Olympus OM 1 pointers- new to film photography

[kierenoz]

Hi Everyone.

I'm new to film photography, and pbase for that matter. I was wondering if anyone has any pointers they can give me. A friend recently lent me his Olympus OM 1 with a 28 mm lens and a 75 - 150 mm lens. I've taken a roll of 100 speed film, just trying to get used to all the adjustments of shutter speed and apeture (i think that's spelt wrong!). I'd like any pointers as i'm going to Switzerland later this year and would like to take some nice mountain/snow/meadow/lake etc shots.

I found that cloudy day and indoor shots didn't come out all that well but this could be because of film speed. Sunny day beach shots were better however i found that when i took the light reading off the foreground (say some rocks or a rockpool) the sky lost all it's blue. Is there a way to avoid this other than photoshop?

also, the zoom lense seemed to make shots less colourful and crisp. is this a common problem with zoom lenses or possibly a bad lens?

I'll try and get some of the shots into a gallery but i don't have a scanner. for the meantime any pointers at all in regard to these things or just using a manual slr camera would be appreciated.

Thanks
Kieren

[zuiko40]

You can download a manual from this site:
http://www.heier.com/olydocs/
Note; it is a very slow download.

I am assuming the lenses you mention are the Zuiko (Olympus) lenses, and will comment based on that assumption. There were variations of the 28mm. I had the slow F3.5. It was never one of my favourites, but other people like it better than me.

Firstly, you are right that 100 ISO is too slow for indoor shots. You should be able to use it on cloudy days, but only at wider apertures (That is closer to the F4 on the zoom).

Although I eventually moved towards the 85 F2 and 100 F2.8 prime lenses, I was addicted to the zoom when I was travelling for 15 months in 1978-1979. I did not find the zoom to produce dull shots that were not crisp. Others may differ.

http://www.pbase.com/zuiko40/rtw

Not all of those shots were with the zoom, but some of them were.

In terms of the dullness. Is the meter accurate? The OM-1 uses mercury batteries no longer available, at least not in North America. The substitutes may be giving you a reading that is underexposure.

On the other hand, the meter may be fooled by the subject matter. Meters think everything is supposed to be medium grey. So if you have a lot of sky in the picture, you might want to take a reading of the area away from the sky, or slightly underexpose the picture. On the other hand, when you are exposing for dark rocks, you might want to try underexposing a bit to hold some colour in the sky.

If there is a big difference in brightness in different areas of the picture, than the film just may not be able to hold it.

I don't know if you are using print film or slide film. It could be the result of the printing, and there may be some detail there after all. I used to do my own printing in pre-Photoshop days, and sometimes you could recover detail and colour in the sky by burning it in (giving more exposure in the printing process to that part of the picture.) But Photoshop is better.

Anyway, please follow up with more questions.

Also, if you decided to take the camera to Switzerland, I would look around for a used 50 mm 1.8 lens. There should be tons of them around in the bigger cities, because the OM-1 was a popular camera, and that was the "kit" lens in pre-zoom days.

In terms of the lack of sharpness, a good starting rule for hand-holding a camera is to use a shutter-speed one over the lens length, at the very least. For example, with the 28mm, 1/30. With the zoom at the short end, 1/60 and at the longer end 1/125.

The best apertures for the lenses, in terms of sharpness, is probably around F8 or F11.

And don't use junk film.

Please feel free to ask follow up questions.

[kierenoz]

wow, thanks for that detailed response. I had to read it a couple of times to get all the info!! Thank you.

A couple of follow up questions/comments:

I think I'm using print film, but as a complete beginner i really don't know. I just the fuji film that was in the camera when my friend gave it to me. The next roll i've used is just Kodak 200 ISO film bought from the supermarket. The stuff everyone buys for their automatic cameras. I'm assuming this would be classified as junk film? If so where do I get good film and is the price increase relative to the quality increase? Perhaps for when i go overseas it would be worthwhile.

I think the light reading is mostly accurate because the outdoor shots are fine in terms of brightness. The roll of film i'm taking now is 200 speed so I'll see the difference when that is developed. Would you recommend 400 speed? The packet says it's more versatile but i would assume that is for automatic 'throw away' cameras.

I think that's about it. I'll look around for a 50mm 1.8 lens. would be good just to see the difference.

Again, thanks for your help, keep em coming everyone!

Kieren

[zuiko40]

The recommendation for the 50 1.8 was mostly in terms of giving you a better low-light option, rather than in terms of the quality of the lens -- that said, some of the 50 1.8s are excellent in quality. It changed over time, but I'm no expert on distinguishing them.

Junk film was probably too snarky a comment. Price isn't always indicative of quality. But I would stay away from no-name brands. Kodak keeps changing the names of their films. I would stay away from the budget Funtime line, but Kodak Gold 100, now known as Bright Sun in Canada, is generally good value. My favourite 100 ISO print film is Fuji Reala, but pricing is extremely variable. In general, it is overpriced in Canada, and the last time I bought some, I got it from a U.S. mail order enterprise (B&H) which sells grey-market film in addition to that coming from the official American distributor. Since it is all made in Japan, I could not see any advantage in paying for the offically imported film.

In 400 films, I like Kodak Ultracolor 400, which was formerly Portra 400, and Fuji NPH. NPH was quite expensive.

I have been shooting digitally since March, but on my last trip to Mexico in December, I didn't take any 100 ISO, and was using mostly Kodak Portra 400.

For 800 speed, I recommend Fuji NPZ.

Although grainier, I used to buy Agfa Vista films, because they were a good buy.

Some of the colour and exposure problems might have been due to there being an old past-expiry film in the camera. Been there done that.

[mht579]

Hi, I found this site very detail and informative (the most detail site I could find on the OM camera) It has detail descriptions on the camera features and good documantation on Zuiko lenses. The web address is:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/ha ... mpusom1n2/

Spend the money on the Zuiko lenses and you will find it rewarding not only on built quality and also on image quality (if you want only the best and nothing else).

Kodak 400UC is a nice general purpose 400 speed film (I think it's sharp and give very nice contrasty color and not expensive) 100 speed films are great (but bright outdoor use). If you want slide film (100 speed is the way to go), I also found Fuiji Astia 100F a beautiful film to use on people and on flowers even (expensive but it's a nice film when I am in a "artsy mood").

Have fun shooting!

[kierenoz]

Ok. thanks for that. I'll try and find some of those kinds of film.

One more question. Is a scanner the best way to get film photos onto pbase? I was thinking that or i could take a photo with my digital camera of the printed photo but that could lose quality.

[llung]

I own a 75-150 f4 and I, too, have found it unimpressive. I shoot mostly black and white, so I can't really comment on whether it produces dull colours, but it is certainly not nearly as contrasty or as sharp as my primes. I recently picked up a 35-70 f3.6, which is apparently a much better lens. I'll try to remember to let you know if this zoom is better than the 75-150.

The 50 f1.8. It's a great, compact lens and sells for dirt cheap (you can get one for under 20 bucks on ebay). Generally, the later the production, the better. One indicator is the serial number on the lens - if the number is well into the 2XX,XXX, then it's probably a later model. But most of these lenses are at least 20 years old so newer won't necessarily mean better. I would suggest that you find a used shop somewhere nearby that takes returns, pick out a couple and fire off a half roll for each lens. Pick the better one and return the other.

The site mentioned above is a great source on OM cameras, lenses, winders, etc. But you should note that the author rarely makes critical comments about OM gear, even when this is warranted.

If you plan on sticking with the OM, the 24 f2.8 is an awesome lens...