The MX with most of the smaller primes will be about the same size as that OM, and it doesn't have small controls either. See here for the dimensions of the various M bodies, the MX is slightly wider as it uses a different shutter to the rest.
The only ones with small controls are the ME Super and Super A/Program A where Pentax decided that little buttons were the future for shutter speed control. Which would be why I prefer the MX, KX, or K2!
On judging lenses...
Considering the age of these lenses, you can get a lot of sample variation depending on its storage and usage.
Many have internal haze that needs to be cleaned. You might not even notice it right away but it can affect the IQ.
People are hesitant to admit that the lens was kept in a smoky house or one that cooked with a lot of grease.
And it's natural for photographers to unfairly declare a lens "bad" when what it needed was cleaning.
Half of the lenses I got over the past 5 years need a good professional cleaning. I need to get that done one of these days....
Many things to consider, but i'm wondering..
does anyone have a size comparison between the zuiko and nikon lenses? I'm interested in a wide variety so whichever ones you got will do. I can probably fill in the rest. I'm in particularly interested in the two 28mm f2.0's. This focal length I care about the most.
My 2p. IMHO fast lenses are only better if you use them wide open. For me, inexpensive slower lenses and cheap zooms with fast film are just fine. I shoot OM. My best lenses f2.8 35mm, f1.8 50mm and believe it or not the F4 35-70 zoom. I also regularly use a 75-150mm zoom as well. Great & inexpensive lenses, cheap bodies. Just the job. I have 4 bodies, used all the time - that way I can use different films for different occasions without finishing the roll every time.
The other thing to beware of is fungus. Most of the time it'll clean off without doing noticeable harm, but it seems fond of the adhesive used to stick lens elements together and will get between them. It would be very difficult and expensive to have the elements separated, cleaned and re-glued.
Originally Posted by wblynch
You can clean most smaller lenses yourself, you just need the right tools (especially a cheap pair of vernier callipers to use as a lens wrench), a pair of surgical gloves (to stop the natural oils on your fingers from ending up on the elements) and a "Rocket Blower" or similar. Work in the least dusty room, you will inevitably get some dust but it doesn't seem to do much harm to image quality. I've cleaned three 50mm primes, a 28-50mm zoom and an 80-200mm zoom this way, all work perfectly.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Very true! I use my 2.0 and 1.4's about 2% of the time.
Originally Posted by mr rusty
Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 is no bad lens. Get one with metal hood. Its great from wide-open and I use mostly @f/8.0 or @f/11.0
If you want solid machines, go with Nikon or Pentax.
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.
Until the 80's all the lens made by the manufactures had the same build quality, faster lens were just faster, more glass, few lens made, cost more. When I shot with Nikon my 28 2.8 was built as well as the 2.0. I shot most of the time with the 2.8 and only took the 2.0 for very low light. Even to day I have M42 Pentax glass, fast and standard, most the time I just take the standard glass. S o unless you plan on shooting in very low light I recommend starting with the standard lens and adding fast glass if you really need it. As mentioned by others consider having your gear cleaned and adjusted.
Originally Posted by pierods
Must I utter... "Maitani"
Decades after I became an OLY fanboi, I realized that all these cameras that I loved (the OM1&2, the XA, the Pen, etc) were children of the same industrial designer, Maitani (or at least this is the mythology that Olympus built). This link calling it the 'cult of Olympus' and connecting it to him, more or less sums it up -- http://camarasclassicas.blogspot.ca/...f-olympus.html
It is pretty rare where one person puts his stamp on a range of products from a large corporation. This is pretty easy to see his stamp by googling "Olympus camera designer" and trying this with other Japanese brands. Maitani will come up as one of the top links, but I do not see this for the bigger companies. This does not mean that they are superior or inferior, but it does mean that one person likely controlled a fair bit of the esthetic and functional considerations of Oly cameras from that time compared to Canon or Nikon. To me this means that the Oly cameras may have some different things about it (eg shutter speed ring, minimalist viewfinder info) that you either love or you hate. Maitani was a minimalist -- my first OM2 seemed rather feature-poor compared to my friends' Canons and Nikons of the time, but to me this minimalist quality was attractive and still is. It keeps the camera out of my way. So try an Olympus before you buy one. If I had to bet I would think you might have stronger feelings about the Olympus over the Nikons, I am just not sure which feeling it would be.
As a last comment, I feel that the older 1.4 50mm lenses are 'piled on to' a bit excessively. OK, maybe I am just jealous as both my 1.4s have serial numbers <1,000,000, but they seem pretty good to me. I have a couple of 1.8 lenses (of varying ages) and I prefer the 1.4s and generally think they are great. Again, maybe the clouds will part for me if I try a newer one, but I am not waiting for it to happen.
My standard kit - OM 2n or OM 2sp, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/2.0 fits easily in a tiny camera bag.
My other lenses include a number of 50mm (1.8, 1.4, 3.5 macro) that are very good and a surprisingly good 75mm - 150mm f/4 two touch zoom.
My OM20/OMG bodies are great, cheap backup bodies that are very light but very functional.
And in the past, my OM 1 bodies were very reliable.
The OM ergonomics are quite different from other cameras - really well suited to my strongly left handed needs.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2