I went to a photography store and checked out the OM's and I like them. I think I would be just as happy with the Nikon F bodies too though. I have limited experience with SLR's, but I believe that I can adapt to either ergonomics. A solid body is important to me but the OM's feel solid enough. Honestly, the Nikon F's feel a little more solid but I don't doubt the OM durability.
I mostly shoot 35mm rangefinders (Leica's) but I only have 35mm and 50mm lenses. The reason for me wanting an SLR system is because:
1) Leica (and Cosina, Zeiss, Konica) rangefinder lenses are by no means cheap. I can only justify 35mm and 50mm lenses because those, to me, are the most useful focal lengths for general applications. I also have some doubts in the Cosina/Zeiss durability (but that is an entirely different discussion), so I'd prefer to stick with Leica and Konica (I have no experience with Konica...only early Leica's, Nikon's, and Canon's).
2) I want to try wider and longer lenses, but mostly wide angles. Even if you ignore the cost, wider and longer lenses seem cumbersome. I don't like the idea of external viewfinders and I do not want to buy another body for 28mm framelines.
3) I want a camera with precise framing (portraits mostly). OM's don't offer 100% coverage but they seem good enough (97%, I think?).
With this in mind I'm actually rethinking the idea of f2 lenses. After a few years of shooting 35mm/50mm I'm dying to try wider and longer lenses. I think I might benefit more from buying a few f2.8/f3.5 lenses and then "upgrading" to f2 lenses for my favorite focal lengths if I feel that f2.8/f3.5 lenses are limiting.
Last edited by franny; 10-25-2012 at 02:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.