Hi.
At the rist of boring a whole lot of folks out there, I'm going to throw in
my two, "newbie," cents here. You see, I recently joined the OM users' club
and bought an OM SLR. I've been shooting 35mm for a while and I've always
sworn by Nikon. It was the quality and availability of Nikkor lenses that
steered me that way when I was choosing a system long ago. Despite the
wonderful pictures, there was always an aggrivating compromise with my
Nikon cameras which, to some, might seem frivolous. It was an handling
thing, an "ergo" thing. Specifically, the viewfinder window is round, and
although my eye is also round, a round viewfinder vignettes unless you
press the camera INSIDE you eye socket so as to bring your eye close enough
to the viewfinder lens. Taking in all of it was impossible unless I, A,
held the camera upside-down - which allowed me to force the camera more
deeply into my eye socket - or, B, turned my face at awkward angles to,
again, press my eye closest to the viewfinder. Determined to stay with
Nikon - my lens assortment was already growing - I tried as many different
Nikon bodies as I could. I tried every last quality body, and I was willing
to make whatever compromises - give up apeture priority metereing, for
example - but it was no use. The Nikon viewfinder was just not compatible
with my eyes (even the "HP" version of the F3 didn't work for me). Then, on
a whim, in my local camera shop, I said to the man behind the counter,
"Hmmm, that black Olympus, may I see that? What is it? Which model, I mean?
How does it stack up to a Nikon FE?" And so he handed it to me saying,
"This is the OM-4, their flagship SLR, although there is a titanium version
whose electronics are reported to be less prone to problems. It's actually
a lot more camera than an FE, although perhaps not as reliable." I took the
camera from him, held it up to my eye and, WOW, I could see!!!! I gave it
back to him and went straight home to start reading and researching (on the
'Net) about the OM system. I learned that the modest OM-1n would probably
meet all of my needs, so I went back the my local camera shop and asked to
see one. But, alas, when I held it to my eye, the viewfinder port was
smaller and that dreaded vignetting was scarcely better than my Nikons. I
then learned that the roomy viewfinder was exclusive to the OM-4 and 4T. I
was sad to learn this, as I realized that my quest to actually SEE what I
was shooting would take precidence over features and, to some extent, cost,
and I knew that the 4T was both brimming with features I didn't need, and
quite expensive. It was also with some trepidation that I considered
dumping my Nikkors for Zuikos. It is handy, yes, to adjust the shutter
speed at the base of the mount, but it's NOT so handy to adjust the apeture
at the end of the barrel. Previewing and adjusting (at the same time) depth
of field is considerably more awkward with an OM camera than a Nikon, and
that kind of adjusting is something I do often. Finding OM lenses has not
been easy. To be honest, I have no lenses at all. My Nikkors have served me
so well, and I thought to replace them with OM equivalents. However, a
sharp, affordable, reasonably fast super-wide is a tall order in the used
OM market, I'm finding out. My 20/2.8 Nikkor was my most useful lens. Now,
to replace it, I'm seeking a used OM 21/3.5, and the half-stop loss will be
a regretable concession. And my 50/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, amazing for its
contrast and sharpness, will be replaced by the slower OM 50.3.5 macro.
Again, the giving up speed, yet making the same investment, is not
something I do enthusiastically. And, while it's true that I am accustomed
to Nikon feel, it seems to me that the focusing helical(helicoid?) in
Nikkor lenses is smoother than OM lenses; again, as I'm sure you've
gathered by now, feel is important to me. Anyway, getting back to the 4T,
there is a shortcoming that I find peculiar. There are few other
interactions with your camera that are more important than film advance. On
Nikon cameras, the action of the lever is so positive and satisfying, and
on some models (F3), effortless. But the film advance mechanism on the 4T
is, I'm sad to say, the worst I've ever felt in a manually-wound SLR.
Interestingly, this is less of a shortcoming with the older OM-1 and
OM-2/2s bodies I've held. Perhaps they have ball bearings, while the 4T is
bearingless. I'm not an engineer, and I have no idea what is hiding in
there, but I can tell you that it feels awful. Anyway, enough griping. My
point here is not to slam the 4T. Indeed, I have weighed the pros and cons
and the pros have won out; I now own a 4T. But, as I've said, I am
lensless. As I have found it impossible to procure a used 21/3.5 MC, I have
decided to seek out a 100/2.8, a focal length which I also find very useful
among Nikkors. I'm excited about learning as much about the OM system as I
have about Nikon. The Hove book, The Nikon Compendium, has served me well.
I'm sad that there are no such system overview books still in print about
the OM system (or none that I've seen, anyway).
I'm sorry if this has been a verbose introduction, but I have thought a lot
about my conversion and I just wanted to share some of those thoughts with
people who might relate. Thanks to every one on this list who has shared so
much great info. I have learned a lot from you all (by lurking, that is).
Sincerely,
Jason in Minneapolis
< 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 >
|