A minor difference that would only be noticeable on rare occasions.Īnd do I dare bring the "b" word into the mix? Aww, hell. On the other hand, the Nikon system closes the lens aperture before triggering the shutter, so it actually produces very slightly less vibration than the OM-1, which does not pre-fire the aperture before the shutter. It works okay, but isn't handy for critical timing of the shutter release. The FM2N mirror lockup is activated as part of the self-timer. The OM-1 and OM-4 models have true mirror lockup, one of the few weaknesses of the FM2N. I just gave up on the flash and used the OM-1 for available light stuff.
#Nikon fm2 Pc
But if you really need to use flash the PC socket works. The crappy accessory flash shoes for the early OMs were junk (I fixed mine so many times it was mostly made of super glue and pocket lint). But if I was going to get another OM I'd get the OM-1N and have John Hermanson CLA it and do the battery mod. If you really think you'll make use of the sophisticated multi-spot reading capability of the OM-4T, go for it. The Nikon stuff is just very slightly bulkier. But I can't squeeze the FM2N and 52mm filter thread Nikkors into the same Lowe Off Trail waist bag that neatly held my entire Olympus kit.
Olympus influenced many makers of 35mm SLRs to offer more compact models and Nikon did pretty well with the FM and comparably sized SLRs. Honestly, there's not that much difference between the OM-1 and FM2N, the latter arguably being Nikon's most OM-like camera. My first Nikons were the F3HP and FM2N and I continued using the OM-1 alongside those for a few years.
#Nikon fm2 iso
Handy enough that I actually used the Olympus digicam's spotmetering in place of my old Pentax Spotmeter V for metering ISO 100-400 films in my meterless medium format cameras. While I never bought an OM-4T I was impressed enough with the multi-spot reading system that it influenced my decision to buy the Olympus C-3040Z, my first digicam, which offered the same type of metering. I tried the OM-4T and really liked the metering option. Only reason I finally sold the kit was because I didn't want to bother with two separate systems and had switched mostly to Nikons. Never a problem with reliability with the OM-1, tho' my OM-2N electronics did croak. Unloading that tiny bag was funny, like the scene with Mad Max at Bartertown where he keeps pulling out what seems like dozens of weapons. I could fit the OM-1, 75-150/4, 50/1.4, 28/2.8 and 50/3.5 macro and T-20 flash in that waist bag, along with polarizer filter and closeup diopter, film, batteries, lens cleaning stuff, etc. Those Zuikos with 49mm filter threads were very compact and everything fit in a Lowe Off Trail, their smallest waist pack. I really enjoyed my OM-1 and modest Zuikos for travel. Have any of you had direct experience with both an Olympus OM3/4 and a Nikon FM2? How do they compare? Is there another modern classic SLR in the same price range that has ever triggered admiration every time you pulled it from the bag? I'm going for sex appeal - I've got a serious digital kit and don't need to replace it - I just want a classic for technical special occasions. It really seems like I should try something new - perhaps the Nikon FM2. I've had two OM-1n's, the OM4, a modern Olympus digital kit, and now the XA-1. My inclination is to pick up another OM4, but here's the thing: I've only ever owned Olympus cameras. The thing was lightweight, sized perfectly, built like a tank, had spot metering that could average seven samples, in addition to excellent aperture priority metering. I owned an Olympus OM4 about ten years ago and it was just about the nicest, most intuitive camera I've ever held. I've decided that I want to pick up a "modern classic" SLR for high ISO, infrared, and long exposure work. After years of shooting digital I recently rediscovered the joys of shooting with film due to a little Olympus XA-1 rangefinder that I scored off of Ebay for $40.