Is there anything today that feels even marginally like an OM-2?

Started Feb 24, 2014 | Questions
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 21,145
Re: That's a personal question

Becksvart wrote:

darklamp wrote:

and more importantly perhaps the OM 2 doesn't need a 3,4cm adapter.

That would be because it's already 3.4cm thicker ( ignoring the small grip on end the NEX's ).

It's your perception of this that makes it an issue, not the fact of it.

It's about how a lens balances on a body. An adapter may help and it may not help. I dare say that for a tiny NEX and small lenses it does not, whilst an LA-EA2 does indeed help with bigger lenses.

You can however argue "It's subjective!" and make most of the internets redundant

I have never understood this talk of lenses "balancing".

If a lens is on the heavy side, then the lighter the camera the better, to keep down the weight you have to carry.

darklamp Senior Member • Posts: 3,567
Re: That's a personal question

D Cox wrote:

Becksvart wrote:

darklamp wrote:

and more importantly perhaps the OM 2 doesn't need a 3,4cm adapter.

That would be because it's already 3.4cm thicker ( ignoring the small grip on end the NEX's ).

It's your perception of this that makes it an issue, not the fact of it.

It's about how a lens balances on a body. An adapter may help and it may not help. I dare say that for a tiny NEX and small lenses it does not, whilst an LA-EA2 does indeed help with bigger lenses.

You can however argue "It's subjective!" and make most of the internets redundant

I have never understood this talk of lenses "balancing".

If a lens is on the heavy side, then the lighter the camera the better, to keep down the weight you have to carry.

Well I understand. Up to a point it's nice to have a body with "heft" ( as the OP described it ) when a lens is on the heavy side ( i.e. not a lightweight like a 50mm f1.8 ). The heavy body does help stabilize the heavy lens.

But this is limited. Once you start getting to large lenses like 27-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8's you start to get to a point where no amount of heft adds as much balance as it does weight.

The other thing the OP was discussing was using the Sony A-mount adapters for the NEX. The problem with these is that they're relatively heavy and while a proper heavy DSLR gives you something to cope with torque from the AF system, these systems tend to leave you fighting the torque a bit. Not good for stability.

Now I have found that while something like my old Fuji S3 ( about 800g ) works well with my 28-70 f2.8 ( another 800g ), it's not really great as I end up carting a big weight.

The NEX can use the 28-70 f2.8 via an adapter but of course you end up with a rather large force pulling on a mount that's not designed for it - no one ever designed the NEX e-mount for 800g+ lenses. The Fuji S3 and similar bodies are designed to handle that force - big difference.

To use the big lens on the small camera requires that I hold the lens and let the camera rest on it. Not optimal for handling.

So these things are a matter of tools for the job. I tend to use my NEX with lighter lenses. It's that simple as I see it.

Lumixdude Senior Member • Posts: 2,782
Re: Is there anything today that feels even marginally like an OM-2?

Becksvart wrote:

Thanks for that comparison!

Does the OM-D feel a lot less solid in hand? I realize we aren't going to get all metal digitals, but it would be fair if the D had inherited at least a little sturdyness.

The consistent commentary and reviews for the OMD series cameras are that they feel like a brick... I haven't had much of a chance to inspect one except briefly in camera stores... The long answer though is that they have inherited a lot of the sturdiness of the OM2. You do get a lot of sturdy all metal lens options as well like the 12mm F/2, 17mm F/1.8 and the 14-40 F/2.8 which is all weather sealed. Then the 45mm and the 75mm are also metal cased.

 Lumixdude's gear list:Lumixdude's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Apple iPhone 4 +2 more
FinDERP Forum Member • Posts: 56
Yes!

They're called the OM-1, OM-3, and the OM-4!
I'm not being sarcastic, they're still absolutely fantastic cameras and can be bought today for a paltry sum of money. Think about that; some of the absolute best cameras ever designed and made available for less than you can buy the cheapest of el cheapo lenses new today!
A few rolls of HP5, delta 3200, some portra and some velvia won't add much to the price either

 FinDERP's gear list:FinDERP's gear list
Pentax K-30 +18 more
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 14,305
Re: That's a personal question

Becksvart wrote:

darklamp wrote:

You have your own idea of what an OM-2 felt like to use. Your perceptions may not match anyone else's. Therein lies the problem.

I don't think anyone would hold an OM-2 and not say it felt like a small all-metal SLR,

That's obviously true.

but sure, some may not like that.

Here's the interesting thing to me. My first SLRs (mid-70s) were OM1 and OM10 with Zuiko 27 (or 28?), 50 and 135mm lenses. I loved them; they just felt right. They were stolen in about 1985 and I couldn't afford to replace them so I moved to Pentax.

I switched to digital in 2006 and I've stuck with Pentax - all with modern grips and recently solid, magnesium bodies. So I know what a small(ish) metal DSLR feels like. Through my family I have access to a wide range of different cameras from modern compact superzoom to 66 format medium format film.

One of those cameras is an OM2 with the same Zuiko 50mm I used to use. I never understood comments online about cameras being unbalanced: I just hold under the lens where the body-lens combination balances ...

... until I picked up that OM2 in 2011. Without a grip for my right hand I almost dropped the camera as I picked it up because it was so front-heavy. I understood "unbalanced" for the first time. As I used (almost exactly) that combination for 10 years quite happily, and I'd only been using digital for half that time, it must be recent familiarity that governs how we feel about things.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

OP Becksvart Contributing Member • Posts: 537
Re: Is there anything today that feels even marginally like an OM-2?

Yes. They work quite well what with being rather small, and of course they are metal with smooth focus rings. The added length of the adapter is a minor annoyance, it isn't a dealbreaker.

Even if the NEX 6 is sturdy in a modern sense the same lenses on the OM-2 feel slightly more like a cohesive unit, of course.

Since I haven't been able to sell a "very fine ++" 1,4 Sony TC for 250e for a couple of months now however I think my speculations about a new system are just that and nothing more, but it is nice to get all sorts of input.

OP Becksvart Contributing Member • Posts: 537
Re: That's a personal question

True, we can get used to all sorts of things, and the unbalanced of today mightn't be the unbalanced of tomorrow.

For me it's quite definitive though. My Mino 300 with the NEX 6 is unbalanced, but then the Mino 300 is always unbalanced if you don't use it with a tripod

More relevant is perhaps a smallish Adaptall lens on a NEX. That adapter is rather long, and a small camera and a long snout of an adapter/lens combo is to me awkward no matter how I use it, at least when the lens has no tripod collar.

I have just used a 28 f/3,5, 35 f/2,8 and 135 f/3,5 with the OM 2 (and NEX 6) so far and those are all rather small. I sure don't miss a grip on the OM 2 when using them.

OP Becksvart Contributing Member • Posts: 537
Re: Yes!

Yes, maybe this is the answer indeed. Keep one or two film SLRs for that feel and handling and prioritize other things with modern gear.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads