At 04:49 12/18/00 , Ray Moth wondered:
>Dear All,
>
>I'm curious to know how and when List members got into the OM system.
>OM has never been the most popular brand, so I would imagine most
>OM-ers either chose the system because of some particular feature they
>wanted or inherited it.
My Zuikohobbyism (still in denial) started in 1980. It was lust at first
sight. I had been using a Rollei 35T and 35S, but wanted an SLR with
interchageable lenses and use the Rollei's to supplement it (still have the
35S). Bought an OM-10 with a 50/1.8 F.Zuiko lens. Before the first
reading of the OM-10's instruction book was finished, I knew a Manual
Adapter and a T-20 were required. The next fix after that was a 28mm
f/3.5, a 75-150 f/4 zoom, and a generic brand 2X TC.
Several years ago there was a relapse into the disease^h^h^h^h^h^h^h hobby.
Only the T-20 remains of the original equipment, the rest having been sold
off recently as it wasn't being used. Now there's an OM-4, an OM-1n,
eleven other Zuiko's, 2X-A TC, Auto Tubes, a pair of T-32's, and a BG-2
with a number of TTL cords, not to mention other lesser accessories. The
lusting for one or two more Zuiko's and an OM-2n body is competing with
lust for upgrading the M645j body and getting several Sekkor's (a wide, a
tele and a shift).
For me it was a choice between the OM system and the Nikon. The OM's all
used the identical lens mount offering the opportunity to upgrade the body
and/or lenses while maintaining compatibility (versus Nikon's A, AI and AIS
lenses). The OM bodies and Zuiko lenses are compact and light weight
compared to other professional grade, manual focus SLR systems. If I were
starting completely over with a 35mm SLR system, a Nikon F3 and AIS lenses
would be considered in comparison to the OM-4T and Zuiko lenses. I think
the OM-4T and Zuiko's would win out in weight, size and cost. The overall
quality between the two is comparable. I wish the OM's had two features
the F3 has: a multiple exposure switch and display of both shutter speed
and aperture in the viewfinder. However, the OM-4[T] has spot metering and
push-button highlight/shadow compensation, which has come in quite handy.
My brother, who went the Nikon path, chides me about having a "poor man's"
Nikon system. I think of it as less expensive without sacrificing the
quality. Now I've become very accustomed to the OM control layout which
has always felt natural. Everything else, including the Nikon F3, doesn't
feel like it fits my hands as well or have quite the same balance.
Canon? The shutter speed priority system in nearly all of their manual
focus SLR's has always been a turn-off. Although it's a workhorse, the
AE-1[P] and its lenses have more of a plastic feel compared to a
single-digit OM's and especially the Zuiko's. Even the plastic on the
OM-10 felt better in my hands than an AE-1.
Pentax? The "K" series of bodies contains some real workhorses and the
Takumar's are decent lenses. Size is comparable, but the Pentax bodies
just don't have some of the extras, and the system never got quite as
extensive.
Minolta? Always seemed to pursue the consumer market and never went beyond
that much.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|