• 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 OM1N vs OM2N vs Nikon FM2N

My FM2N just works, always, and it is very old and never had a CLA. If batteries die (current batteries going on a few years already) it will still work flawlessly. OM's were on my list too, but they are usually more expensive then the Nikons (at least when i looked they were) and they are more Nikon lenses available.
 
Just to be sure, this decision is just for your first camera and we're not saying you only have one either . . .
 
Much comes down to how it feels in hand. That's of course subjective. That little bit here and there can add up to a lot in that regard. Even with weight- good balance can make a machine feel lighter in use, or just better in the hand. My first 35mm SLR was a Fujica ST801 in 1974. I bought another one in 1978. Fuji shortened the wind stroke and make some cosmetic changes. But they did something else, too, not reflected in the specs. Specs. were the same, but the balance was different. It just felt better.

Regarding size, a little bit smaller can feel a lot smaller. Some folks didn't like the OM for that reason. Bear in mind also the OM lenses were more compact and lighter, which affected the whole package significantly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. I just bought a Zuiko 135mm and when it came in the mail, at first I didn't believe it was the right lens. I swear it's the size of some other 50mm lenses.
 
My liking for the OM-1 started very early; when I was taking picures of my laparoscopies in OB-GYN. Changing to the Nikon; I have a lens that I just love: the Nikkor-SC Auto 1:1.2 f=55mm S/N 286853. You can even get excellent portraits with it.
 
OM-2N ultra reliable I have found. Love that camera. Any "gremlins" were resolved long before the 2 became the 2N. If wrong batteries were used, (alkaline A76, LR44 or lithium CR1/3N) you could get lockup, shutter errors. 1N is ultra reliable too, all metal, still have lots of parts for OM-1 through 2N. John
 

Aside from the 85/2, the 85/1.8NAI(Ai'd if you're lucky) or the 85/1.8AF is it. The E series 50/1.8 or 100/2.8 are bargains.

Check the lens review/spec lists at www.nikonlinks.com
 
The OM-n line of cameras was intended by Olympus for professional purposes, and they built an entire system of accessories for professional needs...'robust'. Cameras like the Nikon FM and Pentax ME were their response to Olympus' appealing to the amateur market with an affordably priced similarly sized camera, the OM-10. In other words, most other cameras sized like the OM series were positioned by makers for the amateur market so as not to undermine the pro line (Nikon Fn, Pentax LX). The more upscale Pentax MX (than the amateur's ME) was aimed at a somewhat more pro market, but the flagship was still the LX. So the relative positioning had the more compact and somewhat less durable series vs. the rugged more professional series.
 
Post #19.We're now @34! The OP has opted for the Nikon and is now asking about a lens, not more opinion about OM vs. Nikon
 
Except the MX came out five years or so before the LX. Pentax advertised it as a being a professional camera. And both the FM and the ME preceded the OM-10. Also I would not position the FM with the ME- I'd put it with the MX. It replaced the Nikkormat/Nikomat line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A shout-out for the Nikon FM2.

Simple, tough and durable as it gets, and totally manual. Lenses are plentiful, cheap and top quality.

A small, compact camera that will last for decades.
 
Also worth bearing in mind why the MX is wider than all the other Pentax M-series bodies. It uses the shutter mechanism from the Spotmatic (which also appeared in the KM/KX/K1000).

Pentax released the ME and MX at the same time to see which way the market would go. The ME was electronic with aperture priority auto mode, designed to make photography easy while the MX was all mechanical and aimed more toward the professional user. As it turned out the ME sold far more and criticisms of it lacking manual controls were answered with the ME Super.
 
John Koehrer said:
Post #19.We're now @34! The OP has opted for the Nikon and is now asking about a lens, not more opinion about OM vs. Nikon
Click to expand...

+1

Lets talk Nikon ...

Good and affordable Nikon lenses:

20mm UD F3.5 - these are all N-AI so you need to look for AI'd, or 20mm F2.8.
24mm f2.8 - optically very nice lens.
35mm f2.0 - if you can't afford 35mm f1.4 this will do. It is top all rounder (for me).
50mm f2.0 - I have 1.4, 1.8 and 2.
55mm f2.8 Micro - sharp sharp sharp
85mm f1.8 - Non AF lenses are all N-AI. I have AI'd and is a superb lens. Don't get f2 version - it's a dog.
105mm f2.5 - One of the best Nikon lenses.
180mm f2.8 ED - Just brilliant
200mm f4 - Optically excellent lens.
 
+1 for the 105/2.5...a small compact super-sharp telephoto. I have it and the 35/2 (both MF) and they are both razor sharp lenses...usually can be had fairly inexpensively, also.

One of the best things Nikon did was engineer their mount so MF lenses can work on AF cameras and vice-versa (with the exception of the new G series lenses)
 

These are my babies. No faiures since 1983
 

Hey thanks so much for this list, great help. I'm mainly searching ebay at the moment, is there anywhere camera specialist that's better?

Also yeah this is my first slr.
 
hi!
im new on here so pardon my indiscretions pls!

im looking desperately for a yashica tele wide lens kit that came with the yashica electro 35 camera.

if anyone has one for sale, either the whole kit or just the lenses, pls message me on here asap!

its for a present for someone!
 
Any discussion of focal lengths is dependent on your personal subject matter and style. However, I do believe it is a natural law (or something like that) that if you have a manual focus Nikon and more than one lens, one of them MUST be the 105mm.
 
The FM2N is great for 'fill in flash'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register