Is the OM-1 equivalent or better than srt101?

[micah_pepper]

<p>So i'm still searching for my first manual camera and in my last post it seemed that the srt102 was the main choice. On ebay currently the number of 102's are pretty sparse while the amount of OM-1's and srt101's are quite numerous. So i was wondering which would be a better camera including feature, lens and prices?</p>

[Mike Gammill]

The SRT 101 was in production longer than the 102. The Minolta lenses are usually less expensive, but comparable in

image quantity. Both the Olympus OM-1 and SRT are well-made mechanical cameras with match needle metering. OM-1

is more compact and lighter. The OM-1 offers user changeable focusing screens. Later versions can accept a motor drive.

I have both. I like the way the SRTs handle and feel, but find the OM easier to focus. If possible try to examine both

cameras and compare.

[leicaglow]

<p>Micah, Mike's comment is about as succinct as you can get. My dad had the SRT-101 and my brother had the OM-1. The OM-1 seemed revolutionary for its time because it was so small. The lenses were beautifully made. I would also assert that the lenses were similar in quality, though the OM's were also small, used rubberized knurling, and all looked similar. I can't recall nuances, but it seemed like the OM-1 had more functionality and switches. These days they seem to be had for little money, and you might get both.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>I agree with Mike. They're both well made and either would be a good first choice. But whereas the SRTs are squared-off and hail from an older era, the OM-1 was the sleek camera that launched Olympus out of nowhere into being a serious contender in the SLR ranks in the 1970s. This jewel-like camera has the feel of a precision instrument. And the huge viewfinder is as good as everyone says it is. One of the coolest cameras ever made.</p>

<p> </p>

[capitalq]

<p>sorry. deleting duplicate post.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>The SRT-101 and the OM-1 are closely matched in their capabilities - manual mechanical SLRs, shutter speeds 1-1/1000, DOF & MLU, center-weighted metering (the Minolta's CLC metering system - a "proto-matrix" system - has a sterling reputation, although I've never had any problem with the OM-1 meter either). Both have excellent viewfinders with match-needle displays, although, having used an SRT-100X and an OM-1n, I have to give the nod to the Olympus - the VF is almost as good as it gets. Both use excellent lenses, although the SRT-101's MD Rokkors are probably a bit cheaper than the Olympus Zuikos. Where the OM-1n pulls way ahead, though, is in system support - it is a full system camera, with motor-drives and winders, dedicated flashguns, interchangeable backs and screens. In contrast, the SRT has lenses - that's it. Both cameras can be bought for very little - the OM is probably a little more expensive, but the difference isn't really significant. SRTs are superb workhorse cameras, but if I had to choose, the OM-1 would win every time.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>If you can live without the mirror lock-up feature I think you will like the viewfinder of the SRT 201 better than that of the 101. I use my SRTs with an MR-9 adapter and that works out well. The Minolta lenses are more plentiful and usually cost less for the same focal length and speed. The late versions of the Minolta MD Celtic lenses are very similer to the Rokkors and allow you to get a nice set of lenses for very little. </p>

[peter_de_waal]

 

<p >Having had a fairly intense OM habit, and also a Konica AR and Minolta phase to my usage/collecting I can offer an opinion. I have used Nikons since 1980, but my curiosity got the better of me with the advent of eBay and the digital camera revolution opening up possibilities for gear collecting and comparison I couldn't ignore!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here are some stats on the dimensions and weights of a few contenders (Body only):</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Nikon F + Photomic TN 146.1 x 101.6 x 95.3 830g </strong></p>

<p ><strong>Leicaflex SL 148.0 x 97.0 x 57.0 757g</strong></p>

<p ><strong>Minolta SR-T 101 145.0 x 94.5 x 47.5 705g</strong></p>

<p ><strong>Olympus OM-1 136.0 x 83.0 x 50.0 490g</strong><br>

<br /></p>

<div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >The Konica Autoreflex SLR's (T, T2, T3) are good value, and they have the excellent Copal vertical shutter. They are of average size and weigh 728g. The round viewfinder has a magnification of 0.78x and shows 92% of a 24x36 frame. In use all I ever needed to do to them was light seals and meter repairs, par for the course with gear this old. I had a pretty good selection of Hexanon's, from the 21mm f/4.0 to the 200 f/3.5. I found the Hexanon lenses to be okay, with moderate contrast and flat colour rendition, but not as good as MC Rokkor's or Nikkor's. b.t.w. if you want the 28mm f/3.5 Hexanon get the pre-1979 model with an all-black metal body and 7 elements - it's a much better lens than the later 5 element one. The Autoreflex T, T2 and T3 have a squinty viewfinder that has a blue tint to it. Not great for glasses wearers. I also had a T4 and an FC-1, but sold all this and kept a black T2, the nicest made of the lot. Strangely, I prefer the lens in the Konica Auto S2 rangefinder to any of the SLR optics.</p>

</p><div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >I was greatly attracted by the low weight (490g), small size and excellent ergonomics of the OM-1's. They have a large bright rectangular viewfinder with a magnification of 0.92x and show 97% of a 24x36 frame. Unfortunately, in order to reduce the camera's height Olympus did not install a condenser lens in the optical path, so the bottom of the prism is curved. I find this makes the viewfinder image a bit soft. By the way, if your OM-1 has "prism rot" from foam deterioration, you can replace it with a prism from an OM10/20/30/40/OM-F/OM-G/OM-PC. They are identical. The electronic OM's have a flexible circuit board on top of the prism which stops the foam attacking the silvering. Just clean out the old foam gunk in the OM-1 top housing and glue some felt into the top cover with rubber cement to replace the foam. I bought four OM-1's and had them professionally serviced by an OM service agent. I attempted to use them for photojournalism and weddings, but I gave up after several cases of film-wind jams, shutter failures, flash coupling failures and motor drive connection failures. Once at a wedding I got so angry when a motor drive failed, that I threw an OM MotorDrive in the bin!</p>

</p><div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >I found Zuikos to be soft and have a weird colour rendition. They render caucasian skin in a way that makes people look as if they were made of wax. I also found Zuiko lenses to be highly variable in their performance. For example I bought three 35mm f/2.0 Zuiko's about ten years ago, all of which had faults. Admittedly, they were not new, but repairs were very difficult as this optic has elements that are epoxied into the mount, so removal for cleaning is not possible (easily).Worse still, the epoxy yellows and this affects the lens' edge blacking, but cannot be fixed outside of some real heroics which might result in a ruined lens. To get the element out you would need to dismantle and heat the lens, and hopefully the epoxy fails before the lens cracks... I had numerous samples of the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/3.5 Macro, 80mm f/4.0 Macro, 85mm f/2.0, 100mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.8, 135mm f/3.5 and 200mm f/4.0. In my experience the best Zuiko's were the 35mm f/2.8, the 80mm f/4.0 Macro and the 100mm f/2.8. As you can see, I kept buying and testing lenses because I really liked the OM system, but was less than impressed with the results. The OM is an interesting design and comes closest to emulating the feel of a Leica, but it is just too lightly built for serious work.</p>

</p><div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >I also have a Minolta SR-T 101. It is a truly excellent camera and reasonably light at 705g. Of the SLR cameras built in the "classic" era of the 1960's to '70's I think these are the best design. The viewfinder is rectangular, bright and large with a magnification of 0.83x and shows 94% of a 24x36 frame. The shutter speed is displayed along the bottom of the frame with black numbers floating on a clear strip. Minolta's 1966 SRT design is the opposite of Leica's 1964 Leicaflex, which has a black strip along the bottom of the frame and clear shutter speed numbers, much less legible than the Minolta. I am not sure when the partnership between Leitz a Minolta began, but owning a Leicaflex SL I have always thought them more than a little similar...</p>

</p>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >The 1966 SRT 101 has auto-indexing when you mount a lens, functionally identical to Nikon's 1978 AI system. Repairs on SRT's I have owned have also been limited to light seals and meter repairs. The MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 PF lenses I have cleaned have a very soft light-green coating on the inside of the front element that will wipe off if you touch it with a tissue! It's dip it in diluted (10%) ammoinia-based lens cleaner and hope for the best with this one. Minolta also make the MC Rokkor-X and the MD series lenses, both of which are reputed to out-perform the MC glass. Of the three, the Minolta glass is the best performing and has the nicest bokeh. Nikon's lenses are sharper, but generally also have poor bokeh - usually hard edged and bright ringed. As you can see, I am recommending Minolta SRT. As a bonus, they sold very well so are plentiful and moderately priced on the second-hand market. As an aside, I also find the SRT is the best camera I have tried for using my pre-set Zeiss Jena M42 lenses from my Contax S with the 'Minolta P' adapter.</p>

</p><div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >When I reach for an SLR it's usually my Leicaflex SL. On some occasions I use the Nikon F, and when I feel like travelling light it's the Contaflex II.</p>

</p><div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >The Contaflex has only one lens accessory, the 1.7x Teleskop, which turns your 45mm f/2.8 into a 76.5mm f/4.7 (!). In practice it works very well. The Zeiss Tessar is very crisp, but the bokeh is not that nice, quite hard-edges and swirly, so stop it down.</p>

</p><div></div>

[ken schwarz]

<p>I had an OM-2 which was in many respects similar to the OM-1. It was beautifully made and sleek. The main problem is that the viewfinder has very little eye relief, so if you wear glasses you will find it hard to see the whole frame at once. If you don't wear glasses, the viewfinder is just superb.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The other camera that's very similar to the OM-series is the Pentax MX. Compact and reasonably light. High mangnification finder, bright and wonderful to focus. Comes (again) at the expense of eye relief. The Pentax-M lenses are mostly excellent, and aren't going up too fast in value due to the Pentax DLSRs. (The Pentax-A prices are getting out of hand!)<br>

The Pentax Super Program is even lighter, but not as wonderful a finder.<br>

Of course, if you want a lot of lens selection, consider Nikon FM, FM2, FA, etc. The compact Nikons are fine cameras.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Peter, from the photo of the black Konica I can't tell if it's a T2 or a T. Over time the coating of Konica lenses improved. If you compare the earliest and latest 100/2.8 Konica Hexanons you will see that the latest one has very different coating. I was told by my repairman that only the front surface of the front element is hard coated in the 58/1.4 MC Rokkor. The 58 has a nice look to it and good bokeh. I have two of them. Where overall performance is concerned, all of the 50/1.4 Rokkors are better than the 58. My favorite is the 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X. It probably isn't any sharper than the later 50/1.4s but it's made a lot better. </p>

[m_m7]

<p>I think the best combination of viewfinder/magnification is the OM-4T ,the brightest I ever saw.As for me I like the Minolta Xe-7 or XE-5 as it has the smoothest advance lever.As for the lenses I prefer the Minolta MC ,the construction is just extraordinary.<br>

From the Zuiko line I love the 21mm/3.5 50mm/f2 macro and the 90mm/f2 macro</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>I have had the Olympus OM-2 for about 25 years and it still works great. Some of the lenses are better than others. There are websites devoted to it that rate the different lenses. I lost the original 50mm f/ 1.8 but recently bought one at my local camera store for $20 they actually had a pretty good assortment for that price and they had the 50 mm F/1.4 for $60. My favorite lens is the 28 F/ 2.8. I also have a Pentax ME super that is a fine camera and I believe has a 1/2000 shutter speed but requires batteries. It still will work without batteries at about 1/60 second. It too is Olympus size and the lenses can be had cheaply. Good luck with your search.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Leica flex, Autore flex, Conta flex, why not Canon flex?<br>

<img src="http://a03-b03.mypicturetown.com/P2PwebCmdController/cache/cf7BI57%25SEDDN*xil4hZt03Ltj-FObBHuAd0GBYZ-PV9V5Zv%3DQ_JuOnTkR2uyqb/item.jpg?rot=1" alt="" /></p>

[micah_pepper]

<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>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >Jeff, it's definitely a T2. I really like the T2 and considering how little you can pick up a T2 with the usual 57mm f/1.4 for, it must be the SLR bargin of all time. The Konica 'T' is a bit basic by comparison with no shutter speeds in the finder, and the T3 just feels more cheaply made to me. I've had a few of them, including a brand-new T3n from Greg Weber. The synthetic cases on the T3's were a bit of a let down too. Hard to find one in good condition these days. I agree that the Konica coating system improved over time and the latest coatings were quite good, but just not quite as good as NIC (Nikon Integrated Coating), which itself is a long way behind Leica's multi-coating or the various Zeiss T* processes.</p>

</p><div></div>

[peter_de_waal]

<p>

<p >The front surface of the 58/1.4 MC Rokkor, but the inside of this element is coated in a soft green gel, which is the nearest thing to a pre-WWII drip coating I will ever see.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >MM & John Crowe, I wouldn't touch a OM-2 or 4 with a barge pole!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Classic cameras are plentiful and relatively cheap. They are fairly simple to repair. Usually they are able to be cleaned and lubed, their functions reset, light leaks repaired, etc, so long as they haven't been handled too roughly. Plastic film cameras, like digital cameras, work marvellously until the day they don't work any more.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Old brass, alloy and glass cameras are screwed together. Modern plastic cameras are often held together by moulded plastic hooks and eyes. These are okay when the body moulding is relatively new, but generally break when you try to flex them after 10 years or more.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Practically every film camera from the mid-1970's onwards used <em>"flexible copper circuit boards." </em>These marvels of micro-miniaturisation are wrapped around the pentaprism, folding or curling around the front and back of the body under the covers. They suffer from the same flaws as the ones that transfer power and data to the screen of a laptop, that is, they age-harden and become brittle. Sure, you are careful when you remove them, but after 10 years you can forget about there being any <em>"flexibility."</em> More often than not, moving them cracks the fine copper circuits. On a laptop you have constant flexing of the screen opening and closing to deal with, so the copper circuit also work-hardens. Luckily circuits in cameras are generally stationary. (not so in auto-focus lenses) If they are one of the early types and are only single-layered, it is possible to bridge the break in the circuit with some very fine wire and extremely good soldering technique. Most of the ones from the mid 1980's onwards tend to be multi-layered. Good luck trying to repair these!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Some cameras were notorious for the design and production problems found in these flexible circuit boards. The Olympus OM4 consumed it's batteries in a day and there were four revisions of the flexible circuit board. The final version, as found in the OM4Ti model, was the best, but still not up to the reliability or efficiency standards of a Nikon FE. All are now NLA - <em>"No Longer Available." </em>(those OM4 main flexible circuit boards used to cost NZ$500!) Of course you may be lucky enough to find a new flexible circuit board in some forgotten parts bin. Unfortunately the new ones have been age hardening whilst on the shelf, so they can fail because you normally have to bend them on installation.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"Flexible copper" circuit boards are chock-full of microchips, many made exclusively for that design. Generally these chips are NLA. For example the metering IC on the Minolta XD cameras tends to overheat and die, and the only source is from another XD with less hours of operation.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The <em>"flexible copper"</em> circuit boards also contain many transistors and electrolytic capacitors. These electrolytic capacitors are prone to leakage, some more than others. Minolta electrolytic capacitors are notorious for leaking and corroding the copper in the circuit boards they rest on. Ugly. (in case you think I have a grudge, I really like my Minolta SRT101)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Even if you are able to identify where the fault lies - no mean feat given the complexity of these beasts, and are then able to access the parts you need to repair it - some distributors have parts policies designed to keep "amateurs" out of camera repair, such as minimum order quantities of some expensive module or circuit, no returns of parts, production of certain parts/circuits ceasing, refusal to give critical information regarding installation such as maximum soldering temperatures, you then face issues re-initialising the camera/lens/whatever by loading the CMOS information back into it's EEPROM(s) to get it going.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Friends of mine who are private professional still-camera repairers used to be able to get these software updates from Canon, Contax, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax etc. up till about 2003 when ALL the camera agents suddenly instituted a 'return to agent' software upgrade and initialisation policy. No doubt trying to protect their national distributors, who are making so little from handling these digitised marvels.And there is the ever-present danger of ESD damage to micro-electronics. In my opinion, these cameras are just shrunken late 1970's and early eighties PC's. Remember them?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Several repairers I knew gave up repair of "modern" film cameras about 2005 for these reasons and semi-retired to fix old mechanical cameras only. They were also faced with a declining market for camera repair services, given that most people didn't want to spend money doing up old film cameras as we do. The camera manufacturers' agents don't want to keep the old gear going either. Usually this is because they want to sell you a new one, but in many cases repairs of a 15-year old camera are impossible as they themselves are unable to access parts that the factory has dropped. What this all boils down to is once the factory agency suspends service for a plastic electronic camera, lens, whatever, that's it. It's dead. Move on to the new (digital) one. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In these circumstances, the only cameras it will be possible to salvage will be the old ones that were made properly, generally anything made before the rise of plastic and microelectronics. Hence, the rise in the prices paid for old cameras and their re-appearance on the streets in the hands of young people.</p>

</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>You may wish to consider which older lenses might serve you a dual purpose, such as being mountable on a modern digital body as well as the original mechanical body. Such as which old Minolta lenses might mount on a SONY with in body stabilization, which might mount on a 4/3rds body or not, which are amenable to mounting with adapters, etc.</p>

<p>I had early screw mount Pentax cameras which I loved, and later the OM-2n, which had one of the best meters for long exposure ever made (real time metering off the film surface) and TTL metering for flash with Olympus flashes. My old OM-2n needs to have its foam around the rear cover re-done as it can admit light (after 30 years). There are kits and a repair guy who can do that which leads me to conclude that a fair number of older OM's need that foam light barrier replaced. I also took some pictures toward the end of last year with an original Nikon F that has been on the shelf for the last 15 years. Although the Nikon F had been to the Nikon techs annually throughout its working career, the exposures were all waaaay overexposed. The cause? The shutter had slowed down quite a bit, perhaps because of drying lubrication. The shots had to be saved in Photoshop scans with 3x exposure compensation. </p>

<p>Whatever you get will need to be checked with test rolls and may well need to see a tech for a tune up.</p>

<p>The one joy of shooting the F was the viewfinder with split prism focusing aid. How wonderful to place that prism right on a cornea or eyelid and have perfect focus on every single shot.</p>

<p>Have fun.</p>