darin_cozine

Les: I agree. Some of the Olympus lenses are way overpriced. I think it has more to do with dealers than collectors. "Hey this lens did not sell well because people did not like it.. So I will buy it for pennies and sell it for $600 because I can call it'rare'".. I was looking for the 24mm f2 for years before I found one at a decent price. The 50mm f2 macro I snagged from an eBay auction listed as an om10 with lens. Even with a bad pic it did not get past me. I do not call myself a collector, but then I just bought 12 cameras at an estate sale last week. :)

<p>i am not adverse to collecting olympus primes.. 21 f3.5, 24 f2, 28 f2, 35 f2, 50 f1.8, 50 f1.4, 50 f2, 85 f2, 90 f2.5, 100 f2.8, 135 f2.8, 180 f2.8, 200 f4, 300 f4.5. <br> =]</p> <p>of course if a OM3 to be for the right price..</p>

Les.. You are an evil man. Temping me with that om3. I have pretty much decided I don't need one. I am very happy with the om1 for full manual operation and either the 2 or 4 for auto exposure.

David.. Keep the f2 and the f3. Sell the rest. The f2 will last you forever. The f3 is a much better electronic exposure camera than the f2 with photomic . That's my advice if you want to pair down.

<p>i stopped trying to make sense of it or justify it a long time ago...</p> <p>i have one complete 'system', the Olympus OM with 1/2/4 and various lenses.<br> I pared down my other slr systems to whatever i like best. I have a nikon fe2, canon f1n, pentax super program, pentax spotmatic f. -I only have a few lenses for each of these. But all the 35mm stuff is nice because i can also use it on digital.<br> Then I also have a 4x5 and 2x3 with various lenses, but all that I need.<br> But lately I have gotten into vintage cameras, and thats where the real addiction lies. Some are better picture takers than other, but they are a ton of fun and great conversation pieces.<br> i have picked up some rather expensive vintage cameras, and I to hope they hold their value. </p>

I have a couple Vitessa's already. (You may remember my ugly Vitessa post.) I did not think this one would be working but after giving it a good cleaning, is seems to be doing fine. The Vito is pretty slick too. I want to put some film through it and try it out. The Agfa solinette and the ansco speedex are not working unfortunately. Which is really a shame because both have solinar lenses, and I really like the engineering of both. The minox works great. But I have an Olympus XA, which has much better features than the minox in the same size.

The design is similar to the Canon fd 50mm f1.8. But the Canon it appears used a flat cemented surface in the front group. I have not looked closely at the images yet. I'm on my phone. How is the performance wide-open?

<p>Six folding cameras I bought a recent estate sale. Must have been over 1000 cameras there. At least a hundred were Exaktas , but i dont know a darn thing about them. From the front left to right: Voigtlander Vito B, Agfa Solinete, Minox GL, Voigtlander Vitessa N, Ansco Speedex (Agfa Isolette iii). Voigtlander Bessa ii (with Heliar) -I will post more details later.</p><div></div>

<p>Rick: do you have any preference between PMK or Pyrocat ? Those look quite a bit grainier than your usual work.</p>

<p>Rajmohan: I think the first one could have been framed a bit better. I find the shadow distracting maybe crop a little and make the window square with the frame?</p> <p>I really like the "Trinity" shot!</p>

Great! We haven't had a gear giveaway in a long time!

<p>Finally my stupid dogs, this time on the mystery film.</p><div></div>

<p>Farmers Market Entertainment</p><div></div>

<p>Trying again</p><div></div>

<p>A couple more from the Olympus Wide S.<br> Ilford FP4 100, PMK Pyro</p>

Thanks Marc! Wow that's a unique design. I don't think I've seen anything like it. Also that add reminded me of a few things. The rangefinder has frame lines that move for parallax compensation. And the camera focuses down two 26 inches! Very advanced features for a camera at the time.

<p>Of course you cannot really show how sharp a lens is from these 700px images. This 8-element Zuiko is sharp, but not quite clinically sharp from the first results. Now there are many issues with me saying that. Considering this is one example from a camera that I had to completely dissasemble, realign, and was probably not holding as still as I could. Also the images are from flatbed scans from negatives processed in years-old pyro developer. <br> So overall I am pleased with the camera. It is a breeze to use and quite enjoyable. The lens quality is quite respectable and maybe some more testing will yield better results.<br> i hope you like my mini-review. Thanks!</p>

<p>My new friend Travis liked the camera as well, though he was sporting a Nikon S that day. </p><div></div>

<p>Though at f2, focus was still hit-or miss. But that is better than before, where pretty much everything was blurry. </p><div></div>

<p>After re-adjustment, i popped in a roll of my favorite film, Ilford FP4.<br> This yielded much better results.</p><div></div>

<p>another from the first short roll</p><div></div>

<p>My first roll was a short from a mystery bulk loader that came with some other stuff. I have no idea what it is, and there is no identification in the sprockets. So I guess at the ISO, and it came out pretty badly under exposed. Also, I discovered that I had not aligned the rangefinder correctly. The screen i was using did not sit flush against the film rails and so I had to readgust the rangefinder. Many of the negatives were blurry. Some came out OK when I was shooting at f16.</p><div></div>

<p>The build quality is good, but not great. Top and bottom covers are stamped metal. Internal parts are not quite as robust ad i'd like them to be. The chrome finish is nice, and the tolerances are pretty tight. Neither of my Wide-S cameras were stored well, so there is some minor pitting to the chrome. <br> The lens is an 8-element f2 35mm Zuiko. Probably similar to a biogon or super angulon, but I have not been able to find a schematic for it. The filter size is a standard 43mm, unlike some of the later cameras that used odd 43.5mm. So I was able to find a cheap wide-angle metal hood that compliments it nicely. Though I did find out that I cannot use the hood stacked on a filter, as the vignetting is noticeable.</p> <div></div>

<p>These cameras are nicely laid out and make great users when working.<br> All of the aperture, shutter, EV, and distance scales are visible from the top. The lens has a nice focus lever. The film advance is a single stroke lever and the rewind knob has a folding lever.</p> <p>The rangefinder is bright and clear. -not quite as bright as a Canon 7 that I recently aquired, but about the same as a Canon QL17Giii. -Thats is to say better than almost every other rangefinder of the 50's era except perhaps the leica M.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>This was a camera that I purchased from an ebay auction in as-is condition. I had been looking for one (at a decent price) for months, perhaps a year, and finally took a chance. Unfortunately, it was missing some parts an thus began a months-long repair journey. As chance would have it, I happened to find an auction for another Wide-S for a low buy-it-now price that had just been posted in the recent hour. I pounced on that. And alas, that was also missing parts. This time the whole pressure plate was missing.<br> With the knowledge contributed by the generosity of others on this board and APUG, I found out that most all of the body parts are interchangeable with the common cousin the Olympus/Tower 35-S. So I bought two inexpensive parts bodies. And after many hours of work tinkering, I ended up with 3 working cameras. Two of the Wide models, and one with a 42mm f1.8 Zuiko. </p> <div></div>