OM2n...is it as awesome as it sounds?

[Paul Jenkin]

The OM 1(n) and 2(n) work on so many different levels. I was a relatively 'early adopter' in the 70's and used my 1n and 2n for weddings as well as landscapes and general social photography. These cameras were used by the likes of David Bailey and Lord Lichfield for portrait work - in and out of studio - and by many eminent photographers of their time.

They are only slightly larger than Leicas and, in my opinion, a damned sight easier to load / unload in tricky conditions. The lenses are as good as any I've ever owned and I never had any reliability issues. The metering - especially on the 2n was (and remains) excellent and OTF flash doesn't get better.

Unfortunately, I was 'seduced by the dork side' in the mid 80's and went for one of the first 'multi-mode' cameras - the Canon A1 - which was generally fine (but incredibly plasticky) and didn't like rain or being in my rucksack on walks up mountains. I eventually moved on to the T90 which suited me much better as it seemed much more robust and had multi-spot metering - a real boon for weddings, etc.

However, 20-odd years after trading my first Oly gear I've just re-acquirted an OM1 and an OM2n and added a couple of 50mm/1.4's, a 24mm/f2.8, 25mm/f2.8, 100mm/f2.8 and a 75-150mm/f4. I doubt the whole lot has cost more than £250 and it all works impeccably - and fits into a small bag I can carry to work with me.

I've seen references to all manner of gear in this thread but, IMO, there isn't a camera that sits nicer in my hand and with which I feel more comfortable and confident. What've you to lose? If you don't like the thing, you'll sell it to one of the legion Oly fans out there, no problem.

 

[Q.G.]

Now that the OMs are compared to Leica's anyway, it should also be mentioned that the OMs (at least the 1s and 2s) are every bit as quiet as Leica M cameras too.

 

[John Hermanson]

Consider this: a camera with a permanently attached hot shoe will most likely suffer serious top cover damage (possibly requiring entire replacement) where as an OM-1N with T32 flash gets hit, shoe breaks off, you buy a replacement shoe. I've seen this many times in camera repair. John

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I have a shoe for my OM2n. I've used it only two or three times but last time I have looked some time ago - as I was searching for some other stuff in the large box I keep it- I've seen it has cracks. I bet even if you find some new old stock which never has been used, it will have cracks.
Me, I'm fine without hot show. The camera is smaller without. All others may be better off using a cable attached instead of the shoe anyway. The top of the camera has never been the best place for a flash.

Ulrich

 

[BetterSense]

Unfortunately, I was 'seduced by the dork side' in the mid 80's and went for one of the first 'multi-mode' cameras - the Canon A1

It's interesting that you mention the A1 because this OM2 came with a free A1 body (I love craigslist and the digital revolution...I feel like a high-roller). Maybe the seller followed a path similar to you, ending up in digital-land. As for the Canon, it's neat having a full program mode (for the wife), exposure lock, and and the meter goes up to 12,500. The OM2's meter only goes up to 1600, exposure compensation included--which I don't understand since the manual touts the camera's ability to expose up to 2 minutes in low light. The Canon also has nice LED readouts in the viewfinder, but as far as I can tell manual mode is a tripod-only tack-on. I'm sure it was a very nice and full-featured camera for its time, but since the A1 is a bigger camera, to me it doesn't really fill a niche that a later AF camera doesn't. I might as well go for my F801 which has all those features plus a motor drive, AF and matrix metering, and isn't much bigger or heavier.

 

[Ken N]

Honestly, I'm struggling a little bit with the general tone we're exhibiting towards the OM line. "Quaint" and "I remember the good old days when I bought my first OM-1..." seem to be the thoughts here. Inotherwords, the OM line is written off in your own minds as a bit of prehistoric technology that had its day but pales in comparison to today's wonderful cameras.

I've mainstreamed my OM kit. It's my primary PROFESSIONAL camera outfit used right alongside the digital cameras. For the style of subject matter that I photograph, there is precious little that the OM kit struggles with, if at all. Now granted, I've been blessed with the latest versions of the OM line and my oldest camera is the OM-2S which happens to be my very first OM purchase back in 1986, but even at that we have to remember what a camera is. The Nikon F5 might have the world's finest exposure metering system for Auto Mode, but can you identify any camera, other than the T90 which even comes close to the multi-spot metering system in the OM-3/4(Ti)?

Maybe for the hobbiest here, the OM system is quaint. But as a working professional, I see the system as a brilliantly designed system that works the way I want to work. Frankly, today's PASM mode cameras are all a pain in the neck to operate. Not all progress is progress.

End of Rant

 

[Q.G.]

The OM2's meter only goes up to 1600, exposure compensation included--which I don't understand since the manual touts the camera's ability to expose up to 2 minutes in low light.

If it exposes automatically as long as 2 minutes, why would you need a higher ISO?

 

[Q.G.]

[...] Not all progress is progress.

End of Rant

Perhaps a rant (is it?)
Yet all very sensible.

I stopped using OMs, because i stopped using 35 mm format.
If not, i would still be using mine.

 

[nicefor88]

My best friend used a OM2 in the early 80s and I had the chance to take pictures with it occasionnally.
I first compared with my own Nikon FM which I was sure was the best camera in the world (). I found the OM2 a bit too small for my hands but very pleasant to operate. Is was equipped with a 50 f1,4 and a 28 f2,8 which gave very good results.
If you get your OM I'm convinced you'll like it.

 

[BetterSense]

I don't understand the FP and X settings on the PC socket. I've even read the manual and it still doesn't make sense to me, probably because I don't understand about flashbulbs. There is a table in the manual that says you can select shutter speeds up to 1000, but I thought that was impossible because of the slow shutter sync speed?

Here is the manual, the table is on page 33

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...2vpz9pql4_4pEoA0A&sig2=2Qv2n5JYC_N9pnteSuqFaA

 

[Pupfish]

FP is for using flash bulbs with the focal plane shutter.

The FP flash bulb element starts burning shortly before the shutter opens and burns throughout the whole of the exposure, unlike an electronic flash pop that may be anywhere from 1/500s down to 1/40,000 or faster. So, with the long burn time of an FP bulb, the moving slit that comprises a focal plane shutter is not revealed to be a slit at speeds shorter in duration than the X-sync speed. (X sync is the highest speed that both curtains of a focal plane shutter are completely out of the frame). But the effective shutter speed with an FP bulb will often be much slower than a typical electronic flash pop, even used at 1/1000s or 1/2000s. Which may be worth considering before you try to source these rare bulbs-- especially if your intent was to stop action.

Most all pro 35mm cameras since the early 90's have horizontally-oriented, metal blade shutter curtains to enable a faster X-sync speed of 1/250 or 1/300s, much faster than the X sync speeds of the OM2 era cameras that used a vertical slit moving cloth curtain (typically 1/60s). This 2 stop improvement opened the door for daylight-balanced fill flash-- without having to stop down to f/22 with Kodachrome 64 or Fujichrome 100. This slower sync remains, however, a limitation with the older cameras. My Pentax LX with a 1/75s sync was mostly limited to using Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50 for macro work with a flash on a butterfly bracket. As the main light, in dim conditions, the flash worked well at f/16 but in daylight there would sometimes be motion blur from the ambient light creating a double image.

Modern cameras with "FP" settings for electronic flash differ in that they strobe the flash throughout the duration of the moving slit to achieve a similar effect-- except for the strobing part (motion blur may result, with very fast motion like beating insect wings).

Hope this explanation is helpful.

 

[Q.G.]

Flash bulbs need time to reach full output.
So bulbs need to be ignited some time before the shutter starts opening. That's what the FP contact does.

FP type bulbs burn long enough, and with near constant output, for the slit of the "F"ocal "P"lane shutter to travel across the film gate. Hence they can be used at all shutterspeeds.


X is for electronic flash.
Electronic flash 'burns' for a very short time. So the shutter needs to be fully open when the flash is triggered, or else some parts are lit by the flash, while others are not. That limits the fastest usable shutter speed to the fastest speed that still fully uncovers the film.

Electronic flash also reaches full output level the moment it is triggered. So it needs to be triggered when the first curtain has cleared the film gate completely, but before the second shutter curtain starts covering the film gate again.

So both the moment the flash is triggered and the speeds at with you can use either type of flash (and flash contact) are different.


P.S.
Olympus also made an electronic flash unit that, instead of releasing all of it's 'power' the moment the unit is triggered, fires in a series of pulses, that keep the flash's output at (or near enough) the same level for much longer.
With such a unit, you can use all shutterspeeds, not just the X-synch, just like you would using FP flashbulbs.
This flash unit could only be used with the OM 4 Ti (and 3 Ti?)

FP bulbs (and the FP electronic flash unit) should be regarded as continuous light sources (because they are). The aperture you use when using these depends on the shutterspeed you select (and vice versa). Not just on the distance and the flash's output.
Using regular electronic flash units, the flash duration is usually much shorter than the shutterspeed, and only the aperture has an effect on exposure.