Hi everybody, Lately I have been hearing alot about the olympus series cameras and the Zuiko lenses, and was wondering if they are as good as I have been told. To be honest, the last few months I have been thinking about selling my Nikon's (except one, an FE gift from my late granfather, and a couple of lenses)and move to either Contax Aria or Olympus OM 3/4 Ti. And I get more curiouse by the moment. I dont have a specific area of photography, so I could handle pretty much any system, no special needs.

Thanks. D.K.

-- Diego K. (heuristica@yahoo.com), February 06, 2000

Answers

Diego, may I ask you a question? What do you think you would gain with a Contax, Olympus system that you aren't able to do with your Nikon 35mm system?

-- Jim Bridges (jcbejb@worldnet.att.net), February 06, 2000.

To be honest, I dont know. Maybe a change? yes I have been told this cameras may have better optics, but hey I have my 6X6 already. I belive its the curiosity of not having it, and wanted to know why people in this AF auto everything are still faithfull to manual cameras like these, the Leica I understand people I can understand but wanted to know more about the Olympus in particulas they seem very intresting camers.

-- Diego K. (heuristica@yahoo.com), February 07, 2000.

I've had an Olympus OM4 (not OM4ti) since 1985 and still use it regularly today. It is a solid, well built camera with a superb spot metering system which still feels good 15 years on. The Zuiko lenses are good but probably nothing special by today's standards. Frankly, my cheap and cheerful Canon EOS 300 (aka Rebel 2000) out performs the OM4 in most areas i.e. lighter, AF, built-in winder, matrix metering, superior flash with high speed sync etc.
For landscape work the OM4 is a joy to use with its multi-spot metering, DOF preview and bright viewfinder. It has no mirror lockup but does have mirror pre-fire on the self timer. I also like using the OM4 for macro photography. However for portrait work and moving targets a modern camera with decent AF beats it hands down.
If you still want one I'll happily swap mine and half a dozen lenses for an EOS3 and 28-135mm IS...
Did I mention the OM4's excellent spot metering? Yes, I think I did.

-- Chris Breeze (chris.breeze@iname.com), February 08, 2000.

I use two 35mm SLR systems: nikon, which I bought into a couple of years ago, and Olympus OM's, which was my first real camera (an OM-1 MD in 1977 or so). I have had one or another type of Olympus ever since.

The OM-4 is a great camera, though it is overpriced to buy new. It is a fine system. It's optics are terrific. If I am going hiking or on an extended jaunt (or even sometimes just a walk in the park), I take the OM-4 rather than a Nikon -- it is small, much lighter and highly durable. It has a good macro system. It's metering is exceptional. In its day, it was a total competitor with other pro-level manual focus systems.

But it's flash system is not nearly as sophisticated as modern Nikons. It's range of lenses is not as big, and they are more expensive for similar products. It's not as quick to use as a modern Nikon. I don't think that Olympus cares about making pro cameras anymore; they keep this and the OM-3 as a flagship, but there are constant rumors they are going to dump the OM line in favor of their vastly more profitable. They haven't had a good new lens in a long time, with the exception of a very expensive zoom. It's flash system -- early on, one of the more sophisticated TTL systems -- now looks pretty antiquated by Nikon or Canon standards. I've seen it called a cult camera on photo.net.

I'd recommend this system if you buy used stuff and have a specific reason for wanting its features -- small, light, pro-level manual focus. I won't get rid of mine. But if you are really looking to buy a camera that is part of a good, big versatile system, you need to think Nikon or Canon. If you do get it and don't get feature-envy, you will be very, very happy.

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), February 11, 2000.

An OM-1N was my first SLR, and I would have stayed with the OM system if Olympus had continued to develop it. The cameras and lenses are wonderfully compact and relatively light. The unusual shutter speed control at the base of the lens barrel encourages a good cradling position when hand-held. Although modern optics are supposed to be better, I've never been disappointed by Olympus lenses, even while shooting mostly Kodachrome and projecting on a 50x50 screen. At a reasonable viewing distance, the results are great.

Nevertheless, I decided I couldn't stay with a system without (1) autofocus and (2) a full line of reasonably priced new equipment. You can probably find used examples of every lens Olympus ever made, but it is more trouble to look for them and make sure they're in good condition than to call B&H or go to a good local shop. I wound up essentially switching to Nikon, without selling the Olympus gear.

Olympus SLRs can be very attractive but, unless you are into astrophotography (where the light weight, lack of battery drain from keeping the shutter open, and the reliability of old OM-1's still attract new users) it is probably more reasonable to stay with your Nikon system.

-- Hector Raul Javkin (h.javkin@ieee.org), February 11, 2000.

Diego, I'll take a shot at the Contax part of your question. I WAS a diehard Contax shooter for 10 years. I sold all four of my bodies and all 9 of my lenses to buy into a Nikon system in 1998. I do not regret my decision at all. Nikon & Canon's top lenses are as good or better than my premium Zeiss lenses this included my past beloved 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and 300 4.0. When you buy Canon or Nikon, you (believe it or not) get much more bang for your buck.

On my home page http://home.sprynet.com/~bt_photo I've got a thorough discussion regarding the rationale of our switch.

regards bruce

-- Bruce Leventhal (bt_photo@sprynet.com), February 12, 2000.

If you are still soliciting answers... I have done something of the reverse of what you are considering and the decision entirely depends upon what you are looking to achieve. I had an Olympus OM 10 as a starter camera, then an OM 1, and more recently a Nikon F 70. You can't beat the latter for convenience and versatility. Then I got the bug again for a maual camera without so many bells and whistles as the Nikon (some of them completely useless). While living in Ukraine I bought a new fully manual Kiev 35mm SLR for $70. It reminded me how much fun a simpler camera can be. Again I turned my thoughts to Olympus and bought a (used) OM 2N - - a great manual, mechanical camera with a semi automatic aperature preferred feature when desired. It is art in a camera - - beautiful in its well constructed simplicity, light weight and durable. My advice: don't sell the Nikon, but buy an Olympus for when a more simple shoot is the order.

-- H. Alexander (hayslin@compuserve.com), March 03, 2001.

I have had an OM1n for 20 years. After many thousands of shots it still works like new. Simple, lightweight, works without batteries, and is absolutely bullet-proof.

I have had an OM4 for about 10 years. I bought it used so I don't know its exact age. A wonderful camera with one problem...it goes through batteries very quickly...if I leave the batteries in for a week they will be dead. I understand that this is a common problem and expensive to fix. Except for the inconvenience of removing my batteries when I finish shooting this is a great camera for all the reasons the other responders mentioned. If I could only keep one of the cameras, I'd pick the om1.

-- nocte volens (nocte_volens@yahoo.com), May 01, 2001.

I agree with Nocte. I too have owned an OM-1n since the early 80's and will keep it from now on. I have bought several good used lens' for it, and my used OM-2n, with some success. I am especially happy with the 50mm Macro lens for flower and plant studies. I hope to find a view finder diopter that will mitigate my presbiopia. As I get older I find it harder to focus, especially on distant subjects. Also looking for adaptors for telescope / microscope.

-- Jim Schreiner (jschrein@xpressweb.com), May 02, 2001.

I have three OM bodies (OM-1n, OM-2S and OM-4) and a dozen lenses for them ranging from an 18mm to a 300mm. Been using the OM system for 21 years. The system is small and lightweight compared to its contemporaries. The higher end, newer Zuiko lenses are excellent overall. As with any system, some lenses are better than others, and sometimes it depends on how you define "better" (as in better "at what"). I disagree that the lenses are more expensive. If anything, it's the reverse. The current lenses are professional grade; you cannot compare them or their prices to consumer grade lenses. The same applies to the prices for new OM-3ti and OM-4ti bodies.

Modern polycarb bodies just do not feel right in my hands. The motorized integral winders and AF systems consume batteries quickly; some are rather expensive. With the exception of the OM-1[n], the rest of the "single digit" pro grade bodies take a pair of SR44W silver cells; easy to find, inexpensive, and they last much longer.

The most extensive bells and whistles are found on the OM-3[ti] (mechanical shutter; no AE mode) and OM-4[ti] (electronic shutter; has AE). These have multi-spot metering and highlight/shadow compensation. That's one of the beauties of the system, its basic simplicity.

The OM-1[n] and OM-3[ti] bodies have mechanical shutters. This means you can continue to use them in severe cold (below zero F). Other bodies with electronic shutters poop out because their batteries are too cold. Below about +20F it typically occurs in less than an hour; often half that or less. Been there; done that; it's why I have an OM-1n. Yes, the meters won't work properly, but learning the "sunny 16" rule and compensation for less than clear sunny sky isn't that hard, and it's certainly better than *no* camera.

I won't claim it's better than a Nikon F3 or the Zuiko's are better than the pro grade Nikkor AIS lenses. I will claim the system performance, reliability and durability is on par with it. Which you choose is a personal decision about the body features, types of lenses and optical characteristics you want. There are a half-dozen (or more) aspects of a lens to consider in its overall performance.

-- John

-- John Lind (jlind@netusa1.net), June 10, 2001.

Here is a review you should find useful...

http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/jul-dubler99.htm

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 10, 2001.

I am a recent convert to the Olympus OM 35mm SLR system, the SLR cameras which I have used in the last 20 years include Minolta MD, Nikon MF, Canon EOS, Olympus OM and Leica R. Presently I find the combination optimal, the Leica R bodies does the general shooting outdoor while my OM does indoor existing light, macro and difficult lighting conditions.

The OM-1 without the detachable hot shoe is just slightly higher than Leica M rangefinder bodies by its' finder prism (about 2.0cm higher) but allows me to manually focus more accurately with far greater accuracy.

The Pros of OM system IMHO are as follows :-

(1) Compact and Lightweight The OM-1 is about Leica M size but without the price tag of any Leica M body. (2) Reliable Particularly true with the OM-1s,3, 3Ti & 4/4Ti) but I would avoid the OM2 series EXCEPT the OM-2SP. (3) Excellent eposure control and metering accuracy (OM2,3(Ti)and 4 (Ti) (4) Excellent flash subsystem. For daylight sync the OM3Ti and OM4Ti could sync up to 1/2000s in FP TTL mode with a Olympus F280 flash unit. The OM3 goes full shutter speed range 1-2000 second TTL! (5) Affordable Most items are affordable if you care less about the cosmetic but should avoid mint or new ones. (6) Strong in macro & flash photography

The Cons (1) No future development in OM system foreseeable. (2) Secondhand prices too prohibitive for mint and certain items like the OM Zuiko 40/2 and the 3Ti BUT there's always other cheaper and better alternatives within the system and outside of it (3) No AutoFocus (a handicap especially if your eyesight is bad. (4) Average performing zoom lenses except for 35-80/2.8 and 75- 150/f4

Stil the OM series cameras are above average cameras but IMHO you'll have to use one to be convinced that they are really great cameras.

IMHO, the design concept behind the OM system is very functional and it is a camera system designed by an avid photographer (Y. Maitani the chief OM architect) for photographers.

-- Alan Cheong (cheong_alan@hotmail.com), November 30, 2001.

It seems that after more than a year I still recive responses to this question, My fault, I never gave it a proper ending.

So here it is: I kept Nikon, Nowdays F4 and Fe with 50 1.8 and 105/2.5. 2 reazons:

1.The Fe was a present from my granfather, and is a camera I´ll keep.

2.I mostly work on 120 now, and the 35mm is just when I really have to, so I preffered to spend the money on a 120 system instead of another 35mm.

Thanks for your replys Diego K.

-- D.K. (Heurisitca@yahoo.com), November 30, 2001.

Well i would like to open it up again...I have been doing my current photographic adventures with nikon f3hp. No complaints until i find myself wanting to take it with me everywhere and its metering range (1-18 ev)i.e. night photography. This is when i look for a basic and compact SLR. From what i hear the om 2n would be great for a camera i could carry with me daily. Its dimensions seem greatand the meter can hit -5 ev !? I find it the same as the om 1n when on manual but auto (quick street photography etc.) when disired (when specs are compared). If anyone could contribute any experience or comments they would be greatly appreciated thnx "shooting a roll a day will keep the rust away"

-- ryan martin (rsmiom@aol.com), January 14, 2002.

I have had a Om system for one year now, OM2, OM4, plus lenses ranging from 21mm to 300mm. I also had 2 Nikon systems in the past : F2, then 801S AF and a Contax 139 which was unfortunately stolen. Of all these systems, the OM is my favorite. Feels great in hand, well-designed, reliable, looks good, very compact.

Recently, I pulled out pictures made with the Nikons and Contax and compared them with more recent shoots done with the Olympus. What is consistently remarkable is that the zuiko lenses seem to be more "German" than Nikon. That is, they give a mix of high resolution and softness that I associate with Leitz or Zeiss lenses rather than Japanese lenses. In the comparison, it was much easier to identify the Nikon lenses than to tell the zuikos apart from the Zeiss. If you have ever looked at pictures made with a Zeiss or Leitz system and envied the result, than you should definitely give Olympus a try. Not that Nikon lenses are bad. But they tend to produce "warmer" colours and halftones that I feel are a bit cruder, with the advantage of slightly higher contrast. For me, the main advantage of Olympus is to approach the characteristics and style of german lenses at a fraction of their cost, all in a remarkably compact and ergonomic design.

-- Pierre Arnaud (parnaud@noos.fr), January 16, 2002.

Pierre Arnaud: what you said is exactly the words I have been searching for for quite a while.

What puzzuled me is the picture taken with those German 'Zeiss' lens with Hassy, Contax or other bodies. The color, the contrast, the sharpness. It is a pure pleasure to look at those pictures even with mediocre composition.

I noticed Olympus is one of the Japaness camera which can generate similar quality picture. I thought it would be Nikon or Cannon, but it is Olympus. I own a Nikon system with F4s and some of the f2.8 pro level lens. I am still searching for a camera system which is able to take "German" like quality picture, BUT without "German" price tag. Olympus may be the one.

-- Harry Cui (hpc60061@yahoo.com), January 19, 2002.

I understand that on Thursday Olympus announced that it is withdrawing OM System SLRs from sale. The following post to NikonMF contains a pointer to Olympus's official press release (in Japanese):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/22901

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), January 19, 2002.

Just thought that you would all like to know that Olympus have announced on their American website that the OM system is to be discontinued..... so snap up those superb (and expensive) macro lenses now!

-- Norman Day (n.day@bham.ac.uk), January 25, 2002.

Just to say that I have used since 1982or3 an OM1n body for astrophoto with my telescopes. A great classic.

I bought Canon EOS (300 then 5)cameras in 1998 and a trans standard 24-85mm. In the same time, I also found used lenses for my 2 Om1n bodies, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 (the only one which has some haze in its coating, and oil on a slightly sticky diaph blades), 135/2.8, 180/2.8 and 300/4.5.

Well, the fact is that today I mostly only use my OM1n + 24 (landscapes) and 300 (sunsets). They are much lightweight (of course you know this) and so simple to use (the Expert Mode on modern bodies!) that I finally consider all the super techno stuff on new SLR not usefull to take nice pictures. The only + on modern SLR in the auto focus when speed in the point. I agree it can be important depending on your activity.

I also have a used Sigma 16/2.8 fisheye, a bargain (200us$) with respect to any (even used) fisheye for EOS.

A pity OM will (slowly) disappear.

I'm just travelling in South America. With my OM gear. EOS cameras wait for me in France.

Luc

-- Luc ARNOLD (arnold@obs-hp.fr), February 16, 2002.

Well, Its been 2 years since I asked about the olympus OM.

I found it by accident when looking for OM info (Still!!!)

In this 2 years, I kept using Nikon, with assorted lenses from 17mm to 180mm. And a Mamiya 6MF for 6x6.

Today I put all my Nikon Gear on sale, after seeing it gather dust in the closet, and havent done more than 20 films in this 2 years, 6x6 is my format.

The re-interest in the OM system, came back to me after seeking a Small camera + 50/1.4 to go in the bag with the Mamiya, it has to be as small as posible (My F2 is way too BIG), and good quality and cheap so I dont care throwing it around.

I wanted a OM1n, but it uses those mercury batteries, so I´ll settle on the OM2n with a 50/1.4, small enough for the bag.

So thank you very much all who responded Diego K.

-- Diego K. (Heuristica@yahoo.com), March 27, 2002.

I own an OM4 for the past 10 years,it`s been to some most rugid places such as PERU, PAKISTAN ,INDIA other places it`s been through mud,rain and all the elements you can imagine.It still works perfectly well with the same results as it was new,to tell you the truth I would not exchange it with any other new camera

-- anthony camilleri (twamar@maltanet.net), May 26, 2002.

I have been using Olympus OMs since 1973 starting with the OM-1. Great camera for learning photography. Upgraded to OM-2N in 1980 and have been getting great photos with it in combo with Zuiko 24/f2.8, 65-200/f4 and 90/f2. Sold the 35-70/f4 as it didn't have a practical zoom range. Used Tamron, Vivitar and Sigma but sold all those when I acquired Zuikos to replace them. Wanted an OM-4 when it came out but could not justify the price, then in 2000 I bought an OM-4T on ebay and picked up a few great Zuikos on ebay also: 28/f2; 300mm/f4.5 and 50mm/f1.4 to replace my original worn out 50mm.

Bought a Canon EOS Rebel G to try out autofocus feature. I found myself using the OM-4T and Zuikos because of the excellent spot meter. Since Olympus has not come up with newer general purpose zooms (the 35-80/f2.8 is excellent but outrageously expensive and 35mm is not wide enough)I bought a Tokina 28-105/f3.5~4.8 which I use most of the time except night shots that require the fast Zuikos.

Just got a Nikon F100 and Nikkor 28-105/f3.5~4.5 on ebay to have something more modern. Autofocus is fast with respect to the Canon Rebel G, but I suspect the cheaper Nikons are slower too. Nikon's TTL flash metering works great especially with macro shots. The F100 is larger and heavier, but more compact and lighter than an OM camera with motor drive. Zuikos are still smaller and lighter than Nikkors.

Love the F100 and it is the first Nikon I consider worthy of replacing my OM-4T. Previous Nikons did not appeal to me because of the weight, noisy autofocus with limited AF performance and lack of spotmeter. Will still keep the OM-4T because of the low vibration. The F100 has a lot of shutter/mirror recoil and does not have mirror/ aperture prefire.

I highly recommend the OM-4T or Ti - they are the same. Olympus rebadged it with Ti in 1995 to be consistant with the OM-3Ti launced the same year. OM-3 stopped production for a few years prior to 95. The T or Ti cameras do not have the battery problems you read about with the OM-4; they improved the internal circuitry.

The downside is Olympus announced on their website that they will discontinue the OM cameras next year 2003. So get the components you want now. Skip the T-32 flash as it is obsolete. I use a Metz 40MZ-1i with SCA 321 adapter. If you really need the Hi-speed flash sync speed to 2000 sec shutter, get the Metz 54MZ-3. Unfortunately, you can't get modern zoom lenses - that's why I switched to Nikon. Tamron still makes a few Adaptall-2 lenses and OM mounts can be found new and used.

I don't see any advantage of switching to a Contax Aria. since you have Nikon lenses I would stick with Nikon - which models do you own? I almost bought a Nikon N80 but it won't provide any metering with non CPU lenses; the F100 does. Another reason is the F100 takes AA batteries; you have to spend another $80 to buy the AA batter holder for the N80.

Email me if you have questions on the OM System.

Hong

-- Hong Toh (quadrifoglio@copper.net), May 26, 2002.

I have been using Olympus cameras (om3s) professionaly for 15 years they have been great if they earnt only £3000 per year that £45000 not bad for a £300 body. Very sad to see that OM system is now to be dicontinued. I bought a Canon eos 3000 for fun a year or so ago and have been amazed at the technology . Now I am changing over to Canon all rather expensive but follow focus auto bracketing etc etc means less film and more useable shots but I bet none of it will last so long. The end of an era for me.

-- (simon@cookphoto.com), May 29, 2002.