Get 2 of each. The Om-1 I used also in Laparoscopies. The OM-2n is good for his Obturator going to 15 or 30 secs.After seeing a friend's medium format pictures I've decided get a film camera or two (the second being potentially a Minolta Autocord). I have an old digital rebel so it would make the most sense if I stuck with Canon and got an older film rebel or, perhaps, purchased an Elan 7e liked I used to own (and loved). So of course I've decided on an Olymus OM-1 or -2. I made the leap mostly because I found out about the OM-1 and OM-2 and couldn't resist. It's a beautiful camera, and nice and small.
So, my decision. The easy part is color. Chrome, of course, it's too classic not to get it, although the black almost does tempt me. Perhaps in the future I could get a black OM-4 if I end up loving the OM-1 or OM-2. But the -4 is too expensive right now and I don't need it.
But the hard part is whether I should get the OM-1(n) or OM-2(n).
Also, I'm probably going to be getting one on keh. I think I understand the following as displayed on keh:
OM-1 MD: Later version that has motor drive. I don't need. Plus I'd get the N anyway I think...
OM-1 Engraved: Has engraving on lens mount? I don't see why one would care... if anyone has any insight that'd be great.
OM-1 1.5 Volt: has had conversion to battery. Doesn't matter to me too much.
Without shoe: doesn't have flash shoe. Doesn't matter, I never shoot flash.
But first I need to decide whether to get the OM-1n or the OM-2n. I've done my homework. Here's what I know.
OM-1n: Has the appeal of a beautiful mechanical machine. This really seems to be the only advantage. At first I thought I didn't care, but then I started thinking about it more and realized that this is a great appeal. Part of the reason I like the OM at all is its simplicity and its mechanical beauty. Now, practically speaking, I would likely never or rarely use the camera without a battery, so it's really just more the mechanical appeal. Also, it seems through most of my searches that most people that own multiple OM-cameras say that if they had to keep one it would be the OM-1. Through my searches it looks like the OM-1n is preferred to the OM-1 because it has some minor updates, including better foam around the prism?
OM-2n: I think this camera only has three advantages to the OM-1n for me. First is its aperture-priority mode. Second is its display in this mode of the shutter speed. I feel that with this feature it would have all, or most of, the modern features and convenience I care about. It seems these advantages would allow one to take pictures continually taking the camera of one's eye. It seems with the OM-1n that to take a picture I would have to put the camera to set the F-stop, put the camera to my eye and focus and adjust the shutter speed, then pull the camera away and check to make sure the shutter speed is high enough and potentially repeat this process. Maybe that's not annoying, maybe it is. Maybe the only way to find out if that annoys me is to get the OM-1n. Third, and I'm not sure if this is true or not, is that its meter seems to be much better and potentially more reliable. I don't want to have the old CdS meter on the OM-1 break after a couple of years and never work again. I think that if this third bit wasn't true, I'd swing for the OM-1n. If it is true, I have a harder time choosing, especially since I probably won't be in a situation very often if at all where I don't have a battery, or at least I'm willing to risk that.
It's important to note that the following differences are of no concern to me: mirror lock-up, flash capabilities, motor drive capabilities, battery problems.
Thanks in advance!