Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,937   Posts: 1,585,636   Online: 778
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63
  1. #21
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,251
    Images
    34
    I've owned 2 OM-10's--bought one for my(ex)wife and one to fill in for my OM-1 they are trash and not worth owning. Neither of mine lived longer than a year. By comparison, my Om-1 was purchased new in 1982, OM-4 in 1985, OM-10's in 1983, replaced by OM-4 and tossed both 10's in the trash can. Still shoot the OM-1, the OM-4 is headed to the shop for CLA.

    Rick

  2. #22
    frdrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Just outside Prague
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by ralnphot View Post
    My OM-1 and OM-4 are both smaller than my Contax 139Q, and the OM-1 weighs one ounce less with the winder-2 attached compared to the Contax with winder. If the 110 format was still viable, then the Pentax 110 would far and away beat almost everything on the market.

    Rick
    No doubt the OM4 is a superior machine. But are you sure that the OMs are smaller than the 139Q (without winders attached)? I have never seed an Olympus and a Contax side by side, but I found the following dimensions and weights in the specifications (Wikipedia and the Contax 139Q manual, respectively):

    Contax 139Q: 85.5 mm x 135 mm x 50 mm, 500 g
    Olympus OM4: 87 mm x 139 mm x 50 mm, 540 g
    Last edited by frdrx; 02-03-2010 at 05:39 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Wrong quote.

  3. #23
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,955
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by frdrx View Post
    No doubt the OM4 is a superior machine. But are you sure that the OMs are smaller than the 139Q (without winders attached)? I have never seed an Olympus and a Contax side by side, but I found the following dimensions and weights in the specifications (Wikipedia and the Contax 139Q manual, respectively):

    Contax 139Q: 85.5 mm x 135 mm x 50 mm, 500 g
    Olympus OM4: 87 mm x 139 mm x 50 mm, 540 g
    If these dimensions don't include the lenses, this comparison may not answer the question.

    The Olympus Zuiko lenses contribute greatly to the small size of the system.

    Matt

  4. #24
    frdrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Just outside Prague
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    If these dimensions don't include the lenses, this comparison may not answer the question.

    The Olympus Zuiko lenses contribute greatly to the small size of the system.

    Matt
    Of course. It is true that Contax lenses aren't particularly small, possibly with the exception of the 45 mm Tessar.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by ralnphot View Post
    ...tossed both 10's in the trash can.
    Off topic but for community info, OM10 prisms are identical replacements for the OM1.

    Many OM1s suffer the 'green-gunge' prism problem from melted foam. I have fixed a few OM1s with OM10 donor prisms.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lower Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    378
    How about a Nikon N75 with a 28-80 F3.5/5.6 AF-G lens. Total weight, including batteries 621 grams. 139mm X 91mm x 66mm (body). This is a NICE camera, pretty full-featured.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter de Groot View Post
    Useless...
    Please.....enlighten us further.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #28
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,955
    Images
    60
    Re: the OM10

    An OMG (aka OM20) is as light as an OM10, has a built in manual exposure function, and has most of the design "peculiarities" of the OM10 corrected.

    I have two of them, and they have been very reliable.

    Matt

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Maastricht
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    453
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Please.....enlighten us further.
    I consider this more like a toy camera then a serious slr camera. The ones that I have seen where not fully manual and of course the negative size has it's serious limitations if you want to make failry big enlargements. Maybe the word useless was a bit strong :-) More then a play around with I didn't do but boy do I want one. Just for fun ;-)
    Reality is whatever stays when you stop believing in it.
    allthingsanalogue.weebly.com
    darkroomninja.blogspot.com

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    131
    I'd recommend an OM series camera, the lenses for it are really spot-on, cheap, pin-sharp fast prime lenses. Get a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 and you're sorted.

Page 3 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