Pro photographers that used Olympus cameras?

Russ - SVP · Jan 4, 2015

Xmas said:
Hi Ben

They were a lot cheaper as well as lighter, when you are at the S Col looking up at sumit steps, most people have to turn up the Oxygen.

Noel

Real mountaineers don't "carry their courage in their Rucksack" or use supplemental oxygen.

Xmas · Jan 4, 2015

Kiron Kid said:
Real mountaineers don't "carry their courage in their Rucksack" or use supplemental oxygen.

The quote about Everest
'A magnificent mausoleum'

thuggins · Jan 4, 2015

benjiboy said:
I admit I've never owned an OM single number camera but I used to sell them for a living and although they were lovely cameras, small precise and almost like jewellery, I could never see them stand up to the same kind hammering that the Nikon and Canon professional SLR s could take and still work..

An odd comment for a line of cameras know for their remarkable robustness and dependability.

blockend · Jan 4, 2015

Helmut Newton

Vilk · Jan 4, 2015

iirc, looking inside steidl's meiselas retrospective--she runs around nicaragua with one or two in some pics (mostly leicas though)

benjiboy · Jan 4, 2015

thuggins said:
An odd comment for a line of cameras know for their remarkable robustness and dependability.

They ain't no Nikon F or Canon F1.

Ricardo Miranda · Jan 4, 2015

As Noel reminded me yesterday, OM-1 and -3 are manual and so are maintainable.
Any electronic camera isn't maintainable: when an electronic piece fails, you'll have find a replacement that still works or you just throw the whole lot in the bin.
Saying that today I was using a 30 year old Minolta 7000 with a standard 35-80mm zoom, its program flash 2800 linked to the camera by the control grip CG-1000 that makes the humble 7000 look more like a "proper" pro camera.
This month these cameras turn 30 years as they were introduced in January 85.
But, I know if the LCD starts bleeding or a circuit fails, that is a junk camera.

OM-1 might not be indestructible, but they are mechanical and should last a very long time with regular maintenance.

ciniframe · Jan 4, 2015

The premiere tough 35mm SLR is no doubt a Nikon F or F2. That said an OM-1 was no delicate flower and could stand up for many cycles. It was the first compact system 35mm SLR and ticked most of the boxes for me as soon as it came out.

Paul Howell · Jan 4, 2015

ciniframe said:
The premiere tough 35mm SLR is no doubt a Nikon F or F2. That said an OM-1 was no delicate flower and could stand up for many cycles. It was the first compact system 35mm SLR and ticked most of the boxes for me as soon as it came out.

As I recall in the 70s the Air Force, AP and the LA Times all field tested the OM 1, the overall finding was that the the OM 1 did not hold up as well as the F 2. At least for the Air Force the cost of replacing lens drives was also a factor.

blockend · Jan 5, 2015

When I had an OM1 I always admired my friend's Nikkormat. There's no question the 'Mat has a stronger body, but at a massive weight penalty. Also, the Nikkormat's viewfinder was like looking through a telescope compared to the Olympus. Both had shutter speeds round the lens mount. Having owned a few Nikkormat's since then, I prefer the OM1.

flavio81 · Jan 5, 2015

To respond to the original topic:

I recall family friend Malcolm Crowthers, an accomplished pro photographer based in England, using a Nikon F2 body plus two Olympus OM cameras. His website is here:

http://www.malcolmcrowthers.com/

benjiboy said:
They ain't no Nikon F or Canon F1.

Agree. I liked the OM-2 when a friend loaned me one for a week. Solid enough but no way as tough as a Nikon F, Canon F1, or Nikkormat.

I did not let myself get seduced by the big viewfinder. And i did not like having the aperture ring further away from the body. As for the innovative, revolutionary OTF metering, i couldn't care less; the flaw is that you can't see the actual exposure metering by the OTF sensor; what you see in the viewfinder is the metering done through the prism by two CdS cells which have a color response different from the OTF sensor (which is a SPC cell). Boo!! In any case, in-camera meters are for wimps (unless you are a photojournalist, in which case the OM-2 auto mode is a god send).

Nice camera but i have been more impressed by Nikon, Canon, and Minolta bodies.

baachitraka · Jan 5, 2015

I don't under-rate OM-2(n) and in many situations OTF is a bless but I mostly shoot with OM-2sp that have live spot metering.

benjiboy · Jan 5, 2015

ciniframe said:
The premiere tough 35mm SLR is no doubt a Nikon F or F2. That said an OM-1 was no delicate flower and could stand up for many cycles. It was the first compact system 35mm SLR and ticked most of the boxes for me as soon as it came out.

Don't forget the Canon F1 it's one of the toughest.

wiltw · Jan 5, 2015

flavio81 said:
what you see in the viewfinder is the metering done through the prism by two CdS cells which have a color response different from the OTF sensor (which is a SPC cell). Boo!! .

Only the original OM-2 had CdS cells, the OM-1n and OM-2n and later all used the Silicon Blue cells.

flavio81 · Jan 5, 2015

wiltw said:
Only the original OM-2 had CdS cells, the OM-1n and OM-2n and later all used the Silicon Blue cells.

Thanks, this info is important to me !!

MattKing · Jan 5, 2015

The real advantage of the then revolutionary Olympus OTF metering was that it worked for:
1) long exposures, and
2) flash (with the right electronic flashes).

nbagno · Jan 5, 2015

Steve Smith said:
A few years ago when Gordon Brown became the UK's prime minister, David Bailey was photographing him. A government aid asked "Do you use ever use digital instead of film?", to which he replied "No, digital's like socialism - it flattens everything out and makes everything the same".

Steve.

My new signature, thanks.

Xmas · Jan 7, 2015

Hi

Sorry to break anyone's heart.

a} The OMs do have a generic problem but it only happens infrequently.

b) As a practical system they are more reliable than a Nikon F2 system cause you can carry an extra camera and in one fails use the other e.g. Chris Bonington carried two... statistically tolerating any single fault is a big gain. cheaper and lighter...

for a) if the double exposure interlock interlocks (on an OM) don't use force... PM me and I'll tell you the fix.

Ive had my OM1 from '78 not needed any maintenance yet, the prism foam is bad but that happens to DE-1s as well.

Noel

benjiboy · Jan 7, 2015

Xmas said:
Hi

Sorry to break anyone's heart.

a} The OMs do have a generic problem but it only happens infrequently.

b) As a practical system they are more reliable than a Nikon F2 system cause you can carry an extra camera and in one fails use the other e.g. Chris Bonington carried two... statistically tolerating any single fault is a big gain. cheaper and lighter...

for a) if the double exposure interlock interlocks (on an OM) don't use force... PM me and I'll tell you the fix.

Ive had my OM1 from '78 not needed any maintenance yet, the prism foam is bad but that happens to DE-1s as well.

Noel

This logic is flawed Noel, why can't someone carry two or more F2' s ( I'm almost 76 and sometimes carry three Canon F1 bodies which are a similar weight to the Nikon F 2) , because very few pro. photographers are mountaineers and the difference in weight is less important in professional equipment than the mechanical reliability and ability to sustain constant heavy use.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

flavio81 · Jan 7, 2015

benjiboy said:
This logic is flawed Noel, why can't someone carry two or more F2' s ( I'm almost 76 and sometimes carry three Canon F1 bodies which are a similar weight to the Nikon F 2) , because very few pro. photographers are mountaineers and the difference in weight is less important in professional equipment than the mechanical reliability and ability to sustain constant heavy use.

I agree. Nikon F2 cameras are light enough. I don't understand the Olymp-ic obsession with lightness.

darinwc · Jan 10, 2015

You guys need to stfu. You've gone way off topic and are now bickering about nothing. I'm actually quite surprised that the canon and nikon guys are actually teamed up, when they are usually at each others throat =].

So can we agree on a few things?

1. The OM1 was a very reliable, pro-level camera.
2. The OM system was unique for its time with all the features of a large SLR in the size traditionally akin to rangefinders.

-whether or not it is as rugged as the thicker-skinned cameras of its day is a matter of debate. But that should be reserved for another thread.

Thank you all who contributed names of photographers, most of whom I had not known.

Admin: any chance you can lock this thread to prevent further arguments?

Xmas · Jan 10, 2015

benjiboy said:
This logic is flawed Noel, why can't someone carry two or more F2' s ( I'm almost 76 and sometimes carry three Canon F1 bodies which are a similar weight to the Nikon F 2) , because very few pro. photographers are mountaineers and the difference in weight is less important in professional equipment than the mechanical reliability and ability to sustain constant heavy use.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

My logic is perfect Chris Bonnington carried two in the Himalayas on oxygen...
I've only got four bodies today in Coffee shop.

blockend · Jan 10, 2015

The problem for small SLRs like the Olympus and Pentax MX/E, is they could never shrink the lenses sufficiently to resemble rangefinder cameras, because of the mirrorbox dimensions. Some manufacturers did introduce a pancake lens, but it only covered one focal length at the expense of a dimmer viewfinder.

I liked my OM1 because it was relatively small, but the advantage was lost once one moved away from standard lenses. I suppose its real niche was for mountaineers and other weight-obsessed users who needed multiple lenses of longer focal lengths than a rangefinder was suited for.

Nodda Duma · Jan 10, 2015

The OM-1 was popular with astrophotographers during film days because it combined all of the features needed for astrophotography in a cheap lightweight package. mechanical bulb setting, mirror lockup, the alternative bright screen for focusing, right angle viewfinder accessory, and the light weight for hanging off the back of your telescope.

Additionally, used OM-1's on the market were cheaper and in better shape than Nikons or Canons.

People like Covington and others who were well-known in the community used the OM-1.

benjiboy · Jan 10, 2015

Xmas said:
My logic is perfect Chris Bonnington carried two in the Himalayas on oxygen...
I've only got four bodies today in Coffee shop.

I rest my case.

Pro photographers that used Olympus cameras?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency