Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I tend to be revising my opinions a lot these day, and I'd like to take back my overarching critique of the OM system. I had a chance to handle the body that first turned me on to the marque -- the OM1n -- and I remember why at fifteen it appealed so much. It's a lovely creature. The OM4ti, with all its titanium cladding and whistling bells, is just not in the same league. It's the difference (and I'm about to be flamed for this) between the M6 and the M3: the OM1 simply feels nice. The screen is bright -- brighter, to my eye, than my OM4ti's, despite the latter's supposedly improved focusing screen. And with the Zuiko 50/1.8 (which, Photo Techniques pointed out, is a clone of the 50 Summicron), you have a really nice street shooter: much smaller than any Canon or Nikon or Contax SLR. (The Aria comes close, I guess.) I went shopping with my girlfriend for her first all-manual camera, and this was overwhelmingly our choice. (It also has mirror lockup, which is sweet.) So, as long as you avoid the duds in the Zuiko line, I think the OM1n makes a perfect SLR for use in those rare instances where a Leica M won't do: particularly macro work. I've never heard of a Zuiko macro lens that was less than world-class. (Well, they say that the 50/3.5 is no great shakes, but I loved it.) Your revisionist critic, Douglas Cooper