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

[John Hermanson]

I have owned both the OM2 and OM2n. Of the two I prefer the original model because of its awesome low-light metering capabilities. Read more about this here:

http://www.zuiko.com/index_031.htm

If you don't need more than 3.5 minutes of low-light metering, then the 2n would probably be the better choice, mostly because it's newer.

Best,

Michael

Slight clarification here. The 2N WILL do 3.5 minute exposures (at any asa). It's the plain OM-2 at asa 12 that will do time exposures up to 19 MINUTES. The higher the asa setting, the shorter the low light exposure (plain OM-2) John, www.zuiko.com

 

[Prest_400]

I have the OM1 MD, non N. Great camera, hard that it will fail you.

The 2n has to be a nice one, what I just don't like are the hot shoes. I keep mine attached, and seems that after an hour "running" around, the screw gets seriously loose. Mine is a non-cracked sample and I just hope that It'll resist the T32 that is on the mail.
I don't know if it's because they were more fragile or used more with flash, because the shoe 4 seems to be found always with cracks.

I like the look of the OMs with the hot shoe, without they look weird, In My Opinion. I just keep the shoe on because it just improves the aesthetics. I like the plain 1 contact, it looks sexy
Someday I will go and buy a pair of nice OM1 bodies and send those to John, budget is tight though to not do it now. I hope that John will still be servicing OMs in 10 years (If not, I hope that another repairer taught by him will do), because I still have those years until the end of my student career, where budget is seriously tight.

 

[Miskuss]

I owned the OM 1n and the OM 3 the OM 4 and the OM4T. When the OM 1 first came out it was truly revolutionary for a 35-mm SLR. At least 30% smaller lighter, quieter, a brighter larger viewfinder to boot. Bayonet mounts were not common either. It's intelligent design of having a shutter speed ring just under the lens barrel meant that you could use aperture ring, focus and set shutter speed all with the left hand cradling the lens.

If memory serves me correctly then the OM2 had full frame averaging and OTF. All but the OM 1 were battery hogs, always carry spares, you WILL need them.

My favourite was the OM 4T. With manual control, auto (actually aperture priority) OTF metering, multi point spot metering which could be averaged. It replaced my OM 4 because the OM 4T with it's titanium body was much more durable. But not durable enough, none of the OM's ever stood up well to daily real world use. Admittedly I am demanding on my camera's and do not baby them.

I regretted trading them in for a Nikon F4 but the F4 is still up for the daily grind. I use Nikon lenses and cameras in Blast Trials (explosive trials) and they are routinely hit hard by shock waves, so far no shrapnel (fingers crossed) Currently we use D3's but I love the F4 for it's durability (weighs a ton) but the OM's will always have a soft spot in my heart, I just wish that they were tougher. I do miss the little cameras that made a big difference in 35mm camera design.

 

[Q.G.]

All but the OM 1 were battery hogs, always carry spares, you WILL need them.

Not the OM2 or OM2n.

 

[nsurit]

It is hard to get enough of a good thing. Just picked up a small black OM 1 kit today. The body will be going to zuiko.com for a CLA. The lenses however will not need the CLA. Lenses, you say. Not a bad little kit. Include the 200mm f4, 85mm f2 and the 28mm f2. Lens hoods for each, a 49mm & 55mm Olympus UV filter. T32 flash. Nice kits are still available. Bill Barber

 

[davela]

I own or have owned most of the main OM models: 1, 1-MD, 1n-MD, 2, 3, and 4. The only ones that are keepers for me are the OM-1 models since I will only use cameras with mechanical shutters (they are also delightful gems). While the OM-3 also has a mechanical shutter, but it's not as well made as the OM-1 and it has a complicated metering which is really gimmicky. It is a very valuable camera however since it is a collectible. The OM-2 is OK for an electronic camera, but I still do not think the OM-1 has been bested by later OM models. All OM-1 models can (and really should) be converted to use alkaline or silver oxide cells by a tech if you need the TTL meter. This is easy for any competent repair tech to do at modest cost.

 

[Allan Swindles]

BetterSense, I have been and still am, an avid enthusiast of the OM system. If you buy this OM-2n you will not regret it. It is a superb camera, subject to it's condition of course. However, one thing that might need attention are the light seals and mirror dampers. These cameras are now 30+ years old and from experience, I can assure you that they are quite likely in need of replacement. You should bear this in mind when making your decision, cost in the UK, around £45.00 and well worth it. As to battery issues, by and large, a load of rubbish. Most of the problems with the single digit OM cameras 2 and above, result from wrong battery usage. They require SILVER OXIDE, no other, not Lithium or Alkalines or anything else but SILVER OXIDE. Shame on Olympus for the end of this wonderful system.

 

[BetterSense]

I can do light seals myself. I've already done 2 cameras and still have materials. I'm not sure what the mirror dampers are but maybe I can have a look at them myself too.

 

[Seabird]

the OM-3 ... has a complicated metering which is really gimmicky.

Davela,

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but I'm really suprised at this statement, and would be interested to know why you think the OM-3 metering system is gimmicky

I am an OM-1 and OM-4 owner and understand the OM-3 and OM-4 use the same metering systems. I use the meter on my OM-4 in manual mode - together with a Zuiko 135mm lens - as my handheld meter when out in the field with my 5x4 Technika. The OM-4 meter with its spot, multi-spot and averaging systems is the best I have ever used (although I agree that the shadow/hi-light buttons are arguably redundant in manual mode). The multi-spot capability makes it simple to check shadow and highlight values, and SBR can be read straight off the display. Moreover, its easy to track the impact on shadow/highlight placement when changing aperture or shutter speed once the spot readings have been taken. What could be simpler?

I'm genuinely interested to know why you consider this to be gimmicky?

Cheers

 

[davela]

Davela,

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but I'm really suprised at this statement, and would be interested to know why you think the OM-3 metering system is gimmicky

I am an OM-1 and OM-4 owner and understand the OM-3 and OM-4 use the same metering systems. I use the meter on my OM-4 in manual mode - together with a Zuiko 135mm lens - as my handheld meter when out in the field with my 5x4 Technika. The OM-4 meter with its spot, multi-spot and averaging systems is the best I have ever used (although I agree that the shadow/hi-light buttons are arguably redundant in manual mode). The multi-spot capability makes it simple to check shadow and highlight values, and SBR can be read straight off the display. Moreover, its easy to track the impact on shadow/highlight placement when changing aperture or shutter speed once the spot readings have been taken. What could be simpler?

I'm genuinely interested to know why you consider this to be gimmicky?

Cheers

Seabird,

You have to understand that I am old school conservative photographically. I think all photographers should be able to work without a meter. To me the ideal camera has no meter, or at most a simple TTL meter. I regard anything beyond this basically gadgetry designed to appeal to amateurs and consumers who do not understand the elements of exposure, and struggle to expose correctly. Not to sound too high minded, because of course I am essentially an amateur too, but I was trained in my youth by true professionals and that was their creed and the one I live by.

Cheers, David

 

[Seabird]

Seabird,

You have to understand that I am old school conservative photographically. I think all photographers should be able to work without a meter. To me the ideal camera has no meter, or at most a simple TTL meter. I regard anything beyond this basically gadgetry designed to appeal to amateurs and consumers who do not understand the elements of exposure, and struggle to expose correctly. Not to sound too high minded, because of course I am essentially an amateur too, but I was trained in my youth by true professionals and that was their creed and the one I live by.

Cheers, David

David, I'd misunderstood where you were coming from, so thanks for the further explanation and clarification. In many respects I agree with you.

All the best

Carey Bird

 

[Ken N]

While the OM-3 also has a mechanical shutter, but it's not as well made as the OM-1 and it has a complicated metering which is really gimmicky. It is a very valuable camera however since it is a collectible.

Gimmicky? OK, I'll tell you what--I'm a sucker for gimmicks then. I have the OM-4T and OM-3Ti (with identical metering as the OM-4T in manual exposure mode). Multi-spot and the Hi.Light/Shadow buttons are gimmicks which I happily seek out.

It is unfortunate that the OM-3 and OM-3Ti have turned into "collectibles". These cameras really do offer tremendous value-add to ones photography if a person chooses to use it instead of shelving it.

Ken

 

[Q.G.]

You have to understand that I am old school conservative photographically. I think all photographers should be able to work without a meter.

Ever since photography was first invented, photographers have tried to take the guessing out of the game and develop reliable light meteres.
To me, it is not conservative, nor old school, to think light meters are a bad idea, and things we can do without.

All photographers should know not only how to use a meter, but that they
need one too.
That's old school, new school, the school of hard knocks, and any other school that teaches sensible things.

Talk about understanding the elements of exposure, while at the same time denying yourself precise knowledge of the very same elements, is the school of fooling yourselves.

 

[Allan Swindles]

This discussion is drifting somewhat from the original question. The OM-2n does not have spot/multi-spot, hi/lo light metering but it does meter "off the film" (OFT) which works well enough in the most cases. The camera has exposure compensation facilities to cover situations which do not fall into 'normal' catagories. It is a superb camera and one with which I will never part as long as it remains functional. Buy it, learn how it works and USE IT!

 

[BetterSense]

I have a local deal on an OM2. I'm not sure if I should go for a 2n or not. As far as I can tell the only advantages of the n-model are a flash LED (I almost never use onboard flash).

 

[MattKing]

I have a local deal on an OM2. I'm not sure if I should go for a 2n or not. As far as I can tell the only advantages of the n-model are a flash LED (I almost never use onboard flash).

The 2n is newer. In addition, from Zuiko.com's website:

http://www.zuiko.com/index_032.htm

Matt

 

[Allan Swindles]

That link tells all Matt and has just saved me a lengthy post.

 

[azza]

Yeah, theres not really that much practical difference between the OM2 and OM2n.
However, i've noticed that for one reason or another, the OM2n's i've come across have always been in better operating condition than the OM2's i've had (over the last few years i've owned atleast 6 bodies of each model). I dont know if it's because they're newer, or that the people who originally owned them were different, or it might of just been a coincidence. I kind of thought it was interesting anyway.

 

[John Hermanson]

If considering an original 2, look for the highest serial number you can find, 500,000 or so (assuming high number bottom has not been swapped onto an older body). High serial number 2 production will have the most factory improvements. Any 2N will have all the improvements put into the newest plain OM-2. John, www.zuiko.com

 

[Pupfish]

Never have used any Oly stuff but I do have more than a couple of decades worth of experience with the Pentax LX. The LX will compare with the OM2 and 2n in size, and in the OTF film plane metering. IIRC only these cameras (besides Rolleiflexes) which meter OTF in real time during the exposure which makes them popular for night time-exposures. The LX is only battery dependent for AE,; manual shutter speeds from 1/2000- 1/75 work without batteries, as does Bulb. It also has a very nice system viewfinder with one of the best low-angle/action finders ever made, the FB1/FC1 combination. The LX is more weather sealed.

Either an OM2 or an LX is likely to be decades old and may have issues. My original LX purchased new suffered tremendous abuse for more than a decade before requiring any service. I've also since bought several replacement LXs used and among them have encountered several dogs. So I cannot recommend buying an LX one unless it's Mint and comes with a warranty of some sort. Common LX issues are that the rubber mirror stops degrade and cause focusing errors, the foam at the top of the mirror chamber gets greasy and needs replaced, and the OTF flash sync cord contacts can be problematic. There are also a number of repair parts no longer available new. If you find a good LX, though, it might just become your new favorite camera.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes.

Matt

P.S. Have you ever used any of the OM cameras? The ergonomics are very good (IMHO) but they are relatively unique. If you like them, the ON2n will really appeal to you.

Some might argue for an OM4/OM4T or even an OM3/OM3T. I've never owned one, but would like to .

My OM2s is quite special too.

Any of the OM system cameras were trailblazers for their time.

The OM4 / OM4Ti especially is gem, and is still highly sought after by professionals with a working understanding of shadow/highlight application i.e. modelling, fashion, product photography etc. I owned an OM4 from 1984 to 1987 for lots of overseas travel and its ergonomics and small footprint (with motor winder fitted) agreed beautifully to my small hands. I don't often see any Zuiko lenses up on pro second hand windows, but this is speaking locally; they may be plentiful or rarer overseas, I really don't know. I'd say skip the OM2n (but it is a damned good camera all the same!) and gun for the OM4 and learn with it.

One persistent irritating failing of the OM cameras was cracking/failure of the flash hotshoe. It was always the 'weakest link' and prone to failure, often through imprudent over-tightening, but just as easily from the flash getting a bump during use.

 

[BetterSense]

Since making this post I got a severely beat up ME Super for $15 which I have been using exclusively instead of my Program Plus. I find it slightly smaller/lighter and I like that the shutter is much quieter and smoother, a quality I have realized I value more than I would have thought...it locks up sometimes and you have to take the film out of it and nudge the shutter with your finger if smacking it on the ground doesn't fix it. But I like it enough to keep using it. Between liking the quiet shutter, wanting smallness, and wanting a pancake lens, maybe I should get into rangefinders. But it's hard to find $15 rangefinders after all.

Well I finally satisfied my curiosity about the OM2n with the screaming deal I've been looking for. I got a OM2n with 28mm zuiko for about $40 in pretty good shape.

I have to say that I am somewhat underwhelmed. This camera will be valuable to me because it has what I consider a usable manual mode, a quality I liked about my AT1. I don't consider the ME Super or the Program Plus's manual modes usable for anything but tripod use. Too slow. So that is good, I now have a working metered-manual camera. The shutter speed system seems very usable and not a big deal really; I think it's main value is it's very easy to tell what shutter speed is selected by feel. It is as small and ergonomic as my ME Super, and the film is easier to load than any of my Pentaxen.

The main things I'm upset by are the fact that it focuses backward (canons seem to as well...perhaps Pentacies are the ones that are backward?). This eats my brain. Also, on aperture priority the ME Super's viewfinder LEDs were very valuable in low light. You could easily see what shutter speed was being chosen for you. I find it impossible to quickly see the the automatically chosen shutter speed through the OM2n's viewfinder in low light; a real bummer. A solution I guess is to use manual, since I can feel the shutter speeds. But in that case I can't see the match needle either. Also, the OM2n's hot shoe is cracked beyond usability, so maybe I'm stuck with the ME Super for low light use, and my quest for an all-around 35mm camera has yet to come to its conclusion. Maybe the Pentax LX would be it due to it's needle-matching manual mode that still uses the LEDs, but I think it's a bigger camera. As it is, I kind of need a normal lens for this thing, and I'm not sure whether to buy one or if it's going to be worth it. I'll keep it around for a bit regardless, but I can't see switching systems just yet unfortunately.

 

[Anscojohn]

I had an Om-1n I sold to a friend. Later, I tried to buy it back. Her reply is unprintable. Some time much later, she did end up selling it to a someone else. She once told me the two biggest mistakes in her life were her first husband and selling the Om1. Later I bought a used Om-2--or 2n--I do not remember which. It developed electronic problems and I traded it away.

 

[John Hermanson]

The 2N is a great camera and I think it (along with the 1N) were the most reliable of all the OM bodies. It takes all the motor drives and winders, ahs interchangeable screens, is all metal. Auto exposure range is 3.5 minutes to 1/1000th. In manual mode it handles just like a 1/1N. It might need a little tweaking now along with new foam, but aside from that can be very reliable and is a joy to use. John

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

As a student I owned an OM 10 as my very first camera, then progressed at some time to the OM1n, which suited my small hands perfectly. But the OM system hurt, too: it was expensive (for the optics) and seemingly unreliable in terms of things breaking i.e. the cracking and stability of the flash shoe or the wind-on lever becoming scratchy; the former was an easily replaceable part "way back when" while the latter had something to do with bearings (?). The flash shoe was OM's achilles heel: it certainly isn't an isolated problem but presumably a design/engineering weakness. When the OM4 came out I lined up smartly (1983) and I was smitten all over again...