Olympus OM30 . . . or . . . Canon EOS100

aoluain · Sep 1, 2010

Hi All,

I own some Olympus Zuiko Glass, A Pentax 645 33-55
with a Zoerk PSA, and a Sigma 12-24 all used on a
Canon 5D.

I am looking to get a 35mm film camera but I'm torn between
these 2 options [edit: OM10 or EOS100].

I really like the look and reviews of the OM SLR's for
my Zuiko Glass but if I go for and EOS I can use all
my glass.

Is it a no brainer, should I be going for the EOS or are the
OM's a nicer unit to have?

Oh and I have a cheap EOS300 that I bought at a good
price with a batch of film, should I just use that?

Alan

John Hermanson · Sep 1, 2010

Why oh why would you want an OM-10 (or OM-30 aka OM-F))? Loaded with exposure problems, though you might not see all of them with negatives films wide exposure range. Look for an OM-1N, 2N. John

elekm · Sep 1, 2010

If you already have the other Canon film camera, I'd stick with it. And I agree that the single-digit OMs probably are better cameras.

Those later double-digital Olympus OM models were a lot of plastic.

Rick A · Sep 1, 2010

If you are going to consider any Olympus cameras, look at OM-1, OM-2, OM-3, or OM-4. Steer clear of the OM-10, or OM-F, they are entry lever junk, and have problems. The OM-G is an OM-10 with some of the bugs worked out, but still not decent enough quality to warrant spending any money on. If you want manual only, its OM-1 or 3, and auto modes any of the OM-2 versions, or OM-4.

MattKing · Sep 1, 2010

I'm going to disagree with Rick on the OM-G (aka OM-20). I have 2 of them, and they are both capable and reliable. They are also a fair bit lighter than the single digit OM cameras. When I bought mine, they were incredibly cheap.

Avoid the OM-10.

An OM-2 (or 3, or 4) is definitely better than an OM-G, but not as likely to be as inexpensive. An OM-1 is also better, but you need a battery work-around.

If you get any of the OM bodies, it will be tough to resist the temptation to get more ... (I have an OM-1n, two OM-G, an OM-2s and an OM-2n).

aoluain · Sep 1, 2010

thanks for the info all . . .

ok the om10 is off the table.

I not planning on spending too much money
on a body so will go with the om20 possibly.

No one fancies an EOS as an option?

I dug out the 300 this evening and man it feels so
cheap.

Snapper · Sep 2, 2010

I agree, the 300 did feel cheap and plasticky when I had one, but I loved it at the time. I prefer the OM-10.

So what's so wrong with the OM-10? Reading this thread had me pouring through OM2n auctions on Ebay... even though i don't actually need one. The OM10 is pretty small and light - it's even smaller than my Bessa R2a when put side by side.

wblynch · Sep 2, 2010

OM10 may not be the best Olympus but it's a pretty good camera. I have several and have given some to family members and they love them.

I don't see how they're any worse than plastic cameras of the more modern era. Just don't wind them too vigorously.

I get good exposures from mine too. I stick with Silver Oxide batteries for consistency.

Cliffy13 · Sep 3, 2010

I have an EOS100 that I got for free because every 30 or so shots for no apparent reason the shutter stays open for about a second,other than that and I can live with losing 1 shot per roll of film ,its a nice camera to use anmd gives fine results with all my EOS lenses

aoluain · Sep 3, 2010

thanks for the heads up guys.

i think i'll go the eos100 route with an eye open
for an OM2.

thanks for all the suggestions.

Olympus OM30 . . . or . . . Canon EOS100

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency