable than the other main brands.
I have had problems with the meter in most of them, and there is the infamous foam issue where the foam padding around the prism will deteriorate and creep over the edges and sometimes tarnish the silver coating.
This is the case way longer into the series than it should have been.
You might have a point. That could be why the market seems almost vacuum cleaned of 1n and 2n, while the plain 1 and 2 bodies are easy to find for little money.Never had any of the above mentioned problems with "n" versions of OM-1 and OM-2. Not to mention OM-2S and OM-4. Theoretically (and apparently - in practice as well), "n" versions contain all the improvements that have been made to OM-1/2 throughout the years of production. So when buying those two models, it is always a good idea to go for "n" and disregard the older ones.
I have a general feeling that OM cameras are slightly less reliable than the other main brands.
I have had problems with the meter in most of them, and there is the infamous foam issue where the foam padding around the prism will deteriorate and creep over the edges and sometimes tarnish the silver coating.
This is the case way longer into the series than it should have been.
Other than that, the lenses while very nice feeling, also seem flimsy to me.
As in the mechanics inside not being as durable as other brands.
Stop down springs being lose or broken and the grease around the helicoil being unusually stiff, are more concrete examples.
The lens optics while good are perhaps generally the least good among the main five Japanese brands.
The wides are famous, but the Minolta 24 2.8 and AiS 28 2.8 are better for example AFAICS.
The rest of the lineup is good but not stellar.
The Plain Jane 50mm 1.8/7 or 1.4s also seems to be the “worst” among the peers.
Couldn't have put it better myselfThe OM-10 is however a PoS, judging by the copies I’ve tried, even if the concept is nice.
The light meter is always off by several stops, the touch sensor is erratic, the on/off button gets worn out, like there is no tomorrow, and the advance arm sounds like there is a ball bearing loose in there someplace, every time you use it.
Then there is the obvious money grab with the manual adapter. I have one and that is a PoS too.
Just curious.I sold OM's back in the day when the OM-10 and OM-2 were "new".
The two digit OMs are much lighter, and clearly designed for lighter duty use.
But they are quite old now.
My OM-Gs/OM-20s reflect a lot of improvements over the OM-10, including the best implementation of a self-timer in the entire line. John Hermanson (Camtech) has said in the past that the OM-20 incorporated all the improvements that Olympus and the repair industry had identified as being needed for the OM-10.
But again, they are quite old now.
In my case, I'm down to four OM bodies now - OM-G, OM-2s, OM-2n and OM-4T. In the past I have had as well an OM-1 (non-MD), an OM-1n, an OM-2 and a second OM-G, but they were either sold, traded or given as gifts.
Not so sure about that, but anything can be manufatured. It's just a matter of resources. Rick Oleson had this kind of conversion, for example:Could an OM power winder could be modded to use as a battery pack?
Extra weight but it should get a battery hungry camera through the day.
I started out with an OM-1 (no n or even an MD) back in the 1970s and used that for many years. In the 1980s, I traded it in toward the purchase of an OM-2s because of the spot metering, OTF metering (including with flash), automatic exposure option and built in flash shoe. That became my main camera, and I continue to use it.Just curious.
Did you prefer the extra features offered by the 2 and 4..... is that why you eventually sold the 1n models.?
Thank You
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?