Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,896   Posts: 1,520,984   Online: 918
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    aoluain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Galway | IRL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    96

    Olympus OM30 . . . or . . . Canon EOS100

    Hi All,

    I own some Olympus Zuiko Glass, A Pentax 645 33-55
    with a Zoerk PSA, and a Sigma 12-24 all used on a
    Canon 5D.

    I am looking to get a 35mm film camera but I'm torn between
    these 2 options [edit: OM10 or EOS100].

    I really like the look and reviews of the OM SLR's for
    my Zuiko Glass but if I go for and EOS I can use all
    my glass.

    Is it a no brainer, should I be going for the EOS or are the
    OM's a nicer unit to have?

    Oh and I have a cheap EOS300 that I bought at a good
    price with a batch of film, should I just use that?

    Alan

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Huntington, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    305
    Why oh why would you want an OM-10 (or OM-30 aka OM-F))? Loaded with exposure problems, though you might not see all of them with negatives films wide exposure range. Look for an OM-1N, 2N. John

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    If you already have the other Canon film camera, I'd stick with it. And I agree that the single-digit OMs probably are better cameras.

    Those later double-digital Olympus OM models were a lot of plastic.

  4. #4
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,816
    Images
    31
    If you are going to consider any Olympus cameras, look at OM-1, OM-2, OM-3, or OM-4. Steer clear of the OM-10, or OM-F, they are entry lever junk, and have problems. The OM-G is an OM-10 with some of the bugs worked out, but still not decent enough quality to warrant spending any money on. If you want manual only, its OM-1 or 3, and auto modes any of the OM-2 versions, or OM-4.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  5. #5
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,057
    Images
    60
    I'm going to disagree with Rick on the OM-G (aka OM-20). I have 2 of them, and they are both capable and reliable. They are also a fair bit lighter than the single digit OM cameras. When I bought mine, they were incredibly cheap.

    Avoid the OM-10.

    An OM-2 (or 3, or 4) is definitely better than an OM-G, but not as likely to be as inexpensive. An OM-1 is also better, but you need a battery work-around.

    If you get any of the OM bodies, it will be tough to resist the temptation to get more ... (I have an OM-1n, two OM-G, an OM-2s and an OM-2n).
    Matt

    “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

  6. #6
    aoluain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Galway | IRL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    96
    thanks for the info all . . .

    ok the om10 is off the table.

    I not planning on spending too much money
    on a body so will go with the om20 possibly.

    No one fancies an EOS as an option?

    I dug out the 300 this evening and man it feels so
    cheap.

  7. #7
    Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    224
    Images
    15
    I agree, the 300 did feel cheap and plasticky when I had one, but I loved it at the time. I prefer the OM-10.

    So what's so wrong with the OM-10? Reading this thread had me pouring through OM2n auctions on Ebay... even though i don't actually need one. The OM10 is pretty small and light - it's even smaller than my Bessa R2a when put side by side.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,429
    OM10 may not be the best Olympus but it's a pretty good camera. I have several and have given some to family members and they love them.

    I don't see how they're any worse than plastic cameras of the more modern era. Just don't wind them too vigorously.

    I get good exposures from mine too. I stick with Silver Oxide batteries for consistency.
    - Bill Lynch

  9. #9
    Cliffy13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wordsley West Midlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    104
    I have an EOS100 that I got for free because every 30 or so shots for no apparent reason the shutter stays open for about a second,other than that and I can live with losing 1 shot per roll of film ,its a nice camera to use anmd gives fine results with all my EOS lenses
    There Is A Bustle In My Hedgerow

    My Film Shots On Flickr

  10. #10
    aoluain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Galway | IRL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    96
    thanks for the heads up guys.

    i think i'll go the eos100 route with an eye open
    for an OM2.

    thanks for all the suggestions.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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