Suggestions on replacing system!

[KidA]

I don't know which bodies you have, but there's a good chance that you have OM-4. And in that case, you will hardly ever find anything as light and as versatile. I was in the same position as you several months ago, only I didn't want a telephoto lens, I wanted a unified lens mout for my digital and film cameras. So I subsequently sold my OM-4, OM-1, set of standard lenses and moved to K-mount, because Pentax lenses are high quality and compact (NiCanon are also high quality lenses, but significantly bulkier so I won't even be talking about them. Even if you buy a compact body like Canon A-1 or Nikon FE-2, you'll still be stuck with massive lenses compared to that of OM system). And surprise surprise - There is not a single body on K-mount which will be as compact and as able as OM-4, unless you go for Pentax LX which is significantly priceyer than OM-4. And a bit heavier as well.

The best part? You can buy a Tamron Adaptall telephoto lens for the price of that Pentax LX to happily use on your Olympus body, like many users already suggested. You don't have to repeat my mistakes. OM system is a good one

P.S. I bought a nice OM-2 body for 12$ (the owner thought it was missing a mirror, when really it was just locked up) and I use it for casual walks. Some things just can't be replaced.

Yes, I have multiple OM bodies, all single digit ones excluding the extremely pricey OM3... Maybe one day...

The OM4Ti is pretty much my dream camera (I have two) - the only points against it are non-mechanical shutter (I like to shoot in cold winters) and the lack of aperture readout in the VF. But As I get more and more comfortable with my lenses, I just set to the widest (or narrowest, depending where I want to be) and then count the stops - it turns out to be fairly quick actually. Not to mention the fact that I can use pretty much all accessories on any of the OM bodies I have.

And all the Tamron suggestions are definitely making me think about going that route and not moving away from Olympus.

 

[KidA]

Any 3rd 400-500mm lenses I can use on the OM mount that are not too crazy expensive?

Money isn't as big an issue as is justifying the purchase of a great telephoto lens I will use only a few times a year, if that. If I were to spend (even less) on a new body or two, I have a whole world of great lenses I can rent and will probably be used more (when I want auto focus and super fast operating cameras)

This is very true. I would definitely start getting into getting myself some nice primes and I'll have a lot of overlap... It will definitely test my devotion to my beloved OM kit!

 

[KidA]

The problem with adding another system (or half of a system for a specific purpose) is that you fragment your gear and may end up running two parallel systems (duplicating lenses as you go

This is very true. I would definitely start getting into getting myself some nice primes and I'll have a lot of overlap... It will definitely test my devotion to my beloved OM kit!

Sorry, I thought I had quoted properly on my previous post.

 

[KidA]

I don't know which bodies you have, but there's a good chance that you have OM-4. And in that case, you will hardly ever find anything as light and as versatile. I was in the same position as you several months ago, only I didn't want a telephoto lens, I wanted a unified lens mout for my digital and film cameras. So I subsequently sold my OM-4, OM-1, set of standard lenses and moved to K-mount, because Pentax lenses are high quality and compact (NiCanon are also high quality lenses, but significantly bulkier so I won't even be talking about them. Even if you buy a compact body like Canon A-1 or Nikon FE-2, you'll still be stuck with massive lenses compared to that of OM system). And surprise surprise - There is not a single body on K-mount which will be as compact and as able as OM-4, unless you go for Pentax LX which is significantly priceyer than OM-4. And a bit heavier as well.

The best part? You can buy a Tamron Adaptall telephoto lens for the price of that Pentax LX to happily use on your Olympus body, like many users already suggested. You don't have to repeat my mistakes. OM system is a good one

P.S. I bought a nice OM-2 body for 12$ (the owner thought it was missing a mirror, when really it was just locked up) and I use it for casual walks. Some things just can't be replaced.

My girlfriend uses a Pentax MX but she only uses a 50mm f2. Is it a solid camera and lens. It seems every bit as good as my OM1n with a few added perks that I'm definitely jealous of, like shutter and aperature readout and shutter lock. Doesn't have a mirror lock up tho.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I would suggest the Nikon system based on the F5. There are many lenses to choose from. Just about any Nikon F mount lenses would work except for the new E type lenses and pre AI lenses. Nikon F mount lenses are plenty, Good and bad, New and Used.

+1

 

[M-88]

But As I get more and more comfortable with my lenses, I just set to the widest (or narrowest, depending where I want to be) and then count the stops - it turns out to be fairly quick actually. Not to mention the fact that I can use pretty much all accessories on any of the OM bodies I have.

This is exactly how I used my lenses too. It takes some getting used to (just as well as the shutter speed selector around the lens mount), but in the end, it's very ergonomic.

My girlfriend uses a Pentax MX but she only uses a 50mm f2. Is it a solid camera and lens. It seems every bit as good as my OM1n with a few added perks that I'm definitely jealous of, like shutter and aperature readout and shutter lock. Doesn't have a mirror lock up tho.

I agree, M series bodies are quite compact, although I very much missed the spot meter, so instead went for the camera with AE lock feature. But (and it's a big "but") when it comes to "one camera, one lens" outfit, I always prefer my OM-2 over anything else that I have and I deeply regret parting with OM-4.

 

[CropDusterMan]

DOn't get rid of the OM system if you like it...just add another system. A used F5 or F100 are fantastic. The F100 is small
and has great metering! Again, a used Nikon 80-200 2.8F ED won't be that much on Ebay either. The bonus also is the ability to rent
long glass from local camera stores. Nowadays, we're splitting hairs between Canon and Nikon but during the 90's, the EOS system
was superior in AF performance which the F5 and internal focus Nikon glass cured.

In summary, I'd say buy a used Nikon F100 or F5 and then find a used 80-200 F2.8 ED lens. Teleconvertors are also cheap.

 

[M-88]

DOn't get rid of the OM system if you like it...just add another system. A used F5 or F100 are fantastic. The F100 is small
and has great metering! Again, a used Nikon 80-200 2.8F ED won't be that much on Ebay either. The bonus also is the ability to rent
long glass from local camera stores. Nowadays, we're splitting hairs between Canon and Nikon but during the 90's, the EOS system
was superior in AF performance which the F5 and internal focus Nikon glass cured.

In summary, I'd say buy a used Nikon F100 or F5 and then find a used 80-200 F2.8 ED lens. Teleconvertors are also cheap.

Just out of curiosity: Can't F100 be substituted by F80 in this particular case? I own one and it's significantly cheaper than F100. Aye, it has no rugged body, can't meter with manual lenses and all, but still.

 

[CropDusterMan]

Just out of curiosity: Can't F100 be substituted by F80 in this particular case? I own one and it's significantly cheaper than F100. Aye, it has no rugged body, can't meter with manual lenses and all, but still.

Hi M-88. You know, I have to be honest, I have no experience with the other models of the Nikons, really only the more
"Pro-version cameras". The F100 was an intermediate version, but I loved it! So mall and light compared to the F5.
Regardless of model, I think Nikon has superior metering and flash metering. AF always went to Canon until later
versions circa 1998 onwards.

 

[M-88]

Hi M-88. You know, I have to be honest, I have no experience with the other models of the Nikons, really only the more
"Pro-version cameras". The F100 was an intermediate version, but I loved it! So mall and light compared to the F5.
Regardless of model, I think Nikon has superior metering and flash metering. AF always went to Canon until later
versions circa 1998 onwards.

I see. I've heard a lot of debate about "F100 vs F80". I personally find F80 sufficient and it's got the softest shutter/mirror release of any camera I've ever had, but it's just not my cup of tea - too advanced. I used it occassionally at night, where correct metering is important. Autofocus is adequate.

 

[Sewin]

I see. I've heard a lot of debate about "F100 vs F80". I personally find F80 sufficient and it's got the softest shutter/mirror release of any camera I've ever had, but it's just not my cup of tea - too advanced. I used it occassionally at night, where correct metering is important. Autofocus is adequate.

The old F80, F90, F100 comparism
I'm quite happy with a budget basement F60.
It doesn't have a myriad of settings and controls, which suits me.

 

[Les Sarile]

Yes, I have multiple OM bodies, all single digit ones excluding the extremely pricey OM3... Maybe one day...

I took a chance on one I found one on KEH that was listed as parts only not working. Installed new batteries and it was good to go and still going today. The thrill of the hunt as they say . . .

Anyway, when considering a Nikon system because of look - and I completely understand this perspective, you might also consider the use of your OM lenses on it. As I understand it, unlike the OM lens to Canon EF adapter, the OM to Nikon adapter requires a lens in it to achieve infinity focus. This is not ideal as it will degrade the performance of a good lens since these adapters are usually very cheap.

Anyway, for this special use, I would suggest finding the lens you want to rent at a price you want to pay first then get a body as the second priority. My first expensive lens acquisition was a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L and I didn't even have a Canon body then. I did find a used EOS3 to go along with it shortly though and that combination never had me waiting for focus even in near dark conditions. More importantly, my target never had to wait either. This one on Fuji Superia 400 using the Canon Speedlite 550EX flash.

Me and a buddy were acting the part of paparazzi and positioning these folks around like we knew what we were doing . . .

 

[KidA]

Have any of you used a 500mm reflex lens? Olympus ones aren't crazy expensive... How do reflexes tend to perform? Contrast, sharpness, distortion and aberrations?

 

[M-88]

Have any of you used a 500mm reflex lens? Olympus ones aren't crazy expensive... How do reflexes tend to perform? Contrast, sharpness, distortion and aberrations?

I've never used the original Zuiko Reflex 500 mm f/8, but every other reflex lens I interacted with were poor performers thanks to paper-thin DOF, fixed aperture (f/8 is the only value you really have) and sub-par sharpness.

If you will go with that lens, you're going to have to live with all of the above mentioned, plus a donut shaped bokeh and you'll need the special focusing screen, since conventional 1-1, 1-3 or 1-13 simply won't work with Reflex lens. Perhaps the 1-4 screen will be suited for it, although there's no escape from dim viewfinder and complicated focusing.

 

[abruzzi]

I've never used the original Zuiko Reflex 500 mm f/8, but every other reflex lens I interacted with were poor performers thanks to paper-thin DOF,

I've heard people make this comment, regarding reflex lenses, but is the DoF any smaller than a non-reflex 500mm at ƒ8? or is it just that being fixed at ƒ8 you can't open it to ƒ16 to get a little more depth?

 

[M-88]

I've heard people make this comment, regarding reflex lenses, but is the DoF any smaller than a non-reflex 500mm at ƒ8? or is it just that being fixed at ƒ8 you can't open it to ƒ16 to get a little more depth?

I haven't had a non-reflex 500 mm lens, but the problem is about the aperture being fixed: I can't change the aperture value, viewfinder is signifficantly darker than even f/5.6, I can't use a split-screen focusing and as a result, I often focus in the wrong place and since DOF is shallow, my subject ends up out of focus.

 

[John Koehrer]

Mirror lenses have the donut rings with any specular highlight, reflections on water, any circular/bulb light in the picture.
The advantage is of course, low price.

 

[John51]

A very light body (Olympus OM, Pentax ME/MX) might actually not balance well on the back end of long, heavy glass.

The Zuiko 300mm has a tripod mount.

 

[Les Sarile]

Have any of you used a 500mm reflex lens? Olympus ones aren't crazy expensive... How do reflexes tend to perform? Contrast, sharpness, distortion and aberrations?

I have the Soligor C/D 500mm f8 and it is a lightweight lens.

Three shots using the Soligor that show the DOF and doughnut shaped highlights.

 

[narsuitus]

I have the Soligor C/D 500mm f8 and it is a lightweight lens.

Three shots using the Soligor that show the DOF and doughnut shaped highlights.

Thanks for the useful images.

When first looked at the nine cameras, I thought that the three in-focus cameras were the three shots used demonstrate the DOF and doughnut shaped highlights. Then I thought that each row was a shot. It took me a while to realize that each column was one of the three shots.

 

[Les Sarile]

Thanks for the useful images.

It's not going to win any bokeh awards with that dizzying OOF rendition. But it's lightweight, compact and inexpensive for that focal length and speed.

 

[M-88]

It's not going to win any bokeh awards with that dizzying OOF rendition. But it's lightweight, compact and inexpensive for that focal length and speed.

Excuse my curiosity, but I have seen a great number of photos of cameras taken by you, all aligned for comparison. So I have to ask: are they all yours?

 

[Les Sarile]

Excuse my curiosity, but I have seen a great number of photos of cameras taken by you, all aligned for comparison. So I have to ask: are they all yours?

They are.

 

[M-88]

They are.

Thank you for the information. I'd say you are lucky, but I guess you are more hard working than lucky.

 

[Les Sarile]

Thank you for the information. I'd say you are lucky, but I guess you are more hard working than lucky.

I agree that I am lucky that my wife does not discourage it . . .