Olympus v Nikon

[Bob Bibab]

Hello. I am trying to decide whether to go down the Nikon route or the Olympus route for my first film SLR. At the moment I mainly shoot rangefinders and TLRs, both of which have limitations when you move outside the standard focal lengths or want to shoot within a meter. So looking to complement these with an SLR system given their built in flexibility.

I am trying to decide between the Nikon system and the Olympus system. I am not looking to build a huge lens collection. 3-5 primes and I am good to go. The Olympus seems to be cheaper. But some of this is offset by the fact that I used to have a Nikon digital camera and already have a couple of manual lenses leftover (Zeiss 100mm ZF and Zeiss 28mm ZF - mistakes from my early days of getting into this hobby when I had a little bit more disposable income than sense) that I could use on the Nikon body. I can try to sell these, but I don't think I will get more than half what I paid for them, and this seems to make up any price differential between the two bodies and the couple of additional lenses I would look to add (I am thinking a fast 50mm and something super wide). Correct me if I am wrong please.

At the moment the main advantage of the Olympus seems to be size and weight. The Nikon's the build quality. Tell me if I am wrong please.

I was leaning towards the Nikon (given the above explained lens situation) until I read somewhere that the Olympus's mirror design results in far less vibration. Is this true? If so, the Olympus may get an edge as the inability to shoot at low speeds with SLRs was one of the reasons I went down the rangefinder / TLR route in the first place. Does anyone have any experience of this? Is this a noticeable advantage with the Olympus?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Hello. I am trying to decide whether to go down the Nikon route or the Olympus route for my first film SLR. At the moment I mainly shoot rangefinders and TLRs, both of which have limitations when you move outside the standard focal lengths or want to shoot within a meter. So looking to complement these with an SLR system given their built in flexibility.

I am trying to decide between the Nikon system and the Olympus system. I am not looking to build a huge lens collection. 3-5 primes and I am good to go. The Olympus seems to be cheaper. But some of this is offset by the fact that I used to have a Nikon digital camera and already have a couple of manual lenses leftover (Zeiss 100mm ZF and Zeiss 28mm ZF - mistakes from my early days of getting into this hobby when I had a little bit more disposable income than sense) that I could use on the Nikon body. I can try to sell these, but I don't think I will get more than half what I paid for them, and this seems to make up any price differential between the two bodies and the couple of additional lenses I would look to add (I am thinking a fast 50mm and something super wide). Correct me if I am wrong please.

At the moment the main advantage of the Olympus seems to be size and weight. The Nikon's the build quality. Tell me if I am wrong please.

I was leaning towards the Nikon (given the above explained lens situation) until I read somewhere that the Olympus's mirror design results in far less vibration. Is this true? If so, the Olympus may get an edge as the inability to shoot at low speeds with SLRs was one of the reasons I went down the rangefinder / TLR route in the first place. Does anyone have any experience of this? Is this a noticeable advantage with the Olympus?

Actually Olympus's mirror and aperture actuation mechanism causes a lot more vibration than that of Nikon.

I have used Olympus OM gear since I was a kid, and i like it, but I think if I were starting today I would get a good Nikon like an F2AS or F3. Olympus bodies have a lot of electrical problems and many of them drain batteries fast, and the lenses are prone to haze.

 

[Anon Ymous]

If you already have some F mount lenses, then a Nikon body is a no brainer. Just add a 50mm lens and you're fine.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Olympus bodies have a lot of electrical problems and many of them drain batteries fast, and the lenses are prone to haze.

Just want to maybe tone down this cautious post: I think a few of the bodies have issues but I wouldn't say many do. There are likely as many Nikon models that are prone to electrical issues with age. I would avoid any of the models with "program" exposure modes (i.e. OM2s) or the early OM-4 models. I've never heard of issues with the OM-2 or OM2n models, and this is the first time I've seen anyone saying their lenses are prone to haze.

 

[Paul Howell]

As you have Zeiss in Nikon mount I would stick with Nikon. The F3 is a very reliable camera, the F2, all mechanical, When a working PJ I shot with a F, F2, then F3, never had any issues with mirror slap, in some instances you may want to use mirror lockup, cant recall that I ever need to used mirror lockup, then as a PJ I shot action. Seems like you decided on a MF body, but I would give some thought to AF. N90, F100, will take your Zeiss lens, add a Nikon AF 50 1.4, and 85.14 D lens.

 

[Colin Corneau]

As you have Zeiss in Nikon mount I would stick with Nikon. The F3 is a very reliable camera, the F2, all mechanical, When a working PJ I shot with a F, F2, then F3, never had any issues with mirror slap, in some instances you may want to use mirror lockup, cant recall that I ever need to used mirror lockup, then as a PJ I shot action. Seems like you decided on a MF body, but I would give some thought to AF. N90, F100, will take your Zeiss lens, add a Nikon AF 50 1.4, and 85.14 D lens.

This is good advice, from my perspective starting out with Nikon and some 25+ years as a daily photo-J.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I used RF without meter as only camera a lot. Not difficult at all.
Olympus feels flimsy for these days. I have three Nikon SLRs, for very low price.
And Vivitar lenses. Not expensive and focus rotation is same as on Leica RF mount cameras.

 

[Jesper]

I've used both systems extensively and in my opinion you can't go wrong with either. Since you have lenses that fit Nikon I would go with Nikon.

 

[Chan Tran]

Just want to maybe tone down this cautious post: I think a few of the bodies have issues but I wouldn't say many do. There are likely as many Nikon models that are prone to electrical issues with age. I would avoid any of the models with "program" exposure modes (i.e. OM2s) or the early OM-4 models. I've never heard of issues with the OM-2 or OM2n models, and this is the first time I've seen anyone saying their lenses are prone to haze.

If you would avoid the OM-4 and about the only Olympus is the OM-2 or OM-2n. The OM-1 with mercury battery in my opinion is as good as meterless. Even if the OP doesn't already has 2 good lenses I would certainly recommend the NIkon. Any manual focus Nikon except the FA, EM or FG series. Not that those are bad but stay with the more reliable body.

 

[btaylor]

There is a ton of photo gear that use(d) the mercury batteries. I get tired of hearing about the “problem” when there are simple solutions- the simplest being an adapter that uses a long lasting silver cell. Solved! I have multiple OM1 bodies and the meter works fine in all of them.
Nikons are bigger than the Olympus bodies and lenses. I don’t know if that is a factor or not for you. A properly running OM has a quiet shutter and mirror, but I don’t think it produces less vibration. Mirror slap just isn’t much of a consideration in 35mm cameras, it’s the inertia of a larger mirror in a 6x6 that can be a greater issue.
Like others have said, if you already have Nikon nice lenses, might as well stick with Nikon.

 

[MattKing]

I've been using Olympus OM bodies and lenses for 45 years, and heartily recommend them. That even includes the bodies that require more frequent change of batteries - my OM-2s has been a warrior since I bought it new, and keeping a couple of extra batteries on hand is easy, and in recent years when I've owned OM-1 or OM-1n bodies, the battery adapters are cheap and easy to use.
Does the size difference between the two lines matter to you? The OM lenses are also usually smaller than their Nikon counterparts.
That being said, if you like the Nikon mount lenses you have, and like the Nikon film bodies available to you, than I wouldn't recommend against them for you. I just wouldn't like them as much for me.
To provide you with context, my current OM kit includes my favorite three lens kit - 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 85mm f/2 - plus my choice of OM2s, OM2n, OM-G and OM-4T bodies, and a whole bunch of other lenses that I use less frequently.
As far as reliability is concerned, other than a bit of preventative maintenance, my OM lenses and bodies have required a total of one repair in 45 years - a mirror that required re-attachment after the glue failed about 40 years in.
Here is a photo of my OM-2s in 2010, on the occasion of my unloading my very last roll of Kodachrome. It shows just a bit of wear

 

[jimjm]

All good advice given by folks here. I've been a Nikon shooter for a long time and also used Olympus gear for a few years. I had OM-1 and OM-2n bodies and a number of lenses. The OM's had great viewfinders and the size was really nice, but smallest size is usually not my primary consideration.
I sold off the OM system because I never got comfortable with the shutter speed dial around the lens mount, it always felt awkward to me. I much prefer to traditional control layout of most Nikons, excluding the earlier Nikkormats of course. This is purely personal preference, but camera "feel" and usability matters more for me than a hundred grams of weight, or any perceived mirror vibration (which I never noticed). Bodies like the FM2 or FE2 are a bit larger and not much heavier than the OM's, but if you like the feel of smaller or larger cameras, there are Nikons for that as well. Also the cross-compatibility between many (not all) F-mount lenses (MF and AF) and all Nikon bodies up to the latest digital, is something no other manufacturer can offer. I like being able to put an AI'd lens from the early 60's on my F100 body, as well as use an AF-D wide-angle zoom on an FM body.
And since you've already got some F-mount Zeiss lenses, which I hear are excellent, you're already halfway there.

 

[etn]

There is a ton of photo gear that use(d) the mercury batteries. I get tired of hearing about the “problem” when there are simple solutions- the simplest being an adapter that uses a long lasting silver cell.

Isn't the voltage of a silver cell different than the voltage of a mercury battery? like, 1.5V vs 1.35V or so. Some meters designed to use mercury batteries are notably inaccurate when used with silver batteries (which in turn can be alleviated by re-calibrating the meter.) Can't remember which camera(s) was/were concerned, but neither Olympus OM nor Nikon if I remember correctly. More like rangefinders from the 70's.

 

[etn]

Hello. I am trying to decide whether to go down the Nikon route or the Olympus route for my first film SLR.

I hope I will not be crucified for saying this on a film forum:
if at some point you will have an interest in also shooting digital, the Nikon route allows to re-use your lenses with a digital body.

 

[MattKing]

Isn't the voltage of a silver cell different than the voltage of a mercury battery? like, 1.5V vs 1.35V or so. Some meters designed to use mercury batteries are notably inaccurate when used with silver batteries (which in turn can be alleviated by re-calibrating the meter.) Can't remember which camera(s) was/were concerned, but neither Olympus OM nor Nikon if I remember correctly. More like rangefinders from the 70's.

There are adapters that convert the silver oxide voltage, and there are adapters that convert the size of zinc air batteries, and there are ways of converting cameras for modern cells - all are relatively easy to use and/or inexpensive.

 

[abruzzi]

One small comment to make about the Zeiss lenses. I don’t know which one you have specifically, but if they are later models without an aperture ring, you will need a late film SLR to use them like the F5 or F6. I don’t know specifically which models, but just a small FYI.

 

[Bob Bibab]

I used RF without meter as only camera a lot. Not difficult at all.
Olympus feels flimsy for these days. I have three Nikon SLRs, for very low price.
And Vivitar lenses. Not expensive and focus rotation is same as on Leica RF mount cameras.

Not "without a meter". Within a meter. I.e. close focus.

Which Nikons do you have?

 

[Bob Bibab]

One small comment to make about the Zeiss lenses. I don’t know which one you have specifically, but if they are later models without an aperture ring, you will need a late film SLR to use them like the F5 or F6. I don’t know specifically which models, but just a small FYI.

Thanks for that. It's the 100 mm 2.0 Makro Planar ZF 1.0. Has an aperture ring I think. I assume you mean whether it is possible to control aperture manually on the lens? I didn't even know it was possible for them to not have one.

 

[Bob Bibab]

This is good advice, from my perspective starting out with Nikon and some 25+ years as a daily photo-J.

Thanks. I will check these out. But yes, I was looking for a fully mechanical camera. I guess price will play a part. Any thoughts on the FMs v the Fs? I prefer something on the small side. Is there any disadvantage with the FMs?

 

[Chan Tran]

There is a ton of photo gear that use(d) the mercury batteries. I get tired of hearing about the “problem” when there are simple solutions- the simplest being an adapter that uses a long lasting silver cell. Solved! I have multiple OM1 bodies and the meter works fine in all of them.
Nikons are bigger than the Olympus bodies and lenses. I don’t know if that is a factor or not for you. A properly running OM has a quiet shutter and mirror, but I don’t think it produces less vibration. Mirror slap just isn’t much of a consideration in 35mm cameras, it’s the inertia of a larger mirror in a 6x6 that can be a greater issue.
Like others have said, if you already have Nikon nice lenses, might as well stick with Nikon.

All the solutions are expensive and not good.

 

[MattKing]

All the solutions are expensive and not good.

The zinc air battery adapters are inexpensive and the corresponding zinc air hearing aid batteries are both very inexpensive and work very well - not as long lived as mercury cells, but a very similar discharge curve and voltage.

 

[abruzzi]

Thanks for that. It's the 100 mm 2.0 Makro Planar ZF 1.0. Has an aperture ring I think. I assume you mean whether it is possible to control aperture manually on the lens? I didn't even know it was possible for them to not have one.

yeah, most modern DSLR/mirrorless lenses don't have an aperture ring requireing you adjust the aperture from the body, and most 35mm film cameras except the very latest 1990s & 2000s don't give you a way to control the aperture from the body (except for "P" mode cameras but they don't give you a manual way to set aperture.) If your Zeiss lenses have an aperture ring you're fine.

 

[narsuitus]

... I used to have a Nikon digital camera and already have a couple of manual lenses leftover (Zeiss 100mm ZF and Zeiss 28mm ZF ...

I use Nikon film cameras and I use Nikon and Olympus digital cameras. I use a Zeiss 28mm ZF and a Zeiss 135mm ZF lens on my Nikons.

When I need wider, I use Nikon 18mm and 14mm lenses. When I need telephoto, I use Nikon 180mm and 400mm lenses.

Since I need Nikon reliability more than I need Olympus small size, I would stick with the Nikon.

 

[narsuitus]

At the moment I mainly shoot rangefinders and TLRs, both of which have limitations when you move outside the standard focal lengths or want to shoot within a meter. So looking to complement these with an SLR system given their built in flexibility.

At one time, I shot mainly with rangefinders and TLRs. To give me more focal length flexibility, I replaced the 6x6cm TLR camera with a 6x7cm SLR (RB67). If I were in your position, I would consider an RZ67 with built-in light meter.

 

[jimjm]

Thanks. I will check these out. But yes, I was looking for a fully mechanical camera. I guess price will play a part. Any thoughts on the FMs v the Fs? I prefer something on the small side. Is there any disadvantage with the FMs?

F and F2 bodies are quite a bit heavier and larger than the FM's, especially with a metered finder attached. F3 is closer in size to the FM, but still a few hundred grams heavier. The F-series bodies feel more durable, but the FM-series have been proven over time to be very durable.
My chrome FM was my main hiking & backpacking camera for years and never failed once.
The F bodies have interchangeable finders, faster motor drives and manual mirror lockup capability. The FM's have a vertical-travel shutter and thus a faster flash sync speed; 1/250 for the FM2. Also a top shutter speed of 1/4000 where the F2 and F3 only hit 1/2000, if that matters to you. Also, The F3 shutter is electronically controlled, so only 1/90 and B if your battery dies.