Nikon F3 or Olympus OM4T???
Space7
What are the advantages (if any) of going with a Nikon F3 over an Olympus
OM4T?
The OM4 has a cloth shutter, F3 has titanium....is titanium THAT much
better than cloth?
The OM4T has spot metering built in! Is this meter any good?
F3 can lock up the mirror, OM4T can do it only with self timer
Is the OM4T ("t" means titanium) built too last?
Do any of you have good solid experiennce with these cameras?
Thanks,
David
Giles
I know this is not a direct comparison but I will stick my foot in. A couple of months
ago I went on a trip to Ireland and took a Om4 Ti and a Nikon F601.
I found the OM a delight to use due to it's light weight, relative to the Nikon, and it's
small size. It is also really nice to use. The controls are nicely positioned so you can
readily locate and identify them by feel while looking through the viewfinder. The spot
metering is brilliant especially as it allows one to average a number of spot readings. The
viewfinder display is also beautifully simple to use and is especially nice in manual mode
as it employs a match needle paradigm - so if you have spot metered 4 areas you still
just adjust speed and/or aperture to line the bar graph up with the fixed pointer. I didn't
find the cloth shutter a problem as I couldn't lock up the mirror with a 300mm lens attached
and point it at the sun 8->
The F601 would share a couple of attributes of relevance with the F3. It is a lot bigger and
heavier. It is a good plastic camera and has so many modes, features and settings that it
should keep a gadget freak happy for hours.
Given the usual desert island choice scenario I would pick the OM4 any day. They both took
damn fine shots. I wouldn't trade the spot metering for a lock up mirror - but that's just
my opinion.
Giles
Paul Chefurka
In article <53kdr7$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, spa...@aol.com (Space7) says:
>
>What are the advantages (if any) of going with a Nikon F3 over an Olympus
>OM4T?
>
>The OM4 has a cloth shutter, F3 has titanium....is titanium THAT much
>better than cloth?
>
>The OM4T has spot metering built in! Is this meter any good?
>
>F3 can lock up the mirror, OM4T can do it only with self timer
>
>Is the OM4T ("t" means titanium) built too last?
>
>Do any of you have good solid experiennce with these cameras?
>
>Thanks,
>
>David
I haven't used the OM4, but I have an F3, and I can give you my quick
impressions. The F3 is a very rugged camera, whose three salient
features relative to the OM are:
1. 80/20 center-weighted metering. While not a spot meter, this gives a
very tight metering pattern that is easier to use accurately (IMO) than
the standard 60/40 of the F/F2, while still being usable as a general
scene meter.
2. The F3 is bigger than the OM, though smaller than any other F series
Nikon.
3. The F3 takes Nikkor lenses. The range of Nikkors available is
substantially wider than the OM range, and some of the lenses are real
standouts (though I unserstand that some Zuikos, esp. the f2.0 macros,
are great as well.
As far as longevity goes, I don't think a titanium covering on the camera
will add to this in normal use.
I don't know what cycle life the OM shutter is specified to, but all
F-series Nikon shutters are specified to 150,000 cycles (their consumer
grade cameras are specified to 50,000 cycles). This has more to do with
the springs and ball bearings than curtain material.
All the best,
Paul Chefurka
Craig A. Yuill
> What are the advantages (if any) of going with a Nikon F3 over an Olympus
> OM4T?
The biggest advantage to the F3 is that Nikon lenses, and lenses from
independent lens makers, are more plentiful. The OM series has become a
niche system--it's good, but used by fewer people; hence fewer retailers
will sell equipment for it.
> The OM4 has a cloth shutter, F3 has titanium....is titanium THAT much
> better than cloth?
Cloth shutters are much more tolerant of abuse than other kinds. I've
seen many dented titanium shutters that probably got that way when the
user poked a digit into the shutter during film changing. I've seen
someone poke a cloth shutter with a finger, knocking the curtain off its
guide slots. He just carefully wound the film advance lever and voila,
the curtain looked the same as before. Also, it is worth noting that the
M-series Leicas have always used cloth shutters.
> The OM4T has spot metering built in! Is this meter any good?
It's the main reason for getting this camera. I've really appreciated
having the spot meter in my F801s. But the OM-4T's shutter is connected
to a much-more-comprehensive exposure readout than anyone elses. I think
the OM-4T's readout is perhaps the best to be found on any camera. I do,
however, agree with an earlier poster, that the heavier center weighting
of the F3 is good too. The 75/25% weighting of the F801s is very good--in
fact I use it most of the time.
> F3 can lock up the mirror, OM4T can do it only with self timer
That really depends on whether you use this feature a lot. I'd say that a
slightly-inconvenient mirror lockup is better than none at all.
> Is the OM4T ("t" means titanium) built too last?
I had an OM-1 for 13.5 years and never had a problem with it. The
titanium will better protect the camera from bumps than ordinary chrome,
in theory anyway.
Craig Yuill
mark
What the HELL are you talking about?!! The F3 is a manual workhorse. It
has only apeture priority "automatic" mode. Where are the plastic parts?
Maybe the ones shipped to the US are the solid Aluminum models. I have had
my F3 since 1981 and love it to death. It has been around the world and
never let me down. Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
mark
In article <Dz7nE...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, dmo...@cix.compulink.co.uk
says...
>
>cno...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> The F601 would share a couple of attributes of relevance with the F3.
>> It is a lot bigger and
>> heavier. It is a good plastic camera and has so many modes, features
>> and settings that it
>> should keep a gadget freak happy for hours.
>
>Plastic? Modes? You've not seen an F3, then?
>
>dmo...@cix.compulink.co.uk | "You can buy anything at Harrods
>da...@cassandra.compulink.co.uk | -- even a Member of Parliament"
>Kilburn, London, England. | (Andrew Rawnsley)
Brian King
mark (an50...@anon.penet.fi) wrote:
: What the HELL are you talking about?!! The F3 is a manual workhorse. It
: has only apeture priority "automatic" mode. Where are the plastic parts?
: Maybe the ones shipped to the US are the solid Aluminum models. I have had
: my F3 since 1981 and love it to death. It has been around the world and
: never let me down. Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
: 80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
The OM-3Ti should be able to do that just fine..
brian
Xinjun Hou
In article an50...@anon.penet.fi (mark) writes:
|> What the HELL are you talking about?!! The F3 is a manual workhorse. It
|> has only apeture priority "automatic" mode. Where are the plastic parts?
|> Maybe the ones shipped to the US are the solid Aluminum models. I have had
|> my F3 since 1981 and love it to death. It has been around the world and
|> never let me down. Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
|> 80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
|>
Sorry mark, OM-4T has 1/60 s mechanical shutter if battery is out. And
if you want more you can get OM-3T, which has mechanical shutter for all
shutter speed (1-/2000 s)==no battery is required. And OM-3T has also
same advance multi spot metering as OM-4T if you have battery.
By the way, this is not to start a war on Nikon vs Olympus, but just for
the record.
--
C Xinjun J. Hou (h...@agouron.com) Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
C10110000110100101101110011010100111010101101110010010000110111101110101
Jim MacKenzie
Space7 wrote:
>
> What are the advantages (if any) of going with a Nikon F3 over an Olympus
> OM4T?
Probably the biggest advantage, one you didn't mention:
- Nikon has a much bigger line of lenses, and the supply of used
Nikkor optics is much larger. Any lens from 1959 to present in Nikon
mount will work. And Nikon is legendary in producing optics.
Even the newer AF lenses function fully on the F3, albeit in manual-
focus mode. Most of the professional AF lenses (80-200 2.8, etc.)
have a damper on the focus ring for true manual-focus feel, too.
Jim
--
/====================================================================\
|Jim MacKenzie Dusyk & Barlow Insurance Brokers Ltd.|
|Insurance Broker 4615 Albert Street|
|dusyk&bar...@cableregina.com Regina, Saskatchewan (Canada)|
|Ph : (306) 789-8384 S4S 6B6|
|FAX: (306) 525-8540 http://www.cableregina.com/users/dusyk&barlow/|
|All opinions expressed are personal, and do not necessarily reflect |
|those of my employer. |
\====================================================================/
Clyde Soles
mark <an50...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
> Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
> 80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
You're right. You can only shoot at 1/60 on an OM4T w/o batteries. So?
At least Olympus shooters don't have to lug all that weight around ;-)
Deborah Kirsner
The Olympus does do that. When the batter dies, the shutter locks but
will release to a manual 60th of a second. The 4T is a wonderful camera.
The two drawbacks are no mirror lock up and the aperture does not show up
in the viewfinder. But it has aperture priority as well as manual, spot
metering that averages up to 8 spots, exposure compensation dial, special
light and dark compensastion modes, and if you use the dedicated Olympus
F280 flash, it will sync up to 1/2000 of a second. It is lightweight and
a pleasure to use. I use the F3 at work for photographing x-rays and copy
work. It is a workhorse, heavier, but does a good job. I found it more
confusing to figure out, but then I inherited it without the manual. Both
are good cameras, but my preference is still the Olympus, especially with
the spot metering.--Deborah
On 16 Oct 1996, mark wrote:
> What the HELL are you talking about?!! The F3 is a manual workhorse. It
> has only apeture priority "automatic" mode. Where are the plastic parts?
> Maybe the ones shipped to the US are the solid Aluminum models. I have had
> my F3 since 1981 and love it to death. It has been around the world and
> never let me down. Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
> 80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
>
Alan Barrow
cso...@rmi.net (Clyde Soles) wrote:
>mark <an50...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>
>> Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
>> 80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
>
>You're right. You can only shoot at 1/60 on an OM4T w/o batteries. So?
>At least Olympus shooters don't have to lug all that weight around ;-)
I believe the OM-2s allows 1/60th manual with dead batteries as well.
Maybe due to it's relation to the OM-4?
Have Fun!
Alan Barrow
j...@atl.hp.com
Stephen Walker
In article <32667...@cableregina.com>,
dusyk&bar...@cableregina.com says...
>
>Probably the biggest advantage, one you didn't mention:
>
> - Nikon has a much bigger line of lenses, and the supply of used
>Nikkor optics is much larger. Any lens from 1959 to present in
Nikon
>mount will work. And Nikon is legendary in producing optics.
I think this sounds good, but does it really mean anything? Yes,
Nikon has more lenses in their line than Olympus. But, All
Olympus lenses since the making of the original OM-1 will work
with the OM-4. And, I might add, Olympus is legendary in
producing optics. For that matter. So is Pentax, Canon, and a
host of other camera makers. I think any legendary Nikon optical
quality is exactly that: Legend. Most of us can't afford the
really good lenses by any manufacturer anyhow...
To dispell any theory that I'm anti-Nikon or something, I'll add
that if I wasn't using Olympus (OM-2s and OM-3) I'd probably be
using a Nikon. Although that new Pentax ZX-5 has caught my eye as
well.
As far as the original question, F3 vs. OM-4T, I can't really
comment as I've never used an F3. I thought I was reading another
post about Nikon cameras that said that the manual metering mode
consisted of a flashing + or - to indicate over/underexposure,
while the Olympus has a bar graph that shows the meter reading in
1/3 stop increments. I couldn't deal with not knowing how far
under or over I was...
-Steve Walker
sp...@cornell.edu
David L. Bernard
In a previous article, cso...@rmi.net (Clyde Soles) says:
>mark <an50...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>
>> Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
>> 80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
>
>You're right. You can only shoot at 1/60 on an OM4T w/o batteries. So?
>At least Olympus shooters don't have to lug all that weight around ;-)
>
I used to use the OM4t, then switched back to Nikon & F3hp. As a camera,
the Oly was very satisfying, I loved the spot meter; as a lightweight it
was great by comparison. Of course, you had to get used to Oly's
different location for the shutter speed control.
The achilles heel of the Olympus line was the lens quality. They just
did not, in my experience, hold a candle to the Nikon line in
durability, and to a lesser extent in quality. I really wanted to like
the Olympus line, but I couldn't get over this block, after having a
couple Zuikos self-destruct. Reluctantly, I switched back to Nikon.
An alternative would be the FE2/FM2n line, bodies virtually the same
size and weight as the Olympus. Regarding lenses, the mid-range teles
and wides and normal lenses are indeed smaller than their Nikon
counterparts (and I believe more delicate). The extreme lenses are no
smaller or lighter than their Nikon counterparts, all in all. Finally,
the majority of Olympus lens designs are at least 10 years old, with
nothing really new coming from them in years (OK, the fast medium zoom
is supposed to be awesome).
This is only based on my own experience, others are perfectly content
wtih Olympus.
David Rosen
Stephen Walker (sp...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <32667...@cableregina.com>,
: >
: >Probably the biggest advantage, one you didn't mention:
: >
: > - Nikon has a much bigger line of lenses, and the supply of used
: >Nikkor optics is much larger. Any lens from 1959 to present in
: Nikon
: >mount will work. And Nikon is legendary in producing optics.
: I think this sounds good, but does it really mean anything? Yes,
: Nikon has more lenses in their line than Olympus. But, All
: Olympus lenses since the making of the original OM-1 will work
: with the OM-4. [snip]
Both the Olympus OM mount and the Nikon AI
mount were intro'ed over 20 yrs ago [about
simoultaneously, +/- 2 yrs], so both users
of F-3s or of OM-4s both have about 20 yrs
reverse compatibility to used lens.
In this case, 20 yrs each is hardly equal,
because many more Nikkors than Zuikos were
sold during that 20 yrs.
[snips]
: As far as the original question, F3 vs. OM-4T, I can't really
: comment as I've never used an F3. I thought I was reading another
: post about Nikon cameras that said that the manual metering mode
: consisted of a flashing + or - to indicate over/underexposure,
: while the Olympus has a bar graph that shows the meter reading in
: 1/3 stop increments. I couldn't deal with not knowing how far
: under or over I was...
Very true. If both systems offer the
lenses etc that you will need for your
applications, then if an SLR body is to
you mainly a light meter built onto a film
holder, then the OM meter is enough to
dictate the OM-4 over the F-3. If you
don't bother much with the meter and just
keep it in AE mode, then the main feature
of an SLR is its viewfinder. In that case
the F-3 is the choice. The F-3 finder
image has a snap and brilliance that makes
the OM finder [and other Nikon finders]
seem just plain squinty.
David Rosen go...@capital.net
: -Steve Walker
: sp...@cornell.edu
Clifford Lesergent
I always thought of my OM-4T as an F3HP shrunken to the size of an FM2.
The capabilities of both the OM4T and the F3HP cameras are quite similar.
The advantages of the Olympus are a significantly more accurate and
sensitive light meter, a useable ISO-type hot shoe, and much lighter
weight. For those people worried about battery failure, the OM3Ti is an
appealing camera, having a mechanical shutter with speeds up to 1/2000,
plus a TTL flash metering circuit and the same superb multi-spot meter.
I would also like to add, at the risk of being branded a heretic, that
many of the Olympus Zuiko lenses (especially shorter focal lengths)
appear to be sharper than the Nikkor equivalents.
These comments and opinions are based on having owned and extensively
used both systems. The biggest advantage Nikon offers to most users is
the reliability of the cameras, something that Olympus hasn't always been
good at; however, the exceptionally poor customer service Nikon (Canada)
offers tends to equalize this.
-Cliff LeSergent
PLS...@prodigy.com
Thomas J. Heatherington
PLS...@prodigy.com (Clifford Lesergent) wrote:
>I always thought of my OM-4T as an F3HP shrunken to the size of an FM2.
>The capabilities of both the OM4T and the F3HP cameras are quite similar.
>The advantages of the Olympus are a significantly more accurate and
>sensitive light meter, a useable ISO-type hot shoe, and much lighter
>weight. For those people worried about battery failure, the OM3Ti is an
>appealing camera, having a mechanical shutter with speeds up to 1/2000,
>plus a TTL flash metering circuit and the same superb multi-spot meter.
>I would also like to add, at the risk of being branded a heretic, that
>many of the Olympus Zuiko lenses (especially shorter focal lengths)
>appear to be sharper than the Nikkor equivalents.
I would second this. I also went through the mental gymnastics of
deciding Nikon vs. Olympus and went with the OM4T. The major reason
was the size of the camera and the very accurate (according to a
review in Popular Photography) spot meter. The only unaswered question
in my mind at the time was the quality of the Zuiko lenses. I became
convinced after purchasing a Canon Elan with two lenses and returning
it after comparing the sharpness of the pictures with that produced by
my Olympus.
I have found the spot meter the most important part of the camera (or
at least on par with the lens quality). I have taken spot readings on
dark red leaves on trees with the sun IN THE FRAME, pressed the
"shadow" button (which compensates and adjusts the spot reading on
dark objects), and the results were perfect. Pictures of winter
scenes also come out perfect if I meter on the snow and push the
"highlight" button. I use the spot meter ALL THE TIME, and NEVER use
the average reading.
The one risk I think about is whether or not Olympus will continue to
support this SLR line. The fact that they introduced the OM-3ti not
long ago (about 2 years, I think), and a new lens or two helps to
lessen this fear, but this is certainly a risk. I am willing to take
this risk because I think the OM-4T is a superior camera, as defined
by the superior spot meter and a body which is smaller and more
"intuitive" to use. I am also very happy with the quality of the
lenses.
MY OPINION ONLY
Tom Heatherington
thom...@pitt.edu
Wai Lun Alan Chan
Is the film winding lever is made of plastic?
Alan Chan
Wai Lun Alan Chan
>>> Even with a Dead battery I can still shoot with the
>>> 80th second manual shutter release. Lets see your Olympus do that!!!
Well, if this were one good reason to choose the F3 over the OM4Ti, then
the Pentax LX would certainly shine away the F3 too. But is it really
important for most of us?
Alan Chan
Chee Robin
I used to use a Olympus OM4, OM3 and OM2 .. with original zuiko fixed
focals. After 5 great years, I had to give it up and buy a Nikon 801s as
Olympus decided to stop their line of SLRs (only continuing a limited
range of stuff). I felt very cheated and deserted and hence decided to
move to Nikon. I'm pleased to say that I feel great that Nikon does not
desert its loyal customers unlike Canon, Minolta (by changing their
mount) and Olympus (by stopping their SLRs with no new products or
upgrade path). I'll choose the F3 simply because of better support from
Nikon and 3rd parties and the ability to upgrade to AF or other great
technology like 3D color Matrix in the F5 (when you hit the jackpot)
-------
Stephen Walker (sp...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <32667...@cableregina.com>,
: dusyk&bar...@cableregina.com says...
: >
: >Probably the biggest advantage, one you didn't mention:
: >
: > - Nikon has a much bigger line of lenses, and the supply of used
: >Nikkor optics is much larger. Any lens from 1959 to present in
: Nikon
: >mount will work. And Nikon is legendary in producing optics.
: I think this sounds good, but does it really mean anything? Yes,
: Nikon has more lenses in their line than Olympus. But, All
: Olympus lenses since the making of the original OM-1 will work
: with the OM-4. And, I might add, Olympus is legendary in
: producing optics. For that matter. So is Pentax, Canon, and a
: host of other camera makers. I think any legendary Nikon optical
: quality is exactly that: Legend. Most of us can't afford the
: really good lenses by any manufacturer anyhow...
: To dispell any theory that I'm anti-Nikon or something, I'll add
: that if I wasn't using Olympus (OM-2s and OM-3) I'd probably be
: using a Nikon. Although that new Pentax ZX-5 has caught my eye as
: well.
: As far as the original question, F3 vs. OM-4T, I can't really
: comment as I've never used an F3. I thought I was reading another
: post about Nikon cameras that said that the manual metering mode
: consisted of a flashing + or - to indicate over/underexposure,
: while the Olympus has a bar graph that shows the meter reading in
: 1/3 stop increments. I couldn't deal with not knowing how far
: under or over I was...
: -Steve Walker
: sp...@cornell.edu
mike...@austin.ibm.com
I would go with an F3 (non hp if you don't wear glases). More stuff available
second hand.
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
M Ritchie
In article <54msqg$r...@mercury.starnet.gov.sg>,
Olympus has not abandones the SLR. They still make two of the best camera's
on the marke(OMm-3,0M-4) and a variety of lenses. Althought their product
line is nowhere as near as extensive as Nikon this can be a mixed blessing.
Although Nikon makes many excellent lenses there are also lots of crummy and
overpriced nikon lenses. Olympus has at least as good a selection of high
quality lenses. The used market is also flourishing. All of my Olympus
lenses are used and all are at least as good as any Nikon lens. I would
rather have a small selection of good lenses to choses from (new and used)
that a wide assortment of lenses some of which I don't have a clue how good
they really are.
Besides the OM-4 is superior to the F3 in almost every respect. The spot
meter is miles above anything I have seen on any other camera.
Martin Ritchie
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M Ritchie
mark
>I think this sounds good, but does it really mean anything? Yes,
>Nikon has more lenses in their line than Olympus. But, All
>Olympus lenses since the making of the original OM-1 will work
>with the OM-4. And, I might add, Olympus is legendary in
>producing optics. For that matter. So is Pentax, Canon, and a
>host of other camera makers. I think any legendary Nikon optical
>quality is exactly that: Legend. Most of us can't afford the
>really good lenses by any manufacturer anyhow...
>
>To dispell any theory that I'm anti-Nikon or something, I'll add
>that if I wasn't using Olympus (OM-2s and OM-3) I'd probably be
>using a Nikon. Although that new Pentax ZX-5 has caught my eye as
>well.
>
>As far as the original question, F3 vs. OM-4T, I can't really
>comment as I've never used an F3. I thought I was reading another
>post about Nikon cameras that said that the manual metering mode
>consisted of a flashing + or - to indicate over/underexposure,
>while the Olympus has a bar graph that shows the meter reading in
>1/3 stop increments. I couldn't deal with not knowing how far
>under or over I was...
>
>-Steve Walker
>sp...@cornell.edu
>
With the only viewfinder that shows 100% of the field going to the film
plane. Olympus does not do that. Nikon Lenses are second to Zeise/Leica
and no other. As with all manufactures, Nikon has made some "not so good"
lenses, although they still are better than anything that Olympus has ever
put on the open market.
1/3 of a stop is really the kind of information that you dont need to know.
The Latitude of all major professional and non professional films well exceeds
this. Besides, you can judge by using your meter. (manual mode does allow
you to determine your exact exposure) or dont they teach that at Cornell?
Bottom line. If you need a dependable Professional system, the Nikon is the
way to go. The Motor drive is second to none, and the lens selection is by
far the best. You can always rent a Nikon Mount lens of your choice. Try
that with another brand.
I have had my F3 for almost 16 years and it has never given my any problems
and has taken abuse that would make other manufactures cringe!!!
Stick with the professionals choice, and the best!!! Go Nikon...
Stephen Walker
In article <555ek4$o...@news.internetmci.com>, an50...@anon.penet.fi
says...
>Well, lets start with education on the F3. The F3 is a total
workhorse.
I admitted I've never used an F3. You've obviously never used an OM-3
or OM-4, because the level of quality is absolutely top notch.
>With the only viewfinder that shows 100% of the field going to the
film
>plane. Olympus does not do that.
True. The Olympus shows only 95% (I think this is the number) of the
image on the film. I've never screwed up a composition because of
this fact.
> Nikon Lenses are second to Zeise/Leica
>and no other. As with all manufactures, Nikon has made some "not so
good"
>lenses, although they still are better than anything that Olympus has
ever
>put on the open market.
This is pure BS in my book. You're saying that the "not so good"
Nikons are better than any Olympus lens? I've talked to a pro
photographer who has used all three of the systems you're talking
about Leica, Nikon, and Olympus. He said the top of the line Zuikos
(Olympus) are as good or better than than any others. Unfortunately,
I've got no frame of reference personally, because as I mentioned, I
can't afford to buy the really good lenses anyhow... Not without a
divorce, anyhow!
>
>1/3 of a stop is really the kind of information that you dont need to
>know.
>The Latitude of all major professional and non professional films
well >exceeds
>this.
1/3 of a stop? Probably doesn't make a difference. But what about 1/2
stop, or 2/3 of a stop. I'd like to know if I'm off that much when
I'm shooting Kodachrome. The point was I like a bar graph rather than
a indicator light telling me that I'm over or under and not telling me
by how much. I know the Nikon AF cameras (6006,8008,F4,N90,etc.) have
the bar graph display, but I didn't know about the F3.
>Besides, you can judge by using your meter. (manual mode does allow
>you to determine your exact exposure) or dont they teach that at
Cornell?
>
Okay. This is where I almost got pissed off and just deleted your
message and didn't respond at all. Intelligent conversation is fine,
but if you want to stick personal jabs in there instead of talking
about cameras, don't bother mailing it to me.
#1. I didn't go to Cornell. I went to Penn State.
#2. I didn't learn about cameras in college. My father taught me how
to use a camera (All manual, with a light meter) when I was 10.
So, at 25, I've got the light meter thing pretty well figured out.
But, again, I admitted I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT INFORMATION THE F3 GIVES IN
MANUAL MODE. If it's just flashing lights, like the FE-2, I've got no
use for it.
Also, if I've been informed correctly, the F3 has no spot meter
capability, where the Olympus spot metering system is second to none.
>Bottom line. If you need a dependable Professional system, the Nikon
is the
>way to go. The Motor drive is second to none, and the lens selection
is by
>far the best. You can always rent a Nikon Mount lens of your choice.
Try
>that with another brand.
>
Here we go again.
Olympus cameras are also dependable and professional. You're starting
to sound like an advertisement.
Motor drive? I personally don't have a use for one. Some people do,
some people don't. But if I did, I would think the 5FPS drive Olympus
makes for my OM-3 would be quite enough.
Lens rental? You're absolutely right about this one. Sometimes I wish
I could rent the high-priced optics for my OM system. But, even if I
had a Nikon, I wouldn't find any lenses for rent anywhere near Ithaca,
NY.
>I have had my F3 for almost 16 years and it has never given my any
problems
>and has taken abuse that would make other manufactures cringe!!!
>
>Stick with the professionals choice, and the best!!! Go Nikon...
>
I can't figure it out. You sound like more like a cheerleader than a
photographer. Unless you want to talk about cameras and their actual
capabilities, instead of saying "Go Nikon", don't bother mailing me
back.
-Steve
Magnus Ostvall
In article <555ik0$n...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> sp...@cornell.edu (Stephen Walker) writes:
Lots of F3 vs OM stuff deleted...
->
-> Also, if I've been informed correctly, the F3 has no spot meter
-> capability, where the Olympus spot metering system is second to none.
->
->
<snip>
->
-> -Steve
->
I agree that the F3 finder is great. I agree that the F3 finder is
really bad in manual mode. Either system can be used by a
person who knows his/her camera and produce great pictures.
Now, I want to discuss details. How do the highlight and shadow
buttons work on the Olympuses? On my T90 (which sometimes is a good camera,
and sometimes a bad camera) the shadow and highlight buttons
can be used to place a spot reading anywhere within a +-4 stop
scale on the right in the viewfinder.
Is the OM spot working the same way?
--
Magnus....@epk.ericsson.se
~~~~~~~~~ Frameworks - EPK/TF ~~~~~~~~~
Ericsson Software Technology AB, Sweden
L. J. Clark
Stephen Walker wrote:
>
> In article <555ek4$o...@news.internetmci.com>, an50...@anon.penet.fi
> says...
>
> >Well, lets start with education on the F3. The F3 is a total
> workhorse.
>
> I admitted I've never used an F3. You've obviously never used an OM-3
> or OM-4, because the level of quality is absolutely top notch.
<<Big SNIP - argue, argue argue.>>
I think we're dealing with a pretty serious case of "marque
chauvinism" here, as far as the pro-Nikon comments go. Some
people will go to any length to defend the product they bought,
because to admit to shortcomings also casts doubt onto their
judgement. Too much personal ego gets wrapped up in the product.
(Beware of anyone wearing name brand stickers and patches when
not actually using the product.)
The Nikon vs. Olympus lens quality issue is bogus for all practical
purposes. Both have made some dogs, both have made what the
firearms folks call "tack drivers", and both have made a bunch
of good lenses that give good service. Nikon has made more.
The issue on availability could be important. You have to hunt
harder for Olympus -- It took me 4 months to find a 1.4x converter.
Both are good cameras, and each seems to operate differently. One
is smaller.
I got rid of my 25-year-old Nikon F equipment this summer, and
bought a collection of used Olympus (OM-2 and -2s) gear. I'm
very glad I did. I like the way the Olympus equipment works
together...It is very much a product of one man's vision. I can
pack a lot more stuff in the same space, and I end up taking the
equipment along with me on more trips. I'm very glad I switched.
I could afford to buy any used equipment of either brand.
But once you blow out the lens issue (and are willing to haunt
used camera outlets for the Olympus equipment) it really comes
down to shooting style and what you are comfortable with.
You need to touch, hold, and try both.
Conclusion:
Nikon -- Good stuff
Olympus -- Good stuff
Happy shooting!
Fredrik Glöckner
[Steve Walker]
|
| As far as the original question, F3 vs. OM-4T, I can't really
| comment as I've never used an F3. I thought I was reading another
| post about Nikon cameras that said that the manual metering mode
| consisted of a flashing + or - to indicate over/underexposure,
| while the Olympus has a bar graph that shows the meter reading in
| 1/3 stop increments. I couldn't deal with not knowing how far
| under or over I was...
[an50...@anon.penet.fi (mark)]
|
| 1/3 of a stop is really the kind of information that you dont need to know.
The Nikon F3 does actually indicate when the exposure is within 1/3 in
manual mode. This is indicated with a `+-' in the LCD. Apart from
that, the manual mode in the Nikon F3 only indicates if the exposure
is above or below 1/3. I think this limitation is a major drawback on
the Nikon F3. It is very useful to see how much off you are, as Steve
pointed out.
--
"Snugglebunnies! Snugglebunnies! Snu-- "
Stephen Walker
In article <g9budl8...@ry209.ryepk.ericsson.se>,
epk...@ry209.ryepk.ericsson.se says...
>Now, I want to discuss details. How do the highlight and shadow
>buttons work on the Olympuses? On my T90 (which sometimes is a good
camera,
>and sometimes a bad camera) the shadow and highlight buttons
>can be used to place a spot reading anywhere within a +-4 stop
>scale on the right in the viewfinder.
>
>Is the OM spot working the same way?
I'm not sure I follow you exactly when you explain the T90 metering
system, but I'll attempt to explain the OM system. It's been a long day
here at work and my head is swimming a little, so I hope this is clear!
First, the camera defaults to center-weighted metering. There is a "Spot"
button next to the shutter release on the OM-3/4 series cameras. Hit it
once, and it gives you an instant spot metering value in the viewfinder --
meaning the value where the center of the focusing screen at the time the
button was pressed. The current reading from the spot meter is also
displayed. When you hit the spot button a second time, it displays both
spot meter readings and the average of the two readings. You can do this
with up to 8? spot meter readings (it will show eight readings and the
average). It may sound confusing, but it's all very easy to read in the
viewfinder.
Now, the "Shadow" and "Highlight" buttons simply move everything up or
down by a stop and a half or two. I don't remember exactly how much it
overexposes or underexposes, usually I just over/underexpose manually by
using the bar graph in the viewfinder. The idea is that you could
spotmeter the darkest region in your composition and hit the "Shadow"
button, and the meter would shift up to cause you to give the film less
exposure so that the dark region would be properly exposed on the film. A
little zone system calculator, I guess you could say.
-Steve
Alan Barrow
an50...@anon.penet.fi (mark) wrote:
Mark.... wonder why you are posting via an anon server?
To your issues:
>Well, lets start with education on the F3. The F3 is a total workhorse.
Education starts with a totally subjective comment?
>With the only viewfinder that shows 100% of the field going to the film
>plane. Olympus does not do that.
I believe the 98% of the OM-2S comes pretty darn close. But I will concede
this one.
> Nikon Lenses are second to Zeise/Leica and no other.
Pretty bold statement... no references, sounds pretty absolute...
> As with all manufactures, Nikon has made some "not so good"
>lenses, although they still are better than anything that Olympus has ever
>put on the open market.
You lost all credibility here.... If you count any of the lab tests, there
are many Zuiko lenses that equal or beat some of the best Nikon lenses. Not
all, but enough to put Zuiko square in the Nikon league. Now add in the
Nikon consumer grade lenses, and the Nikon story goes down. Are you really
sure you want to make such an absolute statement?
Even the little Olympus XA resolves to the same range as some of the best
Nikon lenses.
Zuiko makes some pretty darn good optics. They are still widely used in
Medical and Industrial arena for that reason. And, unlike some of the other
vendors, the Olympus folks appear to be honest when questioned about their
better VS not-so-hot lenses. As opposed to: "All Canon/Nikon lenses are
better than brand X".
Unlike your post, here are some specs from our beloved OM FAQ:
Here are some published test results from Zuiko lenses and
competitors. All are from Modern Photography magazine
(abbreviated MP). Resolution is in lines per mm. Quality
ratings, which depend on type of lens, are: Exc = Excellent;
VG = Very Good; G = Good; Acc = Acceptable.
Lens Resolution Resolution Distortion Source
wide open at f/5.6 (pincushion
center corner center corner or barrel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zuiko 28/3.5 56 Exc 44 Exc 50 VG 50 Exc ? MP 4/73
Nikon 28/2.8 54 VG 43 Exc 54 G 48 Exc ? MP 6/75
Zeiss 28/2.8 56 Exc 50 Exc 63 Exc 56 Exc 0.5% barrel MP 1/86
Zuiko 50/1.4 55 VG 49 Exc 69 VG 62 Exc 0.9% barrel MP 11/85
same 55 VG 49 Exc 69 VG 62 Exc 0.9% barrel MP 6/87
Canon 50/1.4 50 G 45 Exc 70 Exc 63 Exc 0.46% barrel MP 7/86
Leica 50/1.4 54 VG 38 Exc 76 Exc 48 G 0.47% barrel MP 9/87
Zeiss 50/1.4 45 G 40 Exc 72 Exc 64 Exc 0.92% barrel MP 1/88
Zuiko 50/1.8 57 VG 40 Exc 90 Exc 40 VG ? MP 4/73
same 55 VG 49 Exc 69 VG 62 Exc 0.93% pincsh MP 7/85
same 50 G 45 Exc 70 Exc 56 Exc <1% MP 4/86
Nikon E 50/1.8 52 VG 33 VG 66 VG 46 G <1% MP 1/83
(Thanks to Michael Covington <mcov...@ai.uga.edu> and the FAQ
maintainer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that this might show that more than one Zuiko lens, if not all are
meet or exceed Nikon pro grade lenses, and might even approach Leica/Zeiss.
Of course there is more to life then resolution and distortion. I have
never experienced the legendary Leica "crispness". The only Zeiss's I have
used have been on Hasselblad's back in high school.
But the best part about this is that it does not matter. You like Nikon.
Fine. I am sure Nikon's deserve their reputation for many of their
products.
But Nikon's are not for me. To me they are clunky, primitive, heavy, and
loud.
Do I like all Olympus's? Nope. But the OM-1 through OM-4 have all been pro
grade camera's, with duty cycles, construction, and optics that are 100% in
the Nikon and other Pro grade camera's. And there is a reason that the XA's
are selling well used for far more than their original purchase price in
'79.
>1/3 of a stop is really the kind of information that you dont need to know.
>The Latitude of all major professional and non professional films well exceeds
>this.
My OM-2S is very convenient metering. I can set exposure via the meter at
+1, +2, etc without having to touch the compensation dial. (Who needs a
dial if your viewfinder meter is calibrated this way.)
>Bottom line. If you need a dependable Professional system, the Nikon is the
>way to go.
It is one of several good choices.
>The Motor drive is second to none,
Subjective comment at best
> and the lens selection is by far the best.
Nikon has lots of lenses, for true. The real question is does Olympus offer
the lens selction I need. The answer is yes, at comparable prices to Nikon
for the same grade lenses.
> You can always rent a Nikon Mount lens of your choice.
No argument. it would be handy. But I use the lenses I have.
>Stick with the professionals choice, and the best!!! Go Nikon...
OK, all pro's used to use Nikon. (So we are lead to believe) Now a
significant percentage are using Canon.
And the fringe elements are using brand O,M,P,Y,L,and C. I am happy to be
part of the fringe element. If I ever switch, I will probably move straight
to medium format, and keep the OM gear for fun.
>Mark
>cha...@skynet.cs.mci.com
>
OK, so you do have a real email address. So why the anon posting? An
oversite???
Giles
WIth an OM4Ti the highlight and shadow buttons work thus: If you want
to render
part of your image as white in the final image - such as snow, a
whitewashed
building etc, you center the viewfinder on the white part, press the
spot reading
button, recompose the shot, press the highlight button and shoot. The
same applies
for the shadow function except you take the spot reading of an area you
want to be
black and press the shadow button.
It is a very nice little feature and works like a charm for me.
Giles
Magnus Ostvall wrote:
>
> In article <555ik0$n...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> sp...@cornell.edu (Stephen Walker) writes:
>
> Lots of F3 vs OM stuff deleted...
>
> ->
> -> Also, if I've been informed correctly, the F3 has no spot meter
> -> capability, where the Olympus spot metering system is second to none.
> ->
> ->
> <snip>
> ->
> -> -Steve
> ->
>
> I agree that the F3 finder is great. I agree that the F3 finder is
> really bad in manual mode. Either system can be used by a
> person who knows his/her camera and produce great pictures.
>
> Now, I want to discuss details. How do the highlight and shadow
> buttons work on the Olympuses? On my T90 (which sometimes is a good camera,
> and sometimes a bad camera) the shadow and highlight buttons
> can be used to place a spot reading anywhere within a +-4 stop
> scale on the right in the viewfinder.
>
> Is the OM spot working the same way?
>
FG Ang
This thread is beginning to sound like my daughter talking to her
classmate at pre-school, "my father's car is bigger than your father's
car".
>The F3 is a total workhorse.
camera in major exhibitions.
> You've ... never used an OM-3 or OM-4, . . . quality . . top notch.
ditto.
> only viewfinder that shows 100% on filmplane. Olympus doesn't
What's the difference? Slide mount takes up some film space, prints are
not exactly 2:3.
> I've never screwed up a composition because of this fact.
> Nikon Lenses are second to Zeiss/Leica and no other.
Says who? You believe this?
> (crappy Nikon lenses) still better than (all) Olympus lenses.
Ha ha ha, you believe that?
> 1/3 of a stop is really the kind of information that you dont need to
- the camera is merely a tool.
> I like a bar graph rather than a indicator light
help in the quality of the picture? It is merely a way of conveying
information, and be it bar graph, LED, LCD, needle, needle and lollipop,
etc, it is just the camera telling you what the light meter reads.
> don't they teach that at Cornell?
Tch tch . . . how low can you go?
> This is where I almost got pissed off
> intelligent conversation is fine
Are you making intelligent conversations?
> to use a camera (All manual, with a light meter) when I was 10.
batteries and dig out your manual light meter and press on. Why OM4T?
> So at 25,
Hah! there you are!
> If it's just flashing lights, like the FE-2, I've got no use for it.
charged, it uses a needle to indicate metering (try looking for that
needle when you are taking pictures of stage plays, night shots etc).
Now you are stabbing at FE2 (just who said he didn't want to jab at the
back?).
> Also, if I've been informed correctly, the F3 has no spot meter
Ishak Perlman? Anna Sophie Mutter? or just Frank the fumbling ameuter?
My poooooint is, the best light meter in the world is useless if you are
not useful.
> If you need a dependable Professional system, the Nikon is the
> is by far the best.
The motor drive is, like my daughter said, better than yours.
Having said all these, I started with Canon AE-1, then Minolta X-700,
then Nikon FE2, FM, FE, F801, F801s, F601, and now F70 (N70 in US). One
of my love is the OM-1, Pentax MX, Nikon F2.
Don't start a war about "my camera better than yours".
Paul-Lauritz Amundsen.
Both these cameras are fine pieces of machinery.
Personally I am an Olympus Fanatic and have even started collecting OM's
I started off with a Fujica STX 1 and quickly exchanged it for a Yashika
FX 2, one day I needed a second camera for a shoot and borrowed an OM-2,
I thought this was the best thing since sliced bread.
Promptly I exchanged my Yashica for a New! OM-2n.
As time went by I amassed a lot of Olympus Equipment and a OM-1 and a
OM-2 Secondhand.
One day I decided that I was working seriously as a freelance
photographer so I decided it was about time I "Upgraded" to what
everyone had been telling me for years was "The best".
So I exchanged all my Olympus equipment, with the exception of my OM-2n
(Sentimental value, only camera I had bought new) and happily bought one
third of Nikon equipment including a FE-2 and a FM-2, I had them for
about 3 months. When on holiday in Australia my FM-2 got stuck, after
waiting several hours for the right light. I threw it off the cliff,
Stupid move.
I exchanged the Nikon lenses etc for Olympus lenses again and continued
in Australia with ny old faithfull OM-2n.
Maybe I was unlucy, maybe The Nikon could not take the hot torrid
conditions, and humid nights.
I have never had any problems with my OM's and currently use two OM-3's
and a OM-4 Ti, and will be buying an OM3Ti soom because I don't
anticipate They will appear much in secondhand adverts, as my intention
is to have a collection of all OM models produced (Black and chrome).
Olympus have out priced themseves from the normal market but there again
olympus only make top range equipment which is similarly priced to the
competing equipment with similar carracteristics.
I would opt for the OM-4Ti any day because it is cheaper in the used
market than the F3, both have good atributes but they have been pointed
out by every one else.
I have never seen or heared of a serious Olympus user complain about
their equipment, I've met a couple of unhappy Nikon customers.
There is also a reason why there is more Nikon used Equipment for sale
than Olympus, more was sold, Nikon users seem to sell their equipment
Olympus users don't.
Paul-Lauritz Amundsen
Paul-Lauritz Amundsen.
November 1996 Practical Photography (UK)
In there section on Cameras up to Ł2400
Olympus OM-4Ti,
Price Ł1200,Shutter speeds 240-1/2000+B,Aperture Priority, Manual, Exp.
Comp. +/-2,Center weight metering,Spot,Film Speed 6-3200,Flash 1/60, D O
field preview, body weight 510g, Rating 7/10
Nikon F3
Price Ł1300,Shutter speeds 8-1/2000+B T,Aperture Priority,
Manual,Exposure Lock, Exp. Comp. +/-2,Center weight metering,Film Speed
12-6400,Flash 1/80,Multi exposure, D O field preview, body weight 715g,
Rating 7/10
Best regards,
Paul-Lauritz Amundsen
Magnus Ostvall
Ok so the OM and T90 works the same way in when averaging several
spot readings. The best thing with the T90 is that the spot reading can be
used to 'hit' the shadow and highlight buttons several times. Each time
brings the value up or down 1/2 stop. So if you want the snow
to be 1 stop brighter - just bring it up 1 stop.
I have mostly used these features with manual mode exposure.
I think I've used the spot readings more to check the brightness
range of a scene, rather than fiddling with 8 readings which are moved up
and down.
I think either system probably are great, but it can be very confusing
when I don't know exactly what I am doing... :-)
btw - one of the 'design faults' in the T90 I think is the manual mode,
in spot metering it works great but the other metering modes are
working as the old A-1.
So, which camera is best? I'd say the one used by a persom who knows
what he/she is doing - and I can't say I always do :-)
FG Ang
L. J. Clark wrote:
> I think we're dealing with a pretty serious case of "marque
> chauvinism" here
Well said.
> The Nikon vs. Olympus lens quality issue is bogus for all practical
> purposes. Both have made some dogs, both have made what the
> firearms folks call "tack drivers", and both have made a bunch
> of good lenses that give good service. Nikon has made more.
Well done mate.
> The issue on availability could be important. You have to hunt
> harder for Olympus -- It took me 4 months to find a 1.4x converter.
Ditto. You can get a Nikon tomorrow if you want to. There
is simply more of them around.
> Both are good cameras, and each seems to operate differently. One
> is smaller.
Significant when you are travelling with one wife and three kid, or
trying to scale Everest (or just Manhattan).
> the way the Olympus equipment works ...very much a product
> of one man's vision.
The man (can't remember his name) is a genius. Still can't get
over the withdrawal syndrome of not having bought the Pen F and
the XA.
> and I end up taking the equipment along with me on more trips.
That's the whole idea of it. &*@#$ how did my camera bag get so
heavy? (No price for guessing which camera system I use).
> But once you blow out the lens issue (and are willing to haunt
> used camera outlets for the Olympus equipment) it really comes
> down to shooting style and what you are comfortable with.
Well said
> Conclusion:
> Nikon -- Good stuff
> Olympus -- Good stuff
Watch out for the "dogs":
Nikon has a lot of used equipment that are in bad health out there.
Stay away from OM10, 20, 30 & 40.
Stay with single digit OM's.
> Happy shooting!
Now that's wisdom!
FG Ang
Paul-Lauritz Amundsen. wrote:
> So I exchanged all my Olympus equipment, with the exception of my OM-2n
Stupid move.
> I had them for about 3 months. When on holiday in Australia my FM-2
> got stuck, after waiting several hours for the right light.
> I threw it off the cliff, Stupid move.
Could be fatal, and in Singapore, you could go to jail.
> I exchanged the Nikon lenses etc for Olympus lenses
Wise move, since you are happier with OM's.
> Maybe I was unlucky, maybe The Nikon could not take the hot torrid
> conditions, and humid nights.
Maybe your secondhand (were they?) Nikons were in bad shape. I think
one should not
make sweeping statements if he has bad experience with one camera and
condemn the rest of the line.
> Olympus have out priced themseves from the normal market but . . .
> olympus only make top range equipment which is similarly priced to the
> competing equipment with similar carracteristics.
Well the Olympuses for the mass market (OM10,20,30,40 and an unfortunate
AF camera) died because (I think) they can't compete with Nikons,
Canons,
Minoltas and Pentaxes. If you love Olympuses so much, try and take a
look at these cameras, and your view of Olympus making on top range
equipment will
change tremendously (see the OM10 and its LEDs - it looked like street
lamps!).
I think the OM3Ti & OM4Ti are surviving due to
(i) development cost is done with (Olympus hasn't had a new camera
for about 15 years - don't count the IS series AF cameras)
(ii) other sales are suppoting the production of these cameras (I don't
think they are making much, if any, money from the OM3Ti & OM4Ti).
> I would opt for the OM-4Ti any day because it is cheaper in the used
> market than the F3, both have good atributes but they have been pointed
> out by every one else.
No doubt the OM4Ti is capable.
> I have never seen or heared of a serious Olympus user complain about
> their equipment, I've met a couple of unhappy Nikon customers.
There aren't that many of them around. Personally I have met very few
during my last 15 years (as a part-time photographer as well as going
on outings with clubs).
> There is also a reason why there is more Nikon used Equipment for sale
> than Olympus, more was sold, Nikon users seem to sell their equipment
> Olympus users don't.
You can't buy them secondhand if they were sold first hand in the
first place, right? There simply are more Nikons on the street than
all other cameras combined (note it is on the streets - no all other
cameras sold, as most other owners I know cold storage their Minoltas,
Canon, Olympuses instead of selling them) - I mean it - as their
reputation and compatibility allows very old Nikons (like one of
mine, probably made in the mid sixty - chrome lens) to be fitted
to Nikons of tomorrow. And Nikons are good optics.
Another reason - the were more professionals using Nikons than all
other brands combined (that was in the 60's through to early 80's,
after which Canon caught up, and probably over took Nikon with
the EOS1). These guys want absolutely reliable cameras to use,
and so they choose the most reliable (and affordable, hence no Leicas,
Contaxes) cameras (hold your horses before you fire me on this)
like Nikon F3, Canon F1 etc, and (this is where you guys who
want to fire me get your revenge) promptly sell them when
the first sign of trouble comes!
So guys, if you want to buy Nikons secondhand, you must be
knowledgeable about camera conditions, or your lemon will
piss on you on your next vacation.
And for the same reason, most Olympuses (and Canons, Minoltas,
Pentaxes) are extremely good value for money:
(i) their previous owners were more careful when using them -
most of them never "abused" their cameras
(ii) they are much cheaper in the secondhand market for the
reason that they are "not so good"
Personally, if you want a good camera and lenses, you do much
better buying non-Nikons, by getting cameras in better health,
and many more lenses, than with a Nikon F2 (which is likely
to be near the end of its useful life).
Having said all these (too much already), the choice of a
camera should be a fairly personal one. The better optics
of Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Contax, Leica, are IMO,
virtually comparable. Notably, the Contaxes tend to have
lower contrast (which gives the illusion of being richer in
colour), Leicas, and Nikons have higher contrast,
(which gives the illusion of being sharper). Of course each
maker has a lens (or two, or three or ...) that will blow
the others away.
Personally I like the handling of older Nikons (notably from
FE through to FA), hate the present Nikons (except the F4, which,
you guessed it, have traditional type of controls), love some
classic designs like the OM1 & OM2, FTn, MX, SRT101, XD etc.
One day I must pick up an OM1 for my collection.
BTW, IMO, the Olympus Zuikos are great optics, but their
ergonomics sucks. Nikons have the solid feel (until they
started making AF lenses, that's another story).
Brian King
FG Ang (FG...@sp.ac.sg) wrote:
: L. J. Clark wrote:
:
: > the way the Olympus equipment works ...very much a product
: The man (can't remember his name) is a genius. Still can't get
: over the withdrawal syndrome of not having bought the Pen F and
: the XA.
The man's name is Maitanai. He also helped develop the XA for Olympus. not
sure about the PenF, though.
brian
Paul-Lauritz Amundsen.
FG Ang wrote:
>
> L. J. Clark wrote:
> > the way the Olympus equipment works ...very much a product
> > of one man's vision.
>
> The man (can't remember his name) is a genius. Still can't get
> over the withdrawal syndrome of not having bought the Pen F and
> the XA.
>
Happy Shooting
Paul-Lauritz Amundsen
FG Ang
Brian King wrote:
> The man's name is Maitani. He also helped develop the XA for Olympus.
Yes that is the man. Popular Photography ran many articles about him
in the late 70s/early 80s.
But it seems that he is probably out of favour from mid 80s, since
there is really no Olympuses since then.
Oh yes, to you Olympus lovers out there, the OM3/4 are more than
10 years old in technological terms. With Olympus not putting in
much into their cameras (they seem more interested in microscopes
lately), there will come a day your OMs will just give up and
you will not be able to get them repaired (while still available
new/mint secondhand, save a few bodies for those days, and save
the broken down bodies to be cannibalized when such unfortunate
events take place).
Stephen Walker
In article <327A63...@sp.ac.sg>, FG...@sp.ac.sg says...
>Oh yes, to you Olympus lovers out there, the OM3/4 are more than
>10 years old in technological terms.
True, very true. The design is more than 10 years old. But it sounds
more like a reckless flame than a statement with any true meaning. Not
everyone needs 'state of the art' for their photography. I never said the
OM system was the better camera for everything. I never said Nikons
weren't fantastic cameras -- they are. Every year I debate switching to a
Nikon AF system, and so far I've decided every year to stick with what I
have. But, the fact that some people _voluntarily_ choose the OM system
over a Nikon seems to bother some Nikon fanatics out there. "Go Nikon!"
says one poster -- like it's a football game or something and he has to
support his team.
The original poster that started this thread was trying to decide between
the F3 and an OM4T. Both cameras are the same vintage technology, and
both cameras are sturdy and capable of taking wonderful pictures. Neither
will give an absolute advantage in image quality. It's a personal choice
-- which tool functions best for you? Which camera feels the best in your
hands and allows you to utilize _your_ talent and _your_ ablity in the
best way possible. For some it may be the Nikon. For others it maybe the
OM system. Or Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Contax, and a hundred other camera
manufacturers.
I've even gotten a couple of e-mails from people feeling that they need to
set me straight -- that Nikon is much better than Olympus and I just ought
to keep quiet because I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. Hell,
the "Go Nikon!" guy even challenged my ablity to use a light meter because
I was so backwards in thinking I could compare OM with Nikon. Yeah! "Go
Nikon!" Hip Hip hoooray!
>With Olympus not putting in
>much into their cameras (they seem more interested in microscopes
>lately),
Acutally, I think it's the P&S market that really is interesting them
nowadays. I'm guessing they easily sell more P&S cameras than any other
manufacturer -- and that's where the money is. I think that the 35mm SLR
will someday go the way of the Medium format camera -- few models to
choose from with sky-high price tags, because the vast majority of camera
buyers are purchasing P&S cameras. If you compare the SLR market with the
one of 10 years ago, they're already headed that way...
>there will come a day your OMs will just give up and
>you will not be able to get them repaired (while still available
>new/mint secondhand, save a few bodies for those days, and save
>the broken down bodies to be cannibalized when such unfortunate
>events take place).
Yes, you are correct. There will also come a day when there are no new
parts available for the F3, correct? There is no such thing as a camera
that is immune to becoming obsolete. Perhaps the day the OM series is
discontiued will come sooner, but it'll be a few years down the road.
When it happens, I'll probably be switching systems for sure. I'm just
hoping my OM-3 keeps gaining value! (I could sell it now for 3X what I
paid for it) So I can afford a new body when the day comes...
-Steve
FG Ang
Stephen Walker wrote:
>
> In article <327A63...@sp.ac.sg>, FG...@sp.ac.sg says...
> >Oh yes, to you Olympus lovers out there, the OM3/4 are more than
> >10 years old in technological terms.
>
> True, very true. The design is more than 10 years old. But it sounds
> more like a reckless flame than a statement with any true meaning. Not
> everyone needs 'state of the art' for their photography. I never said
> the OM system was the better camera for everything.
Hey pal, you are the one who is flashing a flame, choosing to ignore the
rest of my posting and brand me a reckless flame. I also never said the
OM's were no good, in fact I like the OM1/2 so much I would part with my
cash anytime to buy one. BTW, the line after the "10 year old" thing
was that Olympus never developed anything after the OM4, and it is
fairly obvious that the system is already abandoned by Olympus. Yes
Olympus supports the OM system, but for how long? Especially if the
camera division isn't putting out new OMs and not getting revenue to
cover their operation (of the OM system).
To put things in perspective, it is now fairly difficult to get an F2
meter fixed, as Nikon no longer carries the stock. It is impossible if
one is not to resort to cannabilism to repair an FTn.
I remember I said that "if you love the OM system so much, go out and
buy up one or more bodies while they are available new or secondhand or
when your OM runs out of steam, they are not going to be repaired"
(paraphrased).
Shame on you to take a neutral posting out of context and brand people a
flame. Next time before you say such a thing, give a thought if other
might think Cornell breeds unthinking morrons after reading your post.
FG Ang
Stephen Walker wrote:
>
> In article <327A63...@sp.ac.sg>, FG...@sp.ac.sg says...
> >Oh yes, to you Olympus lovers out there, the OM3/4 are more than
> >10 years old in technological terms.
>
> True, very true. The design is more than 10 years old. But it sounds
> more like a reckless flame than a statement with any true meaning.
Steve Walker is quoting out of context.
To quote from my original posting:
Oh yes, to you Olympus lovers out there, the OM3/4 are more than
10 years old in technological terms. With Olympus not putting in
much into their cameras (they seem more interested in microscopes
lately), there will come a day your OMs will just give up and
you will not be able to get them repaired (while still available
new/mint secondhand, save a few bodies for those days, and save
the broken down bodies to be cannibalized when such unfortunate
events take place).
Please judge for yourself who is the flame.
Stephen Walker
In article <327BD8...@sp.ac.sg>, FG...@sp.ac.sg says...
>Hey pal, you are the one who is flashing a flame, choosing to ignore the
>rest of my posting and brand me a reckless flame.
Whoa! First of all, I did quote your entire article, I just broke it into
three pieces so I could add my comments. I apoligize if you thought all
of the comments were a response to your posting, I was trying to make it
clear I was commenting on the entire thread along with e-mails that I had
gotten. Your post, although I did interpret it as a flame, was relatively
calm and I wasn't upset about it at all.
>I remember I said that "if you love the OM system so much, go out and
>buy up one or more bodies while they are available new or secondhand or
>when your OM runs out of steam, they are not going to be repaired"
>(paraphrased).
>
I did quote this part of the article as well, but going back to look at it
I misread what you wrote. You are right, OM users should look for
inexpensive bodies for repair parts if they intend to keep their OM
systems beyond the day of reckoning (for the OM system). I don't want to
play that game, so I'll probably jump out of it when my bodies/lenses die
after the OM series is discontinued, if and when that may be.
>Shame on you to take a neutral posting out of context and brand people a
>flame. Next time before you say such a thing, give a thought if other
>might think Cornell breeds unthinking morrons after reading your post.
This is too funny. Write a post complaining about me accusing you of a
flame, and end it by calling me an 'unthinking morron' BTW, that's
'moron' not 'morron' (Not a flame, I can't spell either).
-Steve
Jerry Dean
Olmpus has just released two new digital cameras, how old is the Leica M6
design?
FG Ang <FG...@sp.ac.sg> wrote in article <327BD8...@sp.ac.sg>...
Jerry Dean
OM3T is only a year old
Stephen Walker <sp...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
<55feds$9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
David L. Bernard
In a previous article, bk...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Brian King) says:
>FG Ang (FG...@sp.ac.sg) wrote:
>: L. J. Clark wrote:
>:
>: > the way the Olympus equipment works ...very much a product
>: > of one man's vision.
>
>: The man (can't remember his name) is a genius. Still can't get
>: over the withdrawal syndrome of not having bought the Pen F and
>: the XA.
>
>The man's name is Maitanai. He also helped develop the XA for Olympus. not
>sure about the PenF, though.
>
>brian
>
Was the Olympus line designed by a single person? Did he retire around
1980, after the XA was introduced?
The OM1 was certainly radical in its day, given its compact size. Even
the "ZLR" concept was interesting. What's innovative from Olympus in
the last 5 yrs?
ald...@aol.com
The OM4T, I believe was way ahead of it's time when intoduced. I can't
believe the way the price of this camera has increased over the last three
years in photo magazines. From roughly $400 USD to the $800 USD range.
The features that this camera offers is amazing for a non auto-focus
camera. It's light weight and reliable. The only quam I have about this
camera is the regular flash-sync speed of 1/60 of a second. Other than
that this would be a true collectors camera if it wasn't so useful in
todays world!!
Aldrin