Tell me about the OM-2

I suffer from Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I have an extremely busy life, and for the past several years I haven't been 'making' pictures. I've been using a DSLR and my iPhone to 'take' pictures. But recently I've gotten the urge to pull out my 35mm SLR collection and shoot through it. Since I have GAS, this led me to buy a Pentax SV and a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. I like reading about my cameras, so I find reviews. Reviews often lead to other cameras. And so I started reading about the Olympus OM-2. Yesterday I almost bought one.

 

Before reading the review, I assumed that the OM-2 was an OM-1 with aperture priority grafted on. It looks like I assumed incorrectly. The reviewers all like the OM-2, but it looks like the OM-2 is a completely electronic camera that doesn't even have a fail-safe mechanical mode in case of battery failure. (This appears to have been addressed in the OM-2S.) I have an OM-1 and an OM-4, and even an OM10. (God knows how that one came into my possession!) My rational self said to my GAS-afflicted self, 'Why do you need an OM-2? What does it do that your Nikon FE or FM3a doesn't do? Aside from being smaller, lighter, and prettier, what does it do that the Canon AE-1 Program and A-1 don't do? The whole reason you bought that second-hand OM-1 a quarter of a century ago, after realising you were relying too much on the OM-4's AE mode, was because it's mechanical and manual. Heck, if you want a focus-and-shoot camera, you have that OM10! You don't have time to use the cameras you already have! Don't you think an OM-2 would be superfluous?' My GAS-afflicted self replies, 'But it's pretty!)

 

So tell me: Is there any rational reason I should add an OM-2 to my collection?

Simply because you have GAS and will continue to do so until you acquire one. They're an aperture priority camera, well made, and you already have lenses to use on it.

As these things go, the OM2 is a remarkably reliable camera for its vintage electronic era. You do want one from the more "perfected" serial number range, however: they are significantly better. For details on this, check related threads.

 

If you need additional excuses, the OM2 is as important a milestone as the OM1 in the evolution of cameras: first with metering off the film plane, first with TTL flash metering, etc. Also, only OM model with both AE and the original wonderful OM1 shutter/mirror dampers.

I tell myself I have only a mild case of GAS and that I've been successful in getting rid of more than I've acquired. So far this year though I'm +1 in the camera department but I'm going to be selling one shortly.

 

Anyway, I ran through a bunch of Canon cameras a couple of years ago including an AE-1 program, a Canonet QL17 GIII and several newer ones. I became interest in Olympus cameras because of their compactness and now all the Canons are gone.

 

I think the Olympus I started with was in fact an OM-2n because in my research that seemed to be the one to get. But I also acquired a couple of OM-1n(s) and and an OM-2s. Then I was given a 35RC, bought another one along with a few XA variants.

 

After all those what I've decided is that I'm keeping is an OM-1n and an XA.

 

It's not that I didn't like the 2. It's more that I decided that if I want AE and more sophisticated metering, I have more modern cameras for that. Because of the way it meters, the OM-2 shutter is not as crisp sounding as an OM-1 if that matters to you.

 

Aside from AE (or related to it), the OM-2 does have some things that are nice. There's more information in the viewfinder than there is in the OM-1n (which is basically nothing except a match needle). It has an exposure compensation dial cleverly built into the ASA dial, - which ironically demonstrates how you can manipulate an ASA setting in order to compensate for not having exposure compensation. ;)

 

Overall my thoughts on when it makes to get sense to get a 2 is when you want an OM with AE and don't have the money to spend on a 4Ti.

 

The 4 and the 2s could serve the same purpose and are much cheaper than a 4Ti if you can find ones that don't eat batteries.

Edited May 17, 2019 by tomspielman

There's more information in the viewfinder than there is in the OM-1n (which is basically nothing except a match needle).

 

That's exactly what I like about it! :p

 

Overall my thoughts on when it makes to get sense to get a 2 is when you want an OM with AE and don't have the money to spend on a 4Ti.

 

Yeah, I have an OM-4 so an OM-2 seems redundant. (But I don't haaaaaave an OM-2! :p )

Well, I pulled the trigger on an OM-2n. My auto-exposure cameras include a Canon AE-1 Program, a Canon A-1, an Olympus OM-4, and Olympus OM10, a Nikon FM3a, and a Nikon FE. An OM-2n is definitely redundant, but... My most complete 'kit' is Olympus. The OM10 doesn't really 'fit' the way the FE fits with my Nikon kit. I think of it this way: The FE is an electronic version of the FM. I have an FM2n, which is a newer model, with auto-exposure, of the FM. The OM-2 is basically an electronic version, with auto-exposure, of the OM-1.

I, too, have GAS. And when my local used dealer had a nice OM-2n, I jumped on it. Of course, I had to add a couple of lenses to create a kit. It's a great camera, since I'm an aperture-priority fan. I've gotten some decent exposures with it, and it goes out with me from time to time, especially when I take my Nikon FE and FE2.

 

One of the draws to the OM-2 over the OM-1, was the change in batteries. The OM-1 uses a 1.35v mercury battery, and the OM-2 changed to silver oxides. I know that I probably miss out on a lot of great oldies, but I won't buy anything that requires mercury batteries; I just don't like to fool with any of the replacements, even the Wein Cell. The only recent addition was a Yashica Electro 35 GSN, and I'd already acquired a designed-for replacement battery with a built-in diode module.

I have an FM2n, which is a newer model, with auto-exposure, of the FM.

 

Where is this auto exposure function on the FM2n hidden?

Where is this auto exposure function on the FM2n hidden?

 

In the FM3a, of course.

nm.

 

Read the question wrong.

Where is this auto exposure function on the FM2n hidden?

 

My typing got ahead of my brain. I meant to say that the FE is an auto-exposure version of the FM.

One of the draws to the OM-2 over the OM-1, was the change in batteries. The OM-1 uses a 1.35v mercury battery, and the OM-2 changed to silver oxides.

 

I've had my OM-1n modified (diode) and calibrated to use a 1.5v #625 cell.

Is there any rational reason I should add an OM-2 to my collection?

 

Maybe not 'rational' but the OM-1 and 2 are among the handsomest SLRs ever made.Especially in black

My typing got ahead of my brain. I meant to say that the FE is an auto-exposure version of the FM.

 

Fair enough, and I think the comparison between it and the OM-1/OM-2 is apt(although the OM-2 has some advantages over the FE-namely the silicon photocell).

 

If I may ramble a bit, though, I'll also mention that probably the closest Nikon equivalent to the OM-4 is the FA, at least on the basis of both of them having high tech/advanced metering systems. The OM-4 variants are reasonably common, but the manual/mechanical equivalent-the OM-3-is not at all. The FM2(n) is probably the closest all mechanical equivalent to the FA, and of course FM2s are everywhere.

I got the OM-2n. It was waiting in my desk when I got back from 'vacation'. The meter's reading two stops low, so it's in the shop for recalibration.

I

 

I have an OM-1 and an OM-4, and even an OM10. (God knows how that one came into my possession!) My rational self said to my GAS-afflicted self, 'Why do you need an OM-2? What does it do that your Nikon FE or FM3a doesn't do? Aside from being smaller, lighter, and prettier, what does it do that the Canon AE-1 Program and A-1 don't do? The whole reason you bought that second-hand OM-1 a quarter of a century ago, after realising you were relying too much on the OM-4's AE mode, was because it's mechanical and manual. Heck, if you want a focus-and-shoot camera, you have that OM10! You don't have time to use the cameras you already have! Don't you think an OM-2 would be superfluous?' My GAS-afflicted self replies, 'But it's pretty!)

 

So tell me: Is there any rational reason I should add an OM-2 to my collection?

 

Let me answer the last question first. The most compelling reason to get the OM-2 is because you have the OM-1 and the OM-4. After you got the OM-2 you may need to get that expensive OM-3.

The OM-2 AE system does metering during the actual exposure which the FE or FM3a don't. It also uses a different metering system when in A and another for display and when in manual. Actually I don't like these features but they are things that OM-2 lovers like.

Both the AE-1 and A-1 don't do metered manual well. You read the meter in the viewfinder and then having to set the on the lens and shutter speed dial taking the camera off your eye.

The OM-2 AE system does metering during the actual exposure which the FE or FM3a don't. It also uses a different metering system when in A and another for display and when in manual. Actually I don't like these features but they are things that OM-2 lovers like.

 

I'm mixed on this. The Nikon FA does it, and I think the FG, FG-20, and N2000 do as well, or at least if you're using S or P modes on these cameras. On one hand, it makes sure that the exposure is as correct as possible in these modes, which is important with slide film. On the other hand, if I used S and P mode on any of these cameras(I don't) I'd make sure I was using AI-s lenses as I want an aperture reasonably close to what the camera tells me I'm getting.

 

At least on the OM-2, it compensates for a sticky/sluggish aperture, and barring that the OM-2 should give you the aperture selected regardless. I don't mind it "tweaking" the exposure a bit as long as I'm not close to "danger" speeds for hand-holding and need to worry about vibration.

 

Both the AE-1 and A-1 don't do metered manual well. You read the meter in the viewfinder and then having to set the on the lens and shutter speed dial taking the camera off your eye.

 

IMO, the only multi-mode FD mount camera that's remotely usable in manual mode is the New F-1. Back when I was shooting FD stuff almost exclusively, my A-1 and T90 were always set to Tv or Av as I consider manual on those cameras as good as useless-I don't want to have to read the aperture in the viewfinder and then take the camera away from my eye to futz around with the shutter speed dial.

 

If I wanted to shoot manual-which was quite often-I used an FTb, F-1n, or New F-1.

I'm mixed on this. The Nikon FA does it, and I think the FG, FG-20, and N2000 do as well, or at least if you're using S or P modes on these cameras. On one hand, it makes sure that the exposure is as correct as possible in these modes, which is important with slide film. On the other hand, if I used S and P mode on any of these cameras(I don't) I'd make sure I was using AI-s lenses as I want an aperture reasonably close to what the camera tells me I'm getting.

 

At least on the OM-2, it compensates for a sticky/sluggish aperture, and barring that the OM-2 should give you the aperture selected regardless. I don't mind it "tweaking" the exposure a bit as long as I'm not close to "danger" speeds for hand-holding and need to worry about vibration.

 

 

 

IMO, the only multi-mode FD mount camera that's remotely usable in manual mode is the New F-1. Back when I was shooting FD stuff almost exclusively, my A-1 and T90 were always set to Tv or Av as I consider manual on those cameras as good as useless-I don't want to have to read the aperture in the viewfinder and then take the camera away from my eye to futz around with the shutter speed dial.

 

If I wanted to shoot manual-which was quite often-I used an FTb, F-1n, or New F-1.

 

Perhaps there is a reason that in the manual Canon call it Manual Override and not simply Manual.

Fair enough, and I think the comparison between it and the OM-1/OM-2 is apt(although the OM-2 has some advantages over the FE-namely the silicon photocell).

 

If I may ramble a bit, though, I'll also mention that probably the closest Nikon equivalent to the OM-4 is the FA, at least on the basis of both of them having high tech/advanced metering systems. The OM-4 variants are reasonably common, but the manual/mechanical equivalent-the OM-3-is not at all. The FM2(n) is probably the closest all mechanical equivalent to the FA, and of course FM2s are everywhere.

 

Doesn't the FE have dual silicon photodiodes (SPD)?

Doesn't the FE have dual silicon photodiodes (SPD)?

 

You are correct(it took some digging to find, but the only reference I can find to it mentions it).

 

It makes sense that it would in light of its immediate predecessor, the EL2, also using them.

Only downfall of the om1 and 2 is the lack or diopter choices. The Nikon slip fits do work but are maybe just a bit tight. Other than that they are superb.