Pro photographers that used Olympus cameras?

[mdarnton]

I'm not famous, but when I was a news photographer I carried two M3 Leicas and a pair of OM1s. One Oly lived with the 21/3.5 lens, the other with the 50/3.5 macro. On the Leicas I usually had a 28/85 set. That covered pretty much everything for me. The reason I chose Olympus was that the focus direction and size/weight were similar to the Leicas and the bayonet mounts went in the same direction. I didn't need any of the whiz-bang that Nikon offered, nor the bulk and weight that went with it.

My OM1s were completely reliable. Weight is a simple indicator of weight, not one other thing. The easiest camera to dent, and I have plenty of experience at that, is a Leica. The toughest is something like a Nikon FG. These days I'm using FGs, which ergonomically are a definite step up for the OM1, and tough, tough, tough.

People often have huge errors in thinking about how things work. Weight, metal, and precision do not necessarily make a better machine. I have had more problems with Leicas (I still have three, but don't use them much) than any other camera. My brother, who built his system at that time on Nikon S3s, laughed when I shook his S3 and it rattled, where my M3 didn't. He responded that one grain of sand would choke my Leica, but his sloppy S3 would just push it through and spit it out.

Examples from that time are here:https://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/sets/72157628767257187/

 

[thuggins]

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.

Not to turn this into an SLR vs rangefinder debate, but an OM body with Mr. Maintani's 40mm jewel is smaller and lighter than the 35SP or any of its brethren (with their 42mm lenses). And as often been observed, an SLR will do anything a rangefinder can, but not vice versa.

 

[blockend]

That may be true, thuggins, but if we're judging an SLR system on the basis of a single lens, it would be fairer to compare the OM1 to a fixed lens rangefinder like the XA, at least for size.

 

[foc]

I hope I'm not off topic but I shot professionally with an OM4ti. I covered weddings, studio, and local press work for 10 years with the same camera and it never failed me once. Ok I got it serviced every year, and had am OM10 as back up.
It got to the stage where, on a job I would meet other photographers and they used to try and make fun of me by saying "Here comes the man with the little camera!" The other professional photographers always looked down on a camera if it wasn't a Nikon (press) or Hasselblad (wedding) something I found strange. Did journalists pass comment about what typewriter/ wordprocessor they used?
As always it was the customer/client who decided. My press shots were published, my wedding albums paid for. So the little camera did it's job and I could produce the results.

 

[darinwc]

I still see that now. Pro photographers use big heavy cameras. Sometimes people just have bigger hands and they like the large grips. But I am a little guy and I would think women who have small hands would also like the smaller cameras. I can't even get my hands around some of the single digit DSLRs these days.

Really the Olympus om is a bit on the too small size even for me. But I really love the lenses. And I like how I can store 2 bodies and lenses attached in a small shoulder bag.

Perhaps the reputation of leica and Nikon helped people be accepted as pros.

 

[darinwc]

I don't know if those campy commercial s ever really help a companies reputation. If you have to say "hey we are as good as those more expensive guys" then the general assumption is no, you are not.

 

[benjiboy]

I still see that now. Pro photographers use big heavy cameras. Sometimes people just have bigger hands and they like the large grips. But I am a little guy and I would think women who have small hands would also like the smaller cameras. I can't even get my hands around some of the single digit DSLRs these days.

Really the Olympus om is a bit on the too small size even for me. But I really love the lenses. And I like how I can store 2 bodies and lenses attached in a small shoulder bag.

Perhaps the reputation of leica and Nikon helped people be accepted as pros.

It is a fact Darin that due to the laws of inertia you can hold heavy camera in your hands more still than a very light one, I can hand hold my Canon F1-N's more steady at slower shutter speeds than I can my much lighter Canon A1.

 

[blockend]

It is a fact Darin that due to the laws of inertia you can hold heavy camera in your hands more still than a very light one, I can hand hold my Canon F1-N's more steady at slower shutter speeds than I can my much lighter Canon A1.

That may be true once the camera is at eye level, but getting it there is a different kettle of fish. If you're hoping to catch subjects at 1/500 of a second or quicker, the time taken to get the camera in place is a big deal. I use my professional cameras less than my point and shoot's for exactly that reason.

 

[Xmas]

It is a fact Darin that due to the laws of inertia you can hold heavy camera in your hands more still than a very light one, I can hand hold my Canon F1-N's more steady at slower shutter speeds than I can my much lighter Canon A1.

Think that may be the difference between two Canons and

Independent of inertia theory...

Not germain to pros that used OMs
Some of which you could locked up mirrors, most had dampers, others had low pressure/low travel release, all had low mass low torque shutters.

 

[darinwc]

It is a fact Darin that due to the laws of inertia you can hold heavy camera in your hands more still than a very light one, I can hand hold my Canon F1-N's more steady at slower shutter speeds than I can my much lighter Canon A1.

It is also a fact that due to the laws of gravity, it takes more force to hold a heavy camera, and this induces camera shake.

Cmon now, don't bring science into this without presenting data. Otherwise I can list a thousand counter arguments.

But using you own idea, the weight of a camera is proportional to the slowest speed possible to hand hold...

Can I hold a Pentax 67 for even slower speeds? Is my Leica totally worthless for hand held photography? Or is it impossible to get sharp photos with my XA?

Alternatively, can I shoot more accurately with a 45 pistol than I can with a glock because the 45 is heavier?

The answer to all of these is no. But they don't mean fiddly squat.

There are many factors involved with how well you can hold a camera for slow speeds. And how is that relevant anyway? Are you saying that is the common perception?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It is a fact Darin that due to the laws of inertia you can hold heavy camera in your hands more still than a very light one, I can hand hold my Canon F1-N's more steady at slower shutter speeds than I can my much lighter Canon A1.

Ben

You are cordially invite to spend a day with Xmas and myself walking up and down street markets in London with your Canon F1 in your hand at all times.
Tell me at the end of the day how's your arm.

 

[benjiboy]

Thanks Ricardo but I've done that many times in Leather Lane market and Petticoat Lane and several others because I lived in London for a few years when I was first married. I have three F1-N's and although I almost never carry them all I do quite often carry two bodies and four lenses for a days shooting and I'm almost 76.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

When you visit us, send a PM!
I was at Petticoat Lane yesterday with 3 OMs.

 

[cliveh]

I've always thought Olympus OM cameras are over rated. For a start it's an SLR.

 

[darinwc]

..eye twitches..

 

[benjiboy]

I've always thought Olympus OM cameras are over rated. For a start it's an SLR.

With any extension of hand and eye be it a camera, rifle or crossbow a great deal depends on the skill of the operator Clive, range finder cameras are great but very limited in their practical application because of the limited range of lenses available .

 

[cliveh]

With any extension of hand and eye be it a camera, rifle or crossbow a great deal depends on the skill of the operator Clive, range finder cameras are great but very limited in their practical application because of the limited range of lenses available .

Not if you only want to use a 50mm.