Some OM questions

Hi folks, I've got some fairly basic OM questions I'm sure you can answer..

 

1) I have acquired a cosmetically 9+ condition OM10 that although the shutter speed seem good as gold,

the viewfinder lights rarely agree - most of the time it displays 1 second, often 1/30 max even though it

should be more like 1/500. Anyway, I imagine this is a reasonably common problem, does it indicate

something minor or is it about to turn into a boat anchor???

 

2) This is the second OM10 that I've had that's dodgy - should I give the whole double digit range a miss?

Should I just flag it and buy a OM2 from keh.com? I know, I could get an OM4T but that is a hell of a lot

of money for a 35mm SLR, in my mind anyway..

 

3) How does Zuiko glass stack up against modern lenses?? Am I buying into a system that is going to

produce stunning images comparable to something I could go and buy for my Canon or Nikon or are we

talking 1970's type image quality???

 

4) Can anyone give me some compelling reasons why I should stock up on OM gear when I can get a

massive number of lenses, old and new, for my Nikon 35mm?? I mean, on the Nikon I can easily use the

old MF lenses if I went digital with it, whereas it sounds like the OM glass doesn't go digital quite as nicely

as the Nikon stuff, although a mark against the Nikon is it's an autofocus camera, same as the digital

SLRs, and as such manual focus is nowhere as easy as with the OM.

 

Thanks for looking..

 

 

 

Chris in New Zealand..

Yes, the OM-XXs weren't made to stand the test of time as the OM-Xs.

 

The Zuiko glass is quite nice, specially in primes -- in zooms, there have been advances. Even so, the OM isn't just something from the 70s, as production continued up to 2002.

 

I can't give your definitive answers as I decided Nikons are just too bulky and legacy ? I am going double system, with OM for film and Four Thirds for digital.

Yes, the OM-XXs weren't made to stand the test of time as the OM-Xs.

 

The Zuiko glass is quite nice, specially in primes -- in zooms, there have been advances. Even so, the OM isn't just something from the 70s, as production continued up to 2002.

 

I can't give your definitive answers as I decided Nikons are just too bulky and legacy ? I am going double system, with OM for film and Four Thirds for digital.

I shoot with 5D and 30D Canons with all-but exclusive OM-Zuiko lenses, so I'd say they do go digital quite well (but not on Nikon bodies of course). However, it is always possible that I am eccentric...

Im not sure what you mean by "70's image quality"... unless you shoot really exotic glass like high-speed super-long telephoto zoom stuff theres not too much difference in 1970's lens technology and today. The same basic designs were available and most of the same lens making technology was available. What makes photos from the 1970s look like photos from the 1970s is largely specific fads dealing with filters, using grainy films, and specific printing methods. Color films have advanced quite a bit since then with several high-speed color films that look really amazing, and digital simply looks different than film. But if you put a warming filter on your lens, load grainy color film into the camera, and go shoot into the sunset in a field of yellow straw, with a model with long straight blond hair, your images WILL look like they were shot in the 1970s. Canon and Nikon glass is just as much 1970s as Olympus. Heck, Nikon is from the 1950s! And to be honest, some of the most impressive lenses I've seen from Nikon were from the early 1960s. Ive got a Minolta SR-3 from 1960 and when I shoot with modern films, there is no way on earth anyone could tell WHEN the lens was made.

 

First of all, I would say if your OM10 dies, just trade up for an OM2, you can sometimes find them poor cosmetic quality but good working condition for a similar price as what OM10's go for. Basically I think that the OM10's are overpriced on the used market considering the prices of OM1's and OM2's. I am not a gear snob, but I can assure you that the single-digit cameras ARE a somewhat better quality build and even feel much more solid in your hands than the double-digit models. Also I am not a fan of the LED read-out of the OM10, or the fact that the meter likes to turn itself off while you are shooting, and often the static switch to get it to turn back on doesn't work. Turning the camera off and on again while shooting just to maintain your meter is REALLY annoying. Also, if you want manual settings, you have to procure one of the plug-in manual dials for the OM10.

 

Compelling reasons to swap systems and go Olympus over Nikon? Well thats all a matter of opinion. Many users with large hands actually PREFER large cameras like the Nikon SLR's and the modern slew of pro digital SLR's. People with smaller hands tend to like the more compact cameras. Personally, I cant stand lugging a HUGE camera around. I would check around at lens prices... if you can get the lenses you want cheaper for Nikon (which I doubt) then I would go with that. Because of forward compatibility with lenses, Nikon lenses tend to have maintained their high prices. If you just want a deal, look into Canon FD or Minolta, both of these "abandoned" systems have great lenses and bodies for VERY cheap today.

Thanks Patrick.

 

To be honest I am not entirely sure what I meant by 1970's image quality. I suppose that I've been assuming that the new lens designs, which of course we are not going to see for OM, are somehow inherently superior to the 1970's designs.. You know, modern lens design techniques and all, but it sounds like a fast OM lens is going to be a hell of a lot better than some of the new crappy consumer lenses on the market.

 

I will keep shooting with the OM10 and see how it goes, there are endless single digit OM bodies on adorama and keh that I can pick up for not much more than a good OM10 (if there is such a thing any more)

I've actually got a OM1 already, but the meter is inop, and the mirror is in very poor condition, so I don't really enjoy taking it out, although I do see what you mean about the difference in build quality.

 

 

My last question was really quite poorly worded, looking at it again - I am more concerned with futureproofing than anything - looks like I can get Nikon AI lenses for similar money to OM lenses, and there's the matter of them plugging straight into a modern Nikon body, which I have (if you can call an 8008 modern), whereas with OM I have to use an adapter to go digital. I guess that fact you can't get new OM gear worries me (yes, I worry a lot) but I suppose that since they made OM4's until this decade it will be a long time before those cameras are old.

I worry about it a bit myself. The way I look at it if I ever go nuts about the subject I will just buy a lot of camera bodies in working and non-working condition so I have spare bodies and spare parts.

 

I have an OM-1 and an OM-1n right now. The OM-1 was a hand-me-down from my Dad when I was in college and its light meter doesn't work (it appears the battery contact has dislodged as it is just floating), but otherwise is in perfect shape. The OM-1n I got from my wife for this past christmas and is about an 8 out of 10 for cosmetic, but a 10 out of 10 for mechanical condition (I've changed the mirror bumpers and light seals on both). I love using both cameras, but I do worry about the future. I am not to worried about 5 years from now, but I do worry about 15 or 20 or 30 years from now.

 

I have a strong attachment to the cameras because I LOVE the look and feel of them. Also there is just something about film that I love. Maybe its the smell of a fresh roll of film loaded in to my OM or maybe it is advancing the roll to the next frame or having to focus on my own or having to wait to see just how well that picture turned out. Whatever it is I love it. Some day I will get a resonably nice dSLR, but I am positive I will continue to use my OM cameras for as long as I can keep them working.

 

That and some day I want to 'collect them all' and by that I mean I would like to get at least an OM-2n, OM-4 and probably also an OM-3.

 

If you don't mind the all manual features of the OM-1 (and I love it) I'd say just find a good condition OM-1 or OM-1n. I helped my wife pick out my OM-1n since she doesn't know to much about cameras (at least not OMs) and I managed to get mine for $55 shipped. I haven't owned a an OM-xx, but I have handled them a few times before and they always felt like much cheaper versions of their 'pro' siblings.

I guess the question I have to ask myself is.. What am I trying to achieve?? I think I should stop being worried about whether I can use my lenses on digital, and just go get some OM gear and have fun with it!!! I like the OM gear, and since the prices are good, I should stop moaning about it and just go get some..

Thanks to Patrick for setting my mind at ease regarding the optical quality - I just remembered that my favourite camera is actually an early 1950's Rolleicord, and the photo quality on that is superb!

Thanks all for your responses.

@Neil D: Awesome!!! I have a 30D here and thought about flicking the useless lenses I have for it and whacking some Zuiko glass on it. Now I'm seriously considering it. Thanks!

The Zuiko 21mm f2 is one of the most sought after lenses by Canon users. Last 2 I sold went for $800 each. The Olympus 100mm f2.8 runs circles around the Nikkor 105. there's lots of used Zuiko glass out there. The OM-10 is an entry level body, it came out at the same time as the Nikon EM and the all plastic Canon AV-1. The OM-10 has to have a lens mounted and film loaded for the apparent shutter speed to be even close to the vf readout. Of course, the meter display could be busted, or there's oil on the magnet. John, www.zuiko.com

1) and 2) OM-10s are prone to oily shutter magnets. I gave up quickly, bought an OM-2n and 25 years later it's still going.

<br><br>

3) lens performance varies widely. The faster versions of the prime lenses at each focal length were <i>usuall</i> better, but this isn't guaranteed. Equally, some modest aperture models were (and are) fine performers, including the 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 (the one with 'Made in Japan' on the front ring), 85mm f2, 100mm f2.8 as well as the more exotic optics. Zooms with good performance include the 35-70mm f3.6, 35-105 f3.5~4.5 and 65-200mm. Some of the others are less impressive.

<br><br>

4) I think the choice is about which system you prefer to use. A wide range of lenses are readily available for both, but remember older Nikkors will not provide all the functionality a DSLR offers either.

<br><br>

If you stick with Olympus OM cameras and lenses don't "stock up". Decide which focal length(s) you really like using and find a good example, then make some photographs.

Thanks guys..

 

John: Thanks for the reply - I've been using the OM10 with film in it and it will sit there for ages with an incorrect reading on the viewfinder, then all of a sudden it will jump to the correct reading. I think it's broken, but the actual shutter speeds seem okay so I might just live with it.

 

Simon: 1) I might just give up and get a OM2... 3) Thanks for the list, I'll look out for those lenses. 4) This is true, a dSLR won't meter with AI lenses unless it's a Dxxx model. So unless I spend big bikkies it's a waste of time. I certainly like using the OM cameras, I was just concerned, given that I've tried a number of OM double digit bodies and they've all been stuffed in one way or another, was just worried that they're all like that, but obviously not...

 

Cheers for that chaps

I would get an OM-G rather than an OM10, myself, since, if I recall correctly, the OM10 had no manual mode and the OM-G did.

 

Of course, the OM2/3/4 are somewhat more desirable.

the manual mode on OM-10 w/manual adapter and on OM-20/G is crippled (imo) because it doesn't have a proper match needle display and can't display shutter speeds that are "in between" stops (thus it can't be as accurate as the needle).

 

Get an OM1/2 and you'll never go back to the consumer bodies. OM-xx's just feel like toys, i have an OM-20 but i have only shot 1 roll of film through it and turfed it to the back of my camera cabinet along with all the 3rd party zooms, broken bodies and lenses with fungus. In fact i'm considering stealing the prism from it to fix up one of my OM-2's.

 

And yes, you'll start collecting OM's it's a common problem.... I have an OM-4, 2 x OM-2, 2 x OM-1 and an OM-1n.........

Thanks for that guys...

 

Sounds like I'd better order myself a single digit body pronto!!!! I actually have an OM-1

already but it's in such poor condition I don't like using it.. That of course is if I don't buy

the 28mm f/2 that's sitting on our local auction site, which hopefully I'll pick up cheap,

otherwise I see adorama and keh both have craploads of bodies to choose from

 

Cheers lads

 

Chris

Add my voice to the list of those telling you to get a working single-digit body. I've owned or own several examples of each OM body through the years. The OM-10 and OM-G _may_ have been a reliable choice 10 or 15 years ago, but they just aren't holding up over time. The OM-10 came out in 1979. It was a much lower cost way for people to get into using the Zuiko glass which has always had a great reputation. It was built with the lowest possible cost in mind, and Olympus felt that it would serve its user well then they would move on to a single-digit body after investing in the lenses. I would never buy an OM-10 nowadays and expect it to work flawlessly. I would suck it up and get an OM-4T unless you want simplicity, then an OM-2N. As with anything this old, get a 2 week return privilege if you buy it privately and check it out thoroughly as fast as you can when it arrives. Or a warranty from KEH or other reliable store is another way to avoid aggravation with a body that works "sometimes".

From what I have heard around, the f/2 wide-angle lenses may not be as sharp as the f/2.8 wides. So you might could save yourself some money and actually get a better performer! Or maybe you could even find the 24mm f/2.8 for cheaper than the 28mm f/2? Im not sure about going rates, but I personally think that the wider angle would be more advantageous than the 1 stop. I've got both 24mm and 28mm (for different brands) and I find myself enjoying the 24mm more than the 28mm, even thought its not THAT much difference. Also, if you DO plan on buying the 4/3s body in the future, the 24mm will be the equivalent of 50mm on a full-frame camera.

" The Olympus 100mm f2.8 runs circles around the Nikkor 105". No it doesn't. I have a late model 100/2.8 Zuiko and it's very nice and especially compact but in no way does it run circles arounf a 105 Nikkor. I have four 105/2.5 Nikkors. Two are of the first design and two of the second design. All of these are excellent optically and mechanically they are far superior to the Zuiko 100/2.8.

 

The OM10 is indeed prone to the oily magnet problem but this can be taken care of when the camera is serviced. After that the camera should work well for a good long time. The OM10 isn't as sturdy as a OM-1 but it's light, has a bright viewfinder and doesnlt wear out batteries very fast.

Thanks chaps..

 

The ebay trader who supplied me the OM10 has been emailing me and he's now

demanded I send it back so he can either repair it or refund me. So there's still some

honest traders out there then!!!

 

I have an OM1 already that for a while had a working meter, although it's failed now. I find

using it a bit slow because of the need to match the needle, so I was looking for

something with auto exposure, and I thought an inexpensive OM10 could be a good thing,

but perhaps you're all correct and I should go get an OM2 or 4. I just have to factor in to

whatever I decide to buy that our customs will charge me 12.5% tax on whatever I bring

in...

Is there going to be any point getting an OM4 (not a 4TI) - they're much cheaper than an

OM4TI - am I asking for trouble getting one of them??

 

As far as lenses go, I could quite believe that the ultra fast lenses are maybe not as sharp

as the slower ones - I think I could be quite happy with a nice set of slower lenses....

 

Thanks all for your responses

Patrick, the 28mm f2 is considered as one of the great lenses in the OM range. Along with the 21/2, 90/2, 100/2 and 50/2 macro.... I know of 2 pro snappers whose main reason to use OM was because of the 21/2.

 

However, if you're not a low light junkie the slower lenses are fine. They are mostly quite a bit smaller and lighter.

Jeff,

Your opinion of the OM-10 may have been true 10 or 15 years ago, but time has caught up with them, and they were infamous even back then for suffering from more than oily magnets. They also suffered from faulty electronics, meters, and the shutter design itself was later changed due to faults. A rock-bottom "value" or "budget" plastic camera from 1979 with low end parts and electronics is not going to be reliable in this century.

Re: your question 1:

there is a variable resistor under lens mount that can get dirty and speeds in viewfinder get really erratic. Remove lens mount, clean the resistor with naphta or Rosonol and put back.

 

PS: and buy a OM-2(n). You can still keep OM-10 as a second body or for spares - remember that the prisms are identical in OM-1, 2, 10, 20 (G) (not sure about other models).

Ondrej: Thanks - that sounds EXACTLY like what's wrong with my OM1 - I have been playing with the lever that the lens moves and it's changing slightly - now it flickers right up and down the range by itself, so I might have to give it a go with some rosonol..

 

I have actually been given a very shabby looking OM10 plus 35-70 f/4 and it might not look pretty but it works fine and its's a lot of fun.. I can only imagine what an OM4T is like...

Oops, I meant a shabby OM40 :)

ok, I like my little OM-1... nice manual camera and great VF.

 

Regarding glass, it spans the spectrum, but why are you looking for Zuiko glass at the current time... nothing wrong with Canon and Nikon glass IMO.

 

70's IQ? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I can shoot current Canon and Leica for sharp modern images, but sometimes the dreamy (70's?) look of my F. Zuiko 50/1.8 is very nice. No, the contrast and sharpness doesn't match my Canon or Leica 50's, but it is still sharp enough and makes pretty photos. I'm not looking for a MIJ version since the single coating gives a pleasing classic look which seems to go with my OM-1 shooting style.

 

I don't follow Nikon pricing, but compared to Canon lenses, you don't save much going to Zuiko... since there are a lot of fans and it is very well respected.

 

As to current "consumer glass," my crappy little Canon 50/1.8 is a great performing lens, even if it is all made out of plastic... and the AF is a benifit most of the time... (when I don't specifically want the challenge of a classic camera).