Is the OM-1 equivalent or better than srt101?

<p>Now that I see the Konica from the top I can easily see it's a T2. I have two black T2s. One has the standard screen and the other has a Nikon 'E' screen. For most situations I prefer an X-700 but it's nice to know I have working SRTs. I feel the same way about my Canons. My only electronic Canons are the A-1 and F-1N. The A-1 has some interesting features but eventually it will be unrepairable while my F-1, F-1n, FTbs and FL mount bodies will still be working. My two Nikon FEs and my FE2 show that eventually electronic cameras did become more reliable. If they don't work I have enough Nikkormats and Nikomats to sink a ship, as well as an F2. For many years my favorite Konica was an FT-1 which also has a Nikon E screen. It will soon be repaired but in the interim I have an FT-1 with the standard Konica screen and I have started to use a T2 and a T3N again. Earlier this year I found a 50/3.5 Mamiya macro lens in ZE mount. My first attempt to get a Mamiya body for a low price was not entirely successful. I got a ZE body with a 50/2 Mamiya lens for $10. So far I can only get it to work at the 1/90 manual speed. I don't think a fully mechanical ZE series body was ever made but I will look for a ZE2 next. </p>

<p>Bummer, Peter</p>

<p>Great thread. Lots of info I didn't know. I've used and owned both. I had an OM system for 20 years. I've owned 2 OM-1ns, and an OM-2 s which I had for maybe 2 years because it developed a battery drain problem. AVOID the Electronic OM series! <br>

I agree the OM motor drives all have short circuits. I had two and both are trashed. The lenses are good, some even great! I never saw any "waxy caucasian flesh tones". Well, maybe one of my ex wives. ;) Ergonomics of the OM series are a bit weird; the shutter speed dial is just behind the lens focus ring and must be changed and rotated with the left hand. I agree the SRT 101 Shutter speed being visible is very handy.<br>

I'd have to recommend the SRT 101. The SRT series are one of the sturdiest around, and the meter on the Minolta is way more accurate then the Olympus meter. There is a unique and even stunning quality to the early Minolta MC lenses that I cannot quite define. Of all the Japanese lens companies, Minolta came closest to matching the German Optical look in color, bokeh, and contrast. They remind me of the Zeiss Jena lenses I use on my Exaktas. The SRT viewfinder is brighter and superior to the Early OM-1n. The commonly available Minolta 58mm 1.4 standard lens is a gem, and rather easy to repair if the aperture blades get stuck. <br>

If you have small hands however, then the Olympus might just be for you. But I can't recommend the Minolta SRT series more highly....I usually grab that over my Nikon FM2 because of the lenses.</p>

<p>I'm a Nikon shooter but the OM-1n was always a great looking camera to me. Lenses were scarce in the used market because people held on to them. The Minolta SRT-101 is a classic that will never die. Well made, optics that were top of class, and a large number of users mean these cameras are easy to find and easy to get worked on. I'd go for the SRT over the OM, as much as I like the looks of the OM series. Olympus really nailed it with the small design, Nikon tried to compete with the FM and FE bodies, but they didn't quite match the look of the OM series. I had a Nikon FE2 for 13 years beginning after high school and loved every minute of it.</p>

<p>One of the main differences is ergonomics. The Minolta has standard size, weight and control locations. The OM-1 has unusual shutter and aperture control locations which I find highly ergonomic, but which many dislike. The size or even lightness might put you off. Some people just don't like the small size; I like it, despite not having small hands.<br>

Some don't like the Minolta's blockishness. I have no problem with it. Just a personal thing for each to decide. I like both cameras- they're different, that's all. The best thing is to try both. That's the only way to know. For example, I always liked the Nikon F2 with plain prism, but did not like it nearly so much with the Photomic finder. I never cared much for the Nikkormat either, and much preferred many other cameras to it. When the original FM came out, I thought I would really like it, but though it felt great, I didn't much care for its viewfinder.<br>

Things are subjective. Back when those machines were still being made, it took me a while to understand that no matter the reviews, it was what worked for me that mattered. Specifications only go so far. As the machines are quite different in many ways, I suggest you check them out. You might immediately know that one of them is the one for you, or know immediately that it's not. You might end up wanting to try something else.<br>

If there's a camera show/swap meet coming up in your area, you're likely to find both there, along with many others of about the same vintage.</p>

<p>Would it be a sacrilege, if I suggested a Nikon FM, instead of the SRT or OM-1?</p>

<p>I'm a proud Nikon user form a very beginning almost 50 years ago. But I own Olympus OM-1s & OM-2s. If I going out to shoot b&w I load a roll of Tri-X to my Olympus OM-1, one with a 35 or 28mm lens and the other with a 100 or 135mm lens and happily shoot around with those two little jewels.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What exactly is mirror lock as in how is it advantageous and how important is it? Also does the OM-1 have it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When you fire the shutter on a SLR, the mirror flips up out of the way so that the image you see through the viewfinder is directed to the film instead of being reflected up to the viewfinder prism. Mirror Lock Up (MLU) simply lets you lock the mirror up and out of the way after framing the shot and focusing so that you don't get the vibration caused by the act of the mirror flipping up. It is something that you would generally only use when the camera is mounted on a tripod. As to how important or advantageous it is is basically up to individual opinion. The OM1 has it and the SRT101 does as well.</p>

<p>I have several OM system cameras as well as a couple SRT models and I don't think there is much difference between the two other than what has been stated before. Size, ergonomics and price. The SRTs are larger and a little heavier but the OM's controls are not in what is considered by most to be in the "normal arrangement". If you are not used to one or the other the arrangement of the controls probably won't matter to you anyway. Both cameras are solidly built and easily repaired if needed. The OM series bodies and lenses seem to sell for bit more than the Minoltas.</p>

<p> I find the OM bodies and lenses to be jewel-like in their construction and I think the cameras are just beautiful. I'm currently putting a roll through a black OM-2n to see how it performs. I've used the all-mechanical OM-1 with outstanding results and find it most enjoyable to use. Having said all of that, I'd choose my SR-T 102 over the OMs almost every time. It's accurate, reliable, and pretty rugged. On top of that, it feels wonderful to use and is laid out magnificently. It's also a fairly easy camera to do basic repairs on. Even better than this camera though, at least in my opinion, is the Minolta XD11. It's about the same size as the OM bodies but has a lot packed into it including the choice of aperture-priority, shutter-priority, and an auto-program mode of sorts. The metering is very accurate--I believe the meter takes another reading just as the lens stops down to make the final exposure; don't quote me on that and someone with more knowledge can say if that's right or wrong. I also like the Pentax MX but don't yet have enough experience with mine to be able to fairly compare it to the others.<br>

Between the two systems you identified I'd choose the Minolta over the OM for the reasons stated, and because the lenses are a lot cheaper. Above all though, in using the SR-T series of cameras, particularly the SR-T 102 in my case, you'll find that they are very high quality cameras with a very well thought out layout and superb performance.</p>

Andy is correct about XD metering. In shutter priority it does take a second reading as the lens stops down as shutter is

released. The advantage is that if the diaphragm is slow to stop down it will take a reading at the actual aperture. It will

also shift the shutter speed to avoid overexposure. If battery dies you still have a mechanical 1/100 second plus B.

<p>Peter - Great information and insights. But I must quibble with your description that the Konica "T3 just feels more cheaply made to me..." I find the T3 to be tank-like in construction with a shutter that feels like an F2 in its silkiness. The full-info VF (like the SRT 102) is a plus, and it has the best (simplest) multiple exposure switch of any clockwork camera I've seen. Perhaps you were thinking of the T4? </p>

<p>The T4 was comparable in build quality to the TC. Which is to say, it's not bad, but not like a T, T2, or T3. Also (I know, we sold 'em) several T4's came back for warranty service because of problems with the exposure meter. Paired with the 40mm f1.8 Hexanon, the T4/TC fits a jacket pocket. Curiously, the TC seemed to fair better among our customers. One year the TC was our best-selling SLR.</p>

<p>

<p >Capital Q, yes I was referring to the Konica T3. I prefer the T2. I like the way the T2 feels as you operate it, the T3 and I just never bonded. I first had an earlier T3 with the removable hot shoe, then I bought a brand-new T3n from Greg Weber.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >John Shriver mentioned the Pentax MX as an alternative. This camera has a reputation for meter and shutter failure amongst technicians locally. I was interested in buying one and was specifically warned against it. If you want the ultimate K-mount mechanical camera it's called the Pentax KX.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think it's interesting to consider how we got here. The manufacture and assembly of quality mechanical cameras is a labour intensive process requiring a highly-trained work force. The Japanese camera makers consolidated in the late 1950's and launched a price war, attacking German camera manufacturing supremacy. They were able to do this for two reasons: (1) the victorious Allies cancelled German patents as part of the war reparations (eg. Operation PAPERCLIP), and (2) they implimented statistical quality control methods as advocated by W. Edwards Deming. At the same time the Japan Camera Inspection Institute (JCII) checked every piece that was exported to ensure it functioned. Up till that point it was common for new cameras not to work right out of the box. Returns and work-overs were commonplace. This hit the German camera industry hard, as craft-based production and assembly was still commonplace.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >By the late 1960's this price war had become fratricidal as wages in Japan had risen, resulting in a generalised fall in profits. In 1971 Nixon broke the gold standard, devaluing the US dollar and the price of German camera imports rose rapidly. German camera manufacturing collapsed. The end of the West German Zeiss and Voigtlander operations set the scene for a reduction in quality. It was no longer necessary to make things at a level of fit and finish comparable to the West Germans. In the 1970's the Japanese camera companies further reduced production costs by ending precision mechanical construction and substituting cheaper electronic designs and fully automated production line techniques.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >German manufacturers also attempted to cut costs. But the move to Japan by Zeiss in the 1970's was not the success they had hoped for. The Contax-Yashica cameras are renowned for electronic failure, with the first model, the RTS, being the most reliable. Many of these "Contax" cameras are now 25-35 years old and are very flaky. Amongst the repairers I know the RTS 2 and 3 are considered a real liability. The Nikon FE has a great reputation for reliability (which I can personally vouch for), unlike the FA and EM. Electronic Minolta's and Pentax's, Olympus OM-2's and 4's, Canon A-series, T-series (50,70,90) & EOS film cameras are a nightmare to work on because of the ageing flexible circuit board issue and fail often. Some of these cameras also have LCD screen controls that are leaking or turning black and are no longer available. Local repairers are wary of doing a full service on (for example) a 30 year-old Canon AE-1, because of the necessity of removing the flexible PCB and the high probability of it's failure. I hear that this issue has even affected the New Zealand Army - which still uses AE-1's, but with old FD breach-lock lenses, as the plastic New FD mount ones disintegrated long ago.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Most electronic auto-exposure cameras of the 1980's and '90's are now in the hands of their second or third owners. The spread of auto-focus technologies in the 1990's further added to the burden of complexity for camera technicians. People buying such old electronic cameras are generally not in a position to afford the high repair costs.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the early 2000's photography devolved into a few tribes of users. Apart from those still using film cameras, these were (1) very expensive high-end DSLR gear for working photojournalists and a small number of advanced amateurs, (2) a quality digital point and shoot market, and (3) cell-phone imagery. Cell phones have a very short working life, something under a year. This is all well and good so long as cell phones are cheap or free, but the last statistic I heard was that 20% of US users have cancelled their phone plans this year. No more free cam-phones!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Professional photographers will always need new cameras, because they trash theirs mercilessly. However, this is a tiny market that "Canikon" runs at cost, or even makes a loss on, for the advertising value and prestige.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Producing digital cameras is a difficult, financially risky business. Production volumes have to be massive to offset the huge set-up costs. Companies need large retained profits to do this. Often the sums needed are so large that they must borrow money or enter into joint ventures. With today's economic climate the appetite for financial "risk" is hovering around zero. Credit has dried up.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >There may not be enough serious digital amateurs to keep the manufacturers in business. At least not enough that want to spend serious money. It will be interesting to see which of the Japanese camera companies survives the current recession. It will be ironic if Cosina Voigtlander with it's film cameras and manual lens manufacturing is one of them!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What I think we are seeing is the young or newly poor picking up old film gear because they can no longer afford the new digital stuff. When you shoot digital you are on a treadmill. The cameras seem to last about three years before problems set in, provided you don't drop them.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A friend of mine fixes cameras for Canon. Even in a small place like New Zealand, an average Monday morning sees around 600 damaged or faulty Canon digi cameras arrive at the door. The repairers of Nikon, Pentax and Sony have similar experiences, with different numbers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >According to my Canon contact, in most cases damaged digi-cams are just written off. Any substantial drop will be enough to kill the average plastic digi zoom. Working on them is a nightmare. They are full of fragile tissue-like flexible copper circuit boards that are coated in glue and wrapped around the plastic lens mechanicals. The body shells are slid over the bundle of lens and circuits and a few screws are done up for appearances sake. To dismantle these units, you have to use hexane to soften the glue and then try and remove the shells without tearing any of the circuits... </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let's face it, the Japanese camera manufacturers in the 1960's saw a niche, and that was people who wanted to look like professional photojournalists, but couldn't tell an f-stop from a bus-stop.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Agfa Optima was the first such camera that promised to deliver correct or adequate exposure to the average person who wasn't willing to study photography (or didn't have the ability to master it) so that they could participate in the boom-time post holiday ritual of 'the slide show'.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Later cameras such as the shutter-priority Konica Auto Reflex in the 1960's and the various electronic aperture-priority cameras starting with the Pentax ES extended that largesse so that holiday plonkers could look like pukka photojournalists.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Because I mostly shoot slides, when I used such systems I found myself spending most of my time trying to second-guess average and centre-weighted auto-exposure systems. The discovery of the simplicity of the semi-spot meter systems in my Leicaflex SL and M5 has greatly increased my productivity. And, before anybody says it, I know the OM-2 et al have spot meters, but they don't have Leica lenses. Results, results, results. That's what counts.</p>

<br /></p>

<p>Peter: I enjoyed your last post immensely -- I've saved it for future reference. Delighted to read your blend of historical, social and economic insights on how the Japanese overtook the Germans after WW2. With your permission, I'm going to move this discussion over to a new thread as I'm pretty sure we've gone past the Minolta vs. Olympus debate. I'm sure a lot of others here also have opinions on your insights.... </p>

<p>

<p >Capital Q, fine with me, but perhaps the original poster has an opinion on that one?</p>

<p >I'm just thinking out loud here, but I would be interested to see what others think about these questions.</p>

<p >I began thinking about all this because (a) I am an obsessive retro-camera collector & user, and (b) my friends and acquaintances are using or talking about using film cameras again.</p>

<p >There is also a noticeable number of young people about the streets of Auckland with them too. In the current financial crisis, the willingness or ability of people to borrow relatively large sums of money to purchase expensive digital cameras has fallen. Unemployment is developing into a permanent, structural problem. Young people always take the brunt of any crisis, and this one is removing job opportunities and dropping wages for the young like no other. Prices for quality old film gear, for years practically worthless, are rising on local websites. Cameras and lenses that worth $5 or $10 a few years ago are now selling for $50-100 or more.</p>

<p >People who are short of cash, but still have the time and resources to care about photography can turn back to a plentiful resource, the already-existing infrastructure of millions of high-quality film cameras made up to the 1970's. From my casual and partisan observations I think we are sensing the beginning of a mass retro-trend. Whilst this is great news for us old camera users and perhaps a wake-up call to companies like Kodak, what does it mean in the long term?</p>

</p>

<p>Peter - Good questions. Let's take the discussion to the other post. As for the original poster, Micah, I've not seen any recent posts or updates. We're well past describing MLU....</p>

<p>I have or have had Minolta SRTs, Olympus OMs, as well as Nikon FE, FM, FE2, FM2. I would add a Nikon FM to your list of candidates. A few things to keep in mind as - to me - the main differences (recognizing that some have been mentioned):<br>

Batteries: OM-1 and SRTs both were designed for 1.35v mercury batteries which are no longer available. There are workarounds. The FM uses current 1.5v batteries.<br>

Size: The OM-1 is much more compact. Some like that (I do) and some do not.<br>

Lenses: Personally, I think all 3 have perfectly fine lenses. OM lenses are a bit tougher to find, especially very wide and very long. And more expensive on used market. Used Minolta lens are a bargain, especially the older, all metal, MC lenses.<br>

Weaknesses: Prism foam in Olympus. The SRT had a "string" (not sure of material) that linked the lens aperture to the mechanical display in the viewfinder. Twice that has failed me.<br>

My personal choice by in large is the Olympus. Size and optical quality. But my recommendation for most would be the FM; given reliability, lens availability, and battery. For price/performance, I'd choose the SRT.<br>

Not sure if that really helps. I guess in one sense you can't go wrong. </p>

 

<p>I like that, Peter De Waal; . . . ."Let's face it, the Japanese camera manufacturers in the 1960's saw a niche, and that was people who wanted to look like professional photojournalists, but couldn't tell an f-stop from a bus-stop."</p>

<p><br /> I would correct a little. I met people to days, with 2-3-4000 dollar cameras, expensive lenses, and the only way they can photograph, "A" yes, aperture priority. And Auto-focus. Basically they using they expensive and sophisticated cameras as a P&S camera. Ones I tried to force some amateurs to use "M" manual mode, because the subject, lighting required. The person wasn't able to find the light-meter in the camera, has no idea how to set the camera, adjusting aperture / speed / etc., basically the person has no idea, what is a different between aperture and departure, as you said Peter, "f-stop form bus-stop.</p>

<p>The problem with the olympus, wide and tele lenses are expensive, but they wort the money.</p>

<p>Yesterday I compared an OM-1n against a Leica MP. I didn't bothering measuring the cameras, the OM had a 50/1,8 and the MP a 28/2,8 and looking at them was a revelation. The OM was actually smaller in most dimensions. The flash shoe being taller.</p>

<p>Amazing.</p>

<p>Ever anybody noticed, the Olympus OM-1, 2, 3 has the biggest viewfinder then any other camera ever has. Look trough to the viewfinder of the Olympus and Nikon, Canon. Pentax, etc. and you vill realize this. I'm a Nikon user as I all ready stated, but the Olympus bit them all. Lenses expensive, only if you try to have a super vide angle and long tele lenses. An so is others. The average vide angles and 150-200mm range teles are not expensive at all. I have 5 cameras of them, 3x OM-1, & 2x OM-2 lenses 21mm to 200mm. And I love them very mach. Keeping all my Nikons Nikkormat, FM, FE, FM2, FE2, F, F3, FA, FM3a in my collections.</p>

<p>The larger VF was one of the points made in the original OM-1 magazine ads.</p>

<p>Just wanted to mention that I have used a Pentax MX since it was introduced (1977-78). It replaced a well-liked & much used Spotmatic. I had the MX serviced for the first time a few years ago after many years of heavy and sustained use. It was still functioning well at the time of the CLA except some speeds were not as close as I liked. No meter problems whatsoever. New foam seals were due for replacement. The CLA cost me $70 via Eric Hendrickson. All I can say is that particular MX served me well; certainly one of the most reliable cameras I have ever used. I have also used many other 35mm SLR cameras since my Navy Photo Mate days in the late 60s; Nikon F, Topcon RE Super, Canon F1...all those are fine too but a bit bulky. I have since acquired the Olympus OM-1 and a Minolta SRT-101 (both great classic designs) but now the digital SLR age has caught up with me and I tend to use my Pentax screw & bayonet mount lenses with the DSLR. After holding the OM-1, working the controls, comparing features & looks with the MX, I can say that the MX just seems (for me) to be a the better camera. Personally I also prefer the SRT series to the Olympus OM. I think it all boils down to personal choice. These are all very fine cameras.</p>

<p>Since several posters mentioned the MX, I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I also own an MX and the impression that I get is that although it is very compact, its controls are designed and placed so the camera handles like a larger camera (which is good). I find focusing with the standard screen intermediate in ease between that of the OM-1 and the SRT 101. Going to the split screen SRT models it's about the same compared to the MX. The MX has more system oriented accessories than the SRT (motor drive, finder screens, etc). No SRT models take a motor drive. Only the meterless SR-M has a built-in 3.5 fps drive and it is built into the camera.</p>

<p>When I was in school many years ago, the Pentax K1000 and the Minolta SRT series cameras where the cameras that were recommended as they were sturdy and could take a bit more abuse than some of the other cameras available. One student had an Olympus and really liked it until, well, its demise. (High School students are always very careful with photographic equipment, aren't they? ;) ) I purchased a Pentax K1000 for the class and I still have it. It is currently digesting a roll of Arista II 100 asa film. The general consensus that I remember from school was the Olypuses were nice but you had to be very careful with them. I currently own 2 K1000s, a SRT 202, a pair of Nikkormats (FTn and FT3), a Canon AE1 as well as a few others. <br>

I would choose the Minolta over the Olympus. I enjoy shooting my Minolta very much. If you can, test the camera that you are considering before purchasing, no matter what brand.</p>

<p>Wow, what a thread. I've had examples of most of the cameras mentioned, an SRT 101, the SRT 101 Super, OM1/2/3/4, MX, FE, among others. But the only SLR cameras I have held onto are my OM1, and a few old Canons (which seem to be reproducing in the closet).<br>

The Zuiko lenses are plentiful, and excellent. The best lenses are the more common ones, my favorite is the old 50/1.8, which can be found for next to nothing. The 24/2.8 is an excellent wide-angle, and the 100/2.8 is a nicely made and very compact short telephoto.</p>