• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Olympus OM: the Leica SLR that could have been?

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,884
Messages
2,847,035
Members
101,529
Latest member
Flo18
Recent bookmarks
0
I guess I never really looked at the Olympus OM cameras as Leica-like. Nikon F, certainly, you can easily see the transition from rangefinder to SLR in the NIkon. But not Olympus. I see no rangefinder cues in the Olympus body, it is all SLR. Small, yes, but not like a rangefinder.

Even the Minolta connection was a little odd to me but I have to guess that Nikon was just not interested in partnering with Leica to build SLR cameras by the time Leica was ready.
As I remember, at the time (before Leica made any SLR), many people working for Leica/Leitz felt that they already had a functional SLR in the M/1,2,3 rangefinders fitted with any of several Visoflexes at the time (and today) were/are able to more easily do 1:1 to infinity than any SLR that was and is on the market. I own an Olympus OM2n, like it and use it but for serious macrophotography Macro photography, I still use an M2, or M3 rangefinder camera fitted with a Visoflex 1 and bellows. Any for you unbelievers out there, I can only say "try it, you'll like it"......Regards!
 
I guess I never really looked at the Olympus OM cameras as Leica-like. Nikon F, certainly, you can easily see the transition from rangefinder to SLR in the NIkon. But not Olympus. I see no rangefinder cues in the Olympus body.
I find that extraordinary to be honest. I can see no styling or functional similarities between a Nikon F and a Leica rangefinder other than they both take the same film cartridges and are a rectangular box with a lens at the front. While the Leica styling cues on the OM stare at me in plain sight, and have never been denied even by its chief designer. In no way am I saying you're wrong, it clearly just goes to show that we all look at things differently.
 
Last edited:
As I remember, at the time (before Leica made any SLR), many people working for Leica/Leitz felt that they already had a functional SLR in the M/1,2,3 rangefinders fitted with any of several Visoflexes at the time (and today) were/are able to more easily do 1:1 to infinity than any SLR that was and is on the market. I own an Olympus OM2n, like it and use it but for serious macrophotography Macro photography, I still use an M2, or M3 rangefinder camera fitted with a Visoflex 1 and bellows. Any for you unbelievers out there, I can only say "try it, you'll like it"......Regards!
It makes sense. If you already have the M-series Visoflex and other macro bits, why would you acquire the same for Olympus.
 
I find that extraordinary to be honest. I can see no styling or functional similarities between a Nikon F and a Leica rangefinder other than they both take the same film cartridges and are a rectangular box with a lens at the front. While the Leica styling cues on the OM stare at me in plain sight, and have never been denied even by its chief designer. In no way am I saying you're wrong, it clearly just goes to show that we all look at things differently.

Yep, everyone sees things differently. You could certainly be right and I just never noticed it.

However, now I am going to have to get my OM-1n out of mothballs and take a closer look. :smile:
 
I can see no styling or functional similarities between a Nikon F and a Leica rangefinder
I understood Pioneer to be referring to the transition between Nikon rangefinders to the Nikon F, not Leica rangefinders to the Nikon F.
 
I still don' t know why people didn't like the M5, I think it came down to price, thus the CL success.

I've owned only one M-series Leica, a double-stroke M3. But I can tell you why I didn't care for the M5. It was because it looked different from the others. I know, looks is a poor way to determine choice, but that was it for me at least. I much preferred the M6 because it still looked like the M4. Silly perhaps, but that was my gut reaction at the time.
 
Cooltouch, I know, that's the funny thing about the M5, a lot of people just couldn't get past its appearance. I'm like that with cars, and then with time a look will grow on me. That was my relationship with the M5-- I finally bought one and I love the way it handles. Now I like the way it looks too!
 
... a poor way to determine choice ...

You're not alone. There have been cameras that I won't buy or even bring into my house because of their appearance.

Initially I felt that way about Exaktas, but now I've come to love them.
 
It would be interesting to have a poll, asking Leica M film camera owners if they also used 35mm SLR's and if so which one.

I normally shoot a Nikon 35mm SLR with my Leica M6 rangefinder.

Leica M6 body

90mm f/2 Leitz

35mm f/1.4 Zeiss

21mm f/1.4 Leitz

Nikon F2 SLR body

180mm f/2.8 Nikkor



Leica M6 & Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
It would be interesting to have a poll, asking Leica M film camera owners if they also used 35mm SLR's and if so which one.

When I need a pair of small 35mm cameras, I shoot a Pentax ME 35mm SLR with my Leica M6 rangefinder.

Leica M6 body

90mm f/2 Leitz

35mm f/1.4 Zeiss

21mm f/1.4 Leitz

Pentax ME body

80-205mm f/4.5 Marexar--CX



Small 35mm film Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
Hmm. Obviously I screwed up somehow.

I forgot to buy my SLR so that it matched my rangefinder.

Does the Contarex match anything??
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom