Olympus OM30 . . . or . . . Canon EOS100
I own some Olympus Zuiko Glass, A Pentax 645 33-55
with a Zoerk PSA, and a Sigma 12-24 all used on a
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
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?
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
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.
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.
“What is a master but a master student? And if that's true, then there's a responsibility on you to keep getting better and to explore avenues of your profession.”ť
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).
“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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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
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.
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.
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
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.