RE: [Leica] Leica v Olympus

[thibault collin <tc-lnc@u-picardie.fr>]

you wrote :

  Yes, I agree the OM-1s could not take the abuse the Nikon Fs took by PJs.
Great lenses though! 

I think that the olympus camera had (and still have) the best design for a
reflex camera. I also love the R's for their design but I'm more often using
Leicaflexes because of the feel...As a microscopist, I very often had to use
the olympus cameras because their microscope system was cheaper than Nikon's
(and of course than Leitz's...). However, I have to say that the bodies were
not strong enough to be used for high speed photography on microscopes. The
OM1 (n)MD currently broke or blocked...there were mirrors problems...The OM2
had the same problems plus electronic problems and the worse were the
OM2s...these were never working being always electronically or mechanically
blocked...
So anytime I could, I substituted the OM body with a Nikon F2 or F3 which
are really much stronger for this purpose. 
However, I still have an OM4Ti which I'm using for normal photography
(without motor drive) and one absolutely excellent 50 mm f/1.8! I maybe
checked 20 of these because they were offered with the bodies and the
microscopes and I had the opportunity to check them! All of them were good
but the one I kept is gorgeous! It's fairly used up now 'cause I used it
with any OM body I could find but still an excellent performer and the
images it gives are really a pleasure to print (I'm mostly doing B&W) giving
all the grey levels very easily.
Anyway it's not as sharp as a s'cron and especially wide open but it gives a
special feel which really pleases me.

you also wrote: 
 A darn shame because IMHO Zuiko lenses bettered Nikon lenses in almost every
>instance (no flames please, just my opinion).
>
>Peter K

I think that the 50 mm Zuiko I'm talking about is better than any 50 nikkors
I've owned or still owns but the 55 micro nikkor f/3.5 is way better its
zuiko equivalent. 
Hell, I don't have any Leitz macro lens....
Thib.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@earthlink.net]
>Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 9:17 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: RE: [Leica] Leica v Olympus
>
>
>I think I've mentioned this before, but Eugene Richards shoots with a Cannon
>F1 and Olympus OM3, and uses the OM3 specifically for the 21 (isn't it 20?)
>f2 - an incredible lens....The olympus stuff is great...I passed my OM 4
>system on to my art-student daughter when I went back to the M...the
>metering system in the OM4 is without a doubt the best in a non-autofocus
>camera - up to eight separate spot readings, which it will average, etc.
>etc....the camera is small, light, relatively quiet, and the lenses make
>even the new M lenses seem large.....BUT...the thing Olympus never really
>learned was manufacturing reliability...In fact, when the OM-1 was
>introduced back in the early 70s, UPI went to Olympus....but the damn things
>just wouldn't hold up to the daily grind and crunch, and that was, for all
>intents and purposes, the death of Olympus as a PJ system...which, given
>size, features, quality of lenses, etc., is really sad....
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of
>Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
>Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 11:56 AM
>To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
>Subject: RE: [Leica] Leica v Olympus
>
>
>I had an OM camera and lens.  The 50mm F1.4 is great.  Superb sharpness
>easily equal, and I think better than Nikon.  Olympus put out some
>outstanding lenses but never did make the grade when the world moved to
>autofocus.
>Other nice lenses to get, the 21mm F2, 180mm F2.8.  Quality of these lenses?
>WOW! is the best word to use.
>
>Peter K
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Hudson [mailto:jahudson@direct.ca]
>Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 8:18 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Leica] Leica v Olympus
>
>
>Does anyone on the list have an Olympus OM10 with any one or more of the
>Olympus f1.8, f1.4, and f1.2  55mm [50mm ?] lenses? Are there any comments,
>pro or con, as to performance and results and the extent to which they
>compare to our more preferred brand of photographic equipment?
>
>jh
>
>