I have both Nikon F3HP and Olympus OM-2n systems. I prefer using Olympus' viewfinder. If you can find an OM-1n, it's even better. I use a 50/1,4 and 24/2,8 lens combo for Olympus which I like them very much.
I like the metering options of the OM-4 (or OM-3, sigh!).
I got the 4 only after I gave away an OM-2n so I can not tell for sure, but I think the viewfinder size is very close.
The metering system is below the viewfinder area so maybe the area appears bigger.
If you can live with the lack of speed, I recommend the 50/3.5 macro instead of the 50/1.4
out of 5 50mm OM lenses I've had the 50/3.5 macro, a silvernose 50/1.4, >1.1 mil 50/1.4 and two MiJ 50/1.8s.
I kept the macro, the silvernose, and one MiJ f1.8 which I just haven't gotten around to selling.
one thing about the OM bodies is that to me, they are too small naked but just right with the case. it also helps with the self timer (which I hate on every camera).
The Nikon viewfinder is better, especially if you match your finder to your needs, either the HP finder if you wear glasses or the non-HP finder if you don't. The F3's finder is brighter than the OM2's, but has less magnification, particularly the lower-magnification HP finder. Personally I've not been impressed by the OM finders after owning an OM1 and an OM4T, they're big but not terribly bright and the focusing screens are poor (note I had 1 screens, not the better but rare & expensive 2 screens).
However the Oly's metering display is significantly better, the F3 has a lousy LCD.
Personally, I'd look at a Nikon FE2 or FM3a if I was looking for a Nikon aperture priority body, they're smaller, have a better shutter (1/4000 and 1/250 sync vs the F3's 1/2000 and 1/80 sync) and have a much better metering readout, and they support standard Nikon TTL flashes. FE2's are also generally a fair bit cheaper than either the OM2 or the F3. If you put an FM3a screen in an FE2 it'll beat the pants off most other options and the FM3a screens are still available new from B&H for ~$35.
Oh, and skip the Nikkor 50/1.4, get either the f2, the non-pancake 1.8 or spend the extra and get a 1.2, Zeiss ZF or a Nokton 58 instead, the 50/1.4 is the weakest of Nikon's 50's IMHO.
mawz wrote:
Personally, I'd look at a Nikon FE2 or FM3a if I was looking for a Nikon aperture priority body, they're smaller, have a better shutter (1/4000 and 1/250 sync vs the F3's 1/2000 and 1/80 sync) and have a much better metering readout, and they support standard Nikon TTL flashes. FE2's are also generally a fair bit cheaper than either the OM2 or the F3. If you put an FM3a screen in an FE2 it'll beat the pants off most other options and the FM3a screens are still available new from B&H for ~$35.
Oh, and skip the Nikkor 50/1.4, get either the f2, the non-pancake 1.8 or spend the extra and get a 1.2, Zeiss ZF or a Nokton 58 instead, the 50/1.4 is the weakest of Nikon's 50's IMHO....Show more →
+1 on the FE Deuce. I was using Pentax cameras growing up and always thought these were cooler (maybe better) too than what I was using. The Nikonlux 50mm is also not one of the greatest out there.
If you wanted to up your budget for lenses by a little bit, you could get the camera I always wanted growing up - the Contax RTS II. Zeiss lenses!
I'm actually trying to do this as a get back to basics exercise so I'm just looking for a lens with character, not so much excellent wide open performance and extremely cheap.
For the cost of a good 82mm filter I think I can put together something really good and very solid.
I will look into the FE2 though but it seems the Oly option is just significantly cheaper. I'm only planning to shoot natural light so don't care much about strobes.
Just need a predictable meter although to be honest, even that might not be totally necessary. Trying to get back to basics, not build a new system.
of those two cameras i'd prefer the olympus for ergonomics and size. neither of those 50s is that great imo. i'd get the cv 58/1.4 for the nikon (or a zeiss) and one of the 50mm macros for the oly.
why did you choose those two cameras? what features are you looking for. i'd choose the fe2 or fm2 nikons before the f3 for myself.
if you want a special 50/1.4 lens to go with your expedition into b&w white film, i'd recommend either a pentax 50/1.4 or the minolta MC PG 50/1.4. the two lenses render very differently from each other (and very differently from the zuiko and nikkor), but are both extremely good in certain ways and very competent in general. for pentax camera bodies to match those lenses i'd say MX (or ME if you want) or LX if you want something more modern. for minolta any xd model (the 7 and 11 are identical, the 5 is missing dof preview and viewfinder curtain). those are the only minolta cameras that are both well built and well designed imho. later cameras have some good features but tend to be kinda crappily built.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hah, as foolish as it may sound I'm looking for romance, not practicality.
you should get a leica III with an uncoated lens then.
my vote of all the options is a minolta xg (small, cheap, fun, easily replaceable) of some sort with the previously mentioned rokkor MC PG 50/1.4. everybody knows i'm very biased towards this lens though
corposant wrote:
If you are looking for "back to basics," just do it yourself.
seriously. most film places are way overpriced IMO. too close to a real (read: pro) lab to be worth it for black and white (which is actually more expensive than E-6 many places and more than C-41 almost everywhere). If you want to shell out stick with places like Richard photo lab.
Anyway, the M6 classic is more charming...