Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,583   Posts: 1,545,785   Online: 1019
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61
  1. #51
    Mark Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,628
    Images
    151
    I think it is pretty obvious from this thread, that all systems have their fans. Honestly, all prime lenses from the major makers are plenty good enough. I firmly believe that the choice has more to do with mechanics and ergonomics than anything else. The OM series is small....this is great for carrying and my small hands. The shutter dial is in exactly the right spot to me. Other people with bigger hands would likely hate it. I'm glad we have so many choices!
    Your first 10,000 pictures are the worst - HCB

    www.markjamesfisher.com

  2. #52
    Allan Swindles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wirral, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    kanzlr, sorry, you are correct. I knew that, so why did I add the T? Old age or perhaphs the large Scotch.
    Mark Fisher, also correct. Somehow, I could never get to grips (no pun intended) with Nikon. Until the OM system came into being I was a medium format user (Rollei TLR and Hasselblad) and it seemed to me that the reduction in neg. size and subsequent reduction in image quality, relative to the weight/bulkiness of the gear, seemed not worthwhile. The OM system changed my thinking.
    Last edited by Allan Swindles; 10-25-2012 at 05:33 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added comment
    I'm into painting with light - NOT painting by numbers!

  3. #53
    eurekaiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    130
    My Nikon kit looks like this... FE2 (just sold my F3), FG with a Tokina 17 3.5, 20 3.5, 24 2.8, 28 2.8 AI, 35mm 2.0 (AF-D), 50mm 1.4 AI, 60mm Micro (AF-D), 105 2.5 (P type), Vivitar S1 70-210 3.5
    My OM kit looks like this... OM2n (three), OM4 with a Soligor 24 2.8 (mediocre), Kiron 28 2.0 (excellent) 2 50 1.8s, 50 1.4, 105 2.8, 75-150 4, Soligor 70-210 4 (above average)

    I almost without hesitation use an OM over a Nikon (unless I have a specific lens in mind) mostly because of mechanics and ergonomics as mentioned above. I prefer the size and simplicity of the OM system lenses. As far as image quality goes, there's some differences in the equivalents that I own. In particular, the Nikon 105 is a lot better then the Zuiko 100. A lot. It also weighs twice as much. The 50 1.4s seem similar to me on the other hand. In general, I feel like my Zuiko lenses sorta "disappear" from the final images whereas the Nikons have a bit of "character" about them. That isn't meant to be a positive or negative, just a simple observation. The off brand stuff, well that's kinda irrelevant to any comparison. Frankly, if I want to use a system where the lenses really have character, I use my Spotmatic and associated Takumars.
    Last edited by eurekaiv; 10-26-2012 at 04:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Sometimes I post my photos on flickr.
    Sometimes I update my tumblr.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Vienna, AUSTRIA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    66
    I used Nikon gear for years, but somehow never bonded with it. It worked well, was reliable, etc. Olympus and Minolta on the other hand triggered something in me

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by eurekaiv View Post
    As far as image quality goes, there's some differences in the equivalents that I own. In particular, the Nikon 105 is a lot better then the Zuiko 100..
    Interesting that you think that the Nikon 105 is a lot better than the Zuiko 100. I'd perhaps try a Nikon F2 + 105mm f2.5 Sonnar to see what all the craze is about, but perhaps not. I'm beginning to realize that searching for the best glass/camera system (within the constraints of 35mm SLR) is kind of a waste of time. It's choosing between excellent and excellent. All of the Japanese/German manufacturers made good lenses/systems...except for Canon (I'm not serious ). The difference boils down to ergonomics and availability, I think. Well price too.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    530
    Images
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    Interesting that you think that the Nikon 105 is a lot better than the Zuiko 100. I'd perhaps try a Nikon F2 + 105mm f2.5 Sonnar to see what all the craze is about, but perhaps not. I'm beginning to realize that searching for the best glass/camera system (within the constraints of 35mm SLR) is kind of a waste of time. It's choosing between excellent and excellent. All of the Japanese/German manufacturers made good lenses/systems...except for Canon (I'm not serious ). The difference boils down to ergonomics and availability, I think. Well price too.
    If you intend to take your pictures without a tripod, that's what the OM1/2 had been designed for in the first place, the differences in the lenses don't matter anyway.

  7. #57
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,889

    OM vs Nikon System

    You have previous experience with leicas as you have previously posted. The Om system was inspired by Leica. The Om 1 originally was the M1. You will like the OMs. If you don't you can always flip it, nice working bodies are always in demand from both systems you are deciding on.

  8. #58
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    The choice is obvious: Olympus if you want to reach infinite turning the focusing ring toward the left (infinite mark to the right). Nikon if you want to reach infinite turning the focusing ring to the right (infinite mark to the left). If you already have an experience with a manual focus camera, changing focusing direction might drive you insane. That's in my experience. YMMV.

    Either than that: choose Olympus for compactness of the system. Choose Nikon for ruggedness, reliability in extreme conditions and easier repair.

    And if you want the best lens quality for the bucks, look elsewhere (Minolta, Pentax)
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  9. #59
    jakeblues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    los angeles
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen View Post
    I just came back walking the dog. I was carrying my OM1 with 1.8/50 MIJ mounted in the pocket of my jacket just to fill up the roll with some pictures of fallen leafs. May be there are some Pentax bodies equally small as the OM-bodies but the lenses aren't. And there is another difference to Pentax. In making the bodies small they made the controls tiny too. Olympus managed to minimize the size of the body while keeping the controls and the finder large. I have never felt it to be a drawback that I can not see the dialed in speed and aperture in the finder. The finder is uncluttered with distracting information. I use to decide on the aperture before raising the camera and the dialed in speed I can feel in my left hands middle finger and thumb, as the position of the grips of the speed ring is telling me.

    Ulrich
    I believe a Pentax MX with a M 50/1.7 is smaller than any OM equivalent. I've never owned an OM system, but I can vouch for the portability of the small Pentax cameras and lenses.

    Oh and my MX was offended by your comment about it's finder. I can barely see the whole thing when I look through the eyepiece..
    Last edited by jakeblues; 10-30-2012 at 03:22 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    280
    I'm also puzzled by the comment earlier about light leakage into an OM viewfinder upsetting exposure. I've worn glasses for as long as I've had an SLR, and I've never noticed it being a problem. Pentax do include a clip-on cover to use if you're firing the shutter remotely (to keep stray light out) but I can only see it being a problem if you have the viewfinder in strong direct sunlight.

    As for the different lens speeds there's often more to it than "faster are more expensive". I don't know about Olympus or Nikon but Pentax did optimise lenses in the same focal length for different purposes. The 55mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.7 were designed to be a sharp, standard lens - sharp enough to tolerate abuse with teleconverters and extension tubes. The 50/1.4 was aimed at reporters, where speed was more important. It renders differently to the slightly slower lenses and is slightly softer wide open.
    Matt

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin