1. I don't plan on using the on camera meter. I handheld meter. If I were to use an on camera meter then I would would probably want autoexposure too and opt for the OM2n, maybe the OM4Ti but I am not so familiar with this camera. Anyways, metering is not the issue.
2. I want a fast wide angle prime. And the 28mm f2.0 as someone else as mentioned is 49mm filter thread. The annoying 55mm filter threads of the 28mm-85mm lenses are the 35mm f2.0 and 50mm f2.0 lenses. I want the 50mm, but not so much the 35mm. Anyways, I shoot low-light often or I'm caught indoors with ISO 100 film. I can perhaps carry a second body for ISO 400/ISO 1600....but the 28mm f2.0 isn't as highly priced as some of their other lenses. I see them go for $200-$300 which isn't so bad in my pinion, but the 28mm f2.8 are much cheaper.
I was using Gossen digisix when shooting in Italy by loosely employing BTZS.
OM is about a small system to me. I'd forget the winder....one more battery to go dead and one more thing to haul around. Besides the manual winding feels so good.
don't even think about using an OM1 in the long run without having it CLA'd. The light seals will have been deteriorated to some sticky goo. The same material is used inside the prism housing and is eventually destroying the prism. Something to check when purchasing one by the way. Anyone doing the CLA for you will convert the meter to. It's no big deal to do it.
I went to a photography store and checked out the OM's and I like them. I think I would be just as happy with the Nikon F bodies too though. I have limited experience with SLR's, but I believe that I can adapt to either ergonomics. A solid body is important to me but the OM's feel solid enough. Honestly, the Nikon F's feel a little more solid but I don't doubt the OM durability.
I mostly shoot 35mm rangefinders (Leica's) but I only have 35mm and 50mm lenses. The reason for me wanting an SLR system is because:
1) Leica (and Cosina, Zeiss, Konica) rangefinder lenses are by no means cheap. I can only justify 35mm and 50mm lenses because those, to me, are the most useful focal lengths for general applications. I also have some doubts in the Cosina/Zeiss durability (but that is an entirely different discussion), so I'd prefer to stick with Leica and Konica (I have no experience with Konica...only early Leica's, Nikon's, and Canon's).
2) I want to try wider and longer lenses, but mostly wide angles. Even if you ignore the cost, wider and longer lenses seem cumbersome. I don't like the idea of external viewfinders and I do not want to buy another body for 28mm framelines.
3) I want a camera with precise framing (portraits mostly). OM's don't offer 100% coverage but they seem good enough (97%, I think?).
With this in mind I'm actually rethinking the idea of f2 lenses. After a few years of shooting 35mm/50mm I'm dying to try wider and longer lenses. I think I might benefit more from buying a few f2.8/f3.5 lenses and then "upgrading" to f2 lenses for my favorite focal lengths if I feel that f2.8/f3.5 lenses are limiting.
Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 @f11.
APX 100, Rodinal 1+50.
Adox MCP 312, Adotol NE.
No sharpening. Shadow and highlights are lost during scanning...
Ulrich, your words of CLA-warning are hurting my pocket book ;-)
I have a few OMs that are working quite well but I guess I should deal with the risk of deteriorating foam, eh? Does any one know of any way to tell if it has been removed in some previous CLA, other than keeping track of new deteriorated spots in the viewfinder??
Btw, I also am not big on power winders for the OM but to each his own. I also think the OM system is about size and simplicity. Having said that I do have a powerwinder for my Pentax Auto 110 but that is only because it looks crazy with it!
For a camera it cost me around 50 Pounds, but it may last for next 10-15 years. ;-)