Okay picking it up today. OM-2N and a 50mm F1.4. I'll add a 35 or 24 later on if I feel the need. Again, not looking for excellence, just character. Getting some TMAX100 and some Ilford Delta 400.
I will probably get the setup eventually for processing the negatives and possibly a scanner but I'm just researching right now places near me in Flat Iron that can just do it cheaply. Would be a time saver.
I'm also trying to buy as little gear as possible. I think I'm kind of geared out.
Sounds great! Regarding Tmax 100, don't EVER underexpose it. It can take several stops of overexposure, but it has no latitude at all in the shadows. I'm pointing my meter at the ground if I want good results.
I love Delta 400 but would definitely recommend Acros over TMAX. Just preference, I'm a big Neopan 400 fan too but I think Delta scans a bit easier and the base is less prone to curling and is easier to get on the reel.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Indeed. You won't be disappointed by an Olympus OM-1, OM-2, OM-3 or OM-4.
Quite frankly I was, with both the OM-1 and OM-4T. I found them fiddly, the finders large but relatively dim and with poor focusing screens and the overall feel of the cameras to be significantly less robust & smooth than even second rank Nikon bodies. The OM's left me missing my FM2n and FE2.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Okay picking it up today. OM-2N and a 50mm F1.4. I'll add a 35 or 24 later on if I feel the need. Again, not looking for excellence, just character. Getting some TMAX100 and some Ilford Delta 400.
I will probably get the setup eventually for processing the negatives and possibly a scanner but I'm just researching right now places near me in Flat Iron that can just do it cheaply. Would be a time saver.
I'm also trying to buy as little gear as possible. I think I'm kind of geared out.
If you want character I strongly suggest looking at classic films rather than modern films. The feel of Tri-X or HP5 gives a lot more character than the excellent but very digital-like Delta or TMax films.
I own an FM2 and owned OM-2n and OM-4 cameras, and also now have an OM-1, and I cannot agree with your conclusion. The Olympus focusing is as good as the FM2, and the body feels very good. If you dig deep inside, you might find plastic gears in the Olympus and metal gears in the Nikon, but just on the operation you don't feel that.
Did you have some problems with the Olympus cameras you owned/tried?
carstenw wrote:
I own an FM2 and owned OM-2n and OM-4 cameras, and also now have an OM-1, and I cannot agree with your conclusion. The Olympus focusing is as good as the FM2, and the body feels very good.
+1
also, didn't you (mawz) say you liked the fx-3 and other cosina twins? that thing feels like a toy compared to an OM-1 and has a worse viewfinder to boot. i think something must have been wrong with your OM – though if you used the 50/1.4 on it, that might have made focus more difficult.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Wow, $19 to process and low res scan film here in NYC.
$6 to process B&W alone, which is not bad.
I guess I might need to pick up a cheap film scanner.
yeah scanning's where the real cost is. you can get it developed elsewhere and take it to cosco for cheaper scans i've been told. i'm guessing there aren't any coscos in manhattan?
prints tend to be cheap, if you just want scans and don't care to much about quality you can just scan the 3x5 or 4x6 prints on a nearly free all in one printer.
I think if it's character that you want then look at the Zuiko 50/1.4 but especially the 55/1.2 (talk about character). The Zuiko 50/1.4 is an excellent lens, possibly slightly flare prone, but great bang for your buck.
I never really liked the F3HP, even after having it for many years, but I always liked the Nikon 50/1.4 (AiS) especially for black and white.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I'm half tempted to just put my c3 in black and white mode only with a 16MB memory card but I suppose that's not the point.
it's fun though, and it'll definitely help you learn to "see in b&w".
better make it a 64MB card though if you want more than one shot.
i recommend boosting the contrast up to +3 if you do that you get more of the "film look".
having to wait forever to see what you got is part of the experience of film though. not to start another way off tangential thread, but it's very much like listening to vinyl. it's not better than digital, but the quirks and limitations add to the experience in many ways and make it more enjoyable.
mawz wrote:
If you want character I strongly suggest looking at classic films rather than modern films. The feel of Tri-X or HP5 gives a lot more character than the excellent but very digital-like Delta or TMax films.
Agreed - Neopan 400 is one of my favorites in this regard.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I'm half tempted to just put my c3 in black and white mode only with a 16MB memory card but I suppose that's not the point.
That more or less goes against what you said you're trying to accomplish in your original post. Every digital file needs to be "developed" digitally - you'll still be in front of LR quite a bit.
The other critical element is - if you're shooting film, you're not taking a crapload of mediocre photos with the theory that a small handful will be something you'd be proud enough to post here (or elsewhere). WIth 36 (37 if you shoot on the leader) shots per roll, you really only pull the trigger if you have that amazing shot lined up and ready, and just skip all the mediocrity. When you go back to shooting digital, you'll end up in the end having to be in front of your computer less, since you'll bring that discipline back with you.
also, didn't you (mawz) say you liked the fx-3 and other cosina twins? that thing feels like a toy compared to an OM-1 and has a worse viewfinder to boot. i think something must have been wrong with your OM – though if you used the 50/1.4 on it, that might have made focus more difficult.
I do like the Cosina bodies, but not for the build quality (they just feel cheap, although they do tend to have a smooth wind-on). I found the viewfinder superior to the OM-1 though, quite a bit smaller but brighter and with a better focusing screen.
Regarding Tmax 100, don't EVER underexpose it. It can take several stops of overexposure, but it has no latitude at all in the shadows. I'm pointing my meter at the ground if I want good results. 
