Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] Olympus Vs. Other...

Subject: RE: [OM] Olympus Vs. Other...
From: Mark Dickinson <Mark.Dickinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:03:48 +0100
Some thoughts/ramblings from another extreme amateur and fairly recent
OM convert. 
My previous 'system' was a Canon EOS500 (Kiss in US?) and Canon 28-80
and 80-200.  I loved the Canon at first and thought AF was the best
thing since sliced bread. However, as time went on I found myself
thinking less and less about  what I was doing and letting the camera do
more and more. Taking manual control of an EOS still doesn't feel like
you're actually in charge. It's also very easy to focus on the wrong
thing and as for depth of field..... 
My main complaint, however, is with the optical quality of the lenses.
Modern mass market SLR marketing seems to rest upon a confidence trick.
As others on the list have recently said the quality of the lens is more
important than the features of the body in determining the quality of
the final output when used by someone who is actually thinking. However,
whilst bodies have got more 'sophisticated' mass market amateur lenses
seem to have got worse optically as they are built down to a price. To
get Zuiko like optical quality seems to require Canon professional L
series lenses which cost silly  money when compared with near mint
second hand Zuikos.
A year or so ago I bought a second hand OM 2SP and 50 1.8 and 28 2.8
Zuikos. I subsequently added a T20 and a 135 3.5. I used the two systems
in parallel for about a year, but the results and pleasure of use from
the OM kit is streets ahead of the Canon. I have now (last week) sold
the Canon stuff and used the (exact) proceeds to obtain an OM1n and a
Zuiko 100 2.8. Unlike many others on the list I have no aspirations to
own a huge system - I might get a 35 a 200 and a T32 if the price and
condition were right, but I'm pretty happy with what I have. The huge
range of OM stuff is not, therefore, a factor for me.
So, to get to the point, advantages of the OM system:
- Build quality and feel
- Ergonomics - to me OMs are exactly the right size and all the controls
are in the right place. I love the positioning of the shutter speed
control (main reason for not getting an OM 2000).
- Optical quality of Zuiko lenses (and speed in relation to AF zooms)
- Price of used kit - much lower than Nikons for example particularly
for lenses of same/similar focal length and speed - most lenses for
general use can be pickued up for relatively little.
- Control and use of depth of field (compared with AF)
- Having to think about what I'm doing. Even I am cleverer (although
much slower) than auto-exposure and AF in all but 'standard' situations
- Spot metering on the 2SP
- All of the above results in pleasure of use and good quality output.
The only real disadvantage for me is that my kit (and other stuff of the
same vintage) won't last forever and I don't think I'll ever be able to
justify the cash required for a new 3Ti or 4Ti. If Olympus still made
the 1n and priced it against the Nikon FM2 the only disadvantage for me
would disappear.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Medley [SMTP:dmedley@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 10:15 AM
> To:   olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:      [OM] Olympus Vs. Other...
> 
> Recently, I purchased an OM-4T that I had to return due to it being
> defective - mirror would 'freeze' in the up position, even after I
> changed
> batteries.  I tried this camera out, and was impressed with the it's
> capabilities.  Even as an amatuer - in the extreeme - I was able to
> realize
> the advanced nature of the metering, and flash capabilities - although
> at
> my level of experience I'd be hard pressed to take advantage of all
> the
> features.
> 
> Right now, I have an OM-1n, with a few Zuiko lenses, and a few
> off-brand
> lenses.  I am mainly involved with astrophotography, but I have
> recently
> gained an interest in doing 'terrestrial' photography.  With this in
> mind,
> I am considering a more 'advanced' OM camera.  I know Olympus appeals
> to a
> certain niche within the photography world, but I would like to
> understand
> what the philosophy is behind the choice of OM vs. others.
> 
> What spurred this on is that I have a friend with a nice Canon setup.
> A2-e.  I have seen the results.   His is certainly easier to use for
> candid
> shots, and action photography - auto-focus can be a nice thing - but I
> would not think that he'd get as good a result from situations
> requiring
> long exposure, or advance metering.  Am I way off here?
> 
> I'm hoping that perhaps some of the more dedicated Olympus users might
> provide some insight into why they like Olympus vs. other camera
> systems.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Dan M.
> 
> 
> 
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz