Considering switching to Nikon F2 from Olympus OM1

I'm considering switching to the Nikon F2, particularly because of the fast AI-S lenses...I'm a big fan of depth of field and lenses faster than f2. My plan is to take portrait shots with the Nikon F2 + Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 lens.

My main question is, does the Nikon F2 produce significantly superior images to the Olympus OM-1? And if so, why?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts!

mahmut88 said:

I'm considering switching to the Nikon F2, particularly because of the fast AI-S lenses...I'm a big fan of depth of field and lenses faster than f2. My plan is to take portrait shots with the Nikon F2 + Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 lens.

My main question is, does the Nikon F2 produce significantly superior images to the Olympus OM-1? And if so, why?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Click to expand...

Will the F2 produce significantly superior images? Doubtful. Superficially I'd say both camera's are pretty similar but the Nikon F2 is warhorse of a design that can all but take a bullet to the head and keep on ticking. I wouldn't say the same of the Oly'. Just one example in particular: their shutters. The cloth shutter on the OM1 may give it a slight resolving edge with less vibration (though I doubt it), and yes, it's quieter, I'll grant you that; but it won't go through nearly as many cycles as the truly professional-grade F series.

mahmut88 said:

I'm considering switching to the Nikon F2, particularly because of the fast AI-S lenses...I'm a big fan of depth of field and lenses faster than f2. My plan is to take portrait shots with the Nikon F2 + Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 lens.

My main question is, does the Nikon F2 produce significantly superior images to the Olympus OM-1? And if so, why?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Click to expand...

The F2 is certainly a far superior camera to anything that Olympus ever made. But technically, all it gives you to directly affect the quality of your pictures is the superior Nikon lenses, and a wide shutter speed range. The rest is up to you, as the photographer, and that is what will make the difference. The F2 in the hands of a mediocre photographer won't allow him to take better pictures than a good photographer can take even with an inferior Olympus camera.

Horoscope Fish said:

Will the F2 produce significantly superior images? Doubtful. Superficially I'd say both camera's are pretty similar but the Nikon F2 is warhorse of a design that can all but take a bullet to the head and keep on ticking. I wouldn't say the same of the Oly'. Just one example in particular: their shutters. The cloth shutter on the OM1 may give it a slight resolving edge with less vibration (though I doubt it), and yes, it's quieter, I'll grant you that; but it won't go through nearly as many cycles as the truly professional-grade F series.

Click to expand...

This ^^ With Film SLRs, the end result / image is likely to look very much the same between one body or another. Glass makes the difference.

If you prefer the look/feel/functions of one body over another, go for it. I enjoy shooting the FE2 & F3 personally.

Horoscope Fish said:

Will the F2 produce significantly superior images? Doubtful. Superficially I'd say both camera's are pretty similar but the Nikon F2 is warhorse of a design that can all but take a bullet to the head and keep on ticking. I wouldn't say the same of the Oly'. Just one example in particular: their shutters. The cloth shutter on the OM1 may give it a slight resolving edge with less vibration (though I doubt it), and yes, it's quieter, I'll grant you that; but it won't go through nearly as many cycles as the truly professional-grade F series.

Click to expand...

Horoscope Fish, that is very helpful! My main concern is producing superior quality, so I may now have second thoughts about the Nikon F2. Let's see.

Bob Blaylock said:

The F2 is certainly a far superior camera to anything that Olympus ever made. But technically, all it gives you to directly affect the quality of your pictures is the superior Nikon lenses, and a wide shutter speed range. The rest is up to you, as the photographer, and that is what will make the difference. The F2 in the hands of a mediocre photographer won't allow him to take better pictures than a good photographer can take even with an inferior Olympus camera.

Click to expand...

That is a great point. I used to own a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2, Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 and a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5. Absolutely loved the images they produced though I used them for videography purposes and ended up selling them.

So since glass quality is the determining factor when it comes to producing superior images, you feel the lenses that Olympus have to offer are far lower in quality? A la the Zuiko lenses and so forth.

Welcome aboard. Enjoy the ride.

Do you do your own processing or have it done by a lab? Frankly, based on my own past film experience and quality of the processing and the skill of the photographer will make much more of a difference than the brand of camera.

carguy said:

This ^^ With Film SLRs, the end result / image is likely to look very much the same between one body or another. Glass makes the difference.

If you prefer the look/feel/functions of one body over another, go for it. I enjoy shooting the FE2 & F3 personally.

Click to expand...

That's great to know, that with Film SLRs, the images they produce tend to look very similar and it's all down to the glass.

My current dilemma is, do I purchase an F2 and buy Nikon lenses - or seek out new and better lenses for the Olympus.

Bikerbrent said:

Welcome aboard. Enjoy the ride.

Do you do your own processing or have it done by a lab? Frankly, based on my own past film experience and quality of the processing and the skill of the photographer will make much more of a difference than the brand of camera.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input Bikerbrent. I have them processed by a lab. So the quality of processing is even more important than the brand of camera, wow, would never have known that! I'll have to look out for good labs here in the UK.

mahmut88 said:

That's great to know, that with Film SLRs, the images they produce tend to look very similar and it's all down to the glass.

My current dilemma is, do I purchase an F2 and buy Nikon lenses - or seek out new and better lenses for the Olympus.

Click to expand...

While I haven't shot one, the OM-1 gets a great deal of love online. Maybe buy some nice glass and shoot it?

So I've finally decided on what to do.

I'm going to buy the Nikon FM2 and purchase a Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 (which I used to own).

Edit: I opted for the Nikon FM2N - it will arrive soon! More excited to purchase some AI-S lenses.

I've never owned an Olympus, but I've owned two F2AS/MD2 camera bodies and two F3/MD4 bodies. They were fantastic cameras. As others have stated, the Nikon professional cameras are built to last. The F3 had a production run from 1980-2001, and outlived the F4 by five years! I was shooting a playoff football game in 1981 when the temperature was in the single digits. There were about seven of us on the sidelines with almost every major make of camera out there: Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta. All but two of the cameras quit working because it was so cold. The ones that didn't miss a shot: my Nikon F3/MD4 and another friend's Nikon F2SB.

The F3 also has an electronic shutter that was at the time the most accurate of all 35 mm cameras, and I've seen independent lab tests confirm that, including comparisons with Leicas costing three times as much! Of course you know that when shooting film, you never REALLY know what you shot until the film is developed. That consistent reliability is what kept the F3 in production for over two decades. The F3 also has virtually 100%, full frame coverage in the viewfinder, while the OM-1 covers about 97%. The built in light meter uses a centered-weighted 80% reading that yields more accurate results that are much less affected by stray light. The MD4 motor drive is also faster than the Motor 1 or 2 that Olympus used, 6 fps (mirror locked) or 5.5 fps for the Nikon vs 5 fps for the Olympus. That difference may sound irrelevant until you shoot something like gymnastics. (I'm assuming that you have an Olympus OM-1MD or OM-1n.) The Nicad batteries in the MD4 are good for over 60 rolls whereas the Olympus is rated at 40. I don't know about the Olympus, but the Nikon has the feature of powering the F3 with the motor drive (not so with the F2/MD2), so no need to worry if the battery in the camera goes dead.

I also owned the 105 f/1.8 and it is a fantastic lens.

All of these extras may be beyond your needs, but if you decide to step out of the studio, the Nikon F3 offers many advantages that Olympus doesn't. One of my biggest regrets is selling my first F3 back in 1984.

The FM2N is a great camera!

One advantage of the F2 over the OM-1 is that the F2 can use easily found silver oxide cells; the OM-1 wants mercury cells, now banned. The OM-1 could perhaps have a diode added internally which would drop the voltage of silver oxide cells (1.5v) to that of a mercury cell (1.35v) or perhaps use a Wein cell adapter. I own an OM-4 and have a F2 coming; the OM-4 handles much like my Pentax LX, small and light. The Nikon is much bigger and heavier.

As far as lenses go, I doubt that in a proper double blind comparison any significant differences would be found among Nikon or Olympus or Pentax lenses, given comparable focal lengths and apertures. Indeed the rare and thus expensive 8 element SMC Pentax f 1.4 50mm 42mm mount is considered one of the finest fast 50 ever made.

If you are sticking with film how about a Hassleblad, great portrait camera.