Talk:Olympus OM-2

Comment
Edit of 10 May 2016: I have owned and professionally used all the OM single digit camera models since the mid 1970s and thought I would provide the correct chronology and an identification/feature check among the various models (I noted a lack of accurate info on the differences between models). Additionally, the OM2S/OM2SP was a major change in the model - mechanically and electronically. I fleshed-out the changes and features of that and gave it it's own section. Like in automobiles where - for example - all Jaguar's XJ models are in one article (even though they are, essentially, totally new items) I feel it best to deal with all OM2 designated models in one entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.73.112 (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"for those who thought they could do better than the electronics or who wanted special effects."

Not sure about that.

I agree, and the OM-2S is the correct name for one of the pictured bodies, not OM-2SPItalic text

The picure of an "OM2 MP" is in fact that of an OM -2 MD. I have corrected this. I believe MD indicated the presence of a Motor Drive coupling. Very early OM-1s and 2s, without the N designation lacked this.

The first motor drive capable OM-1's were later re-worked versions (Not MD's or 1n's). AFAIK, all OM-2's were capable of using winders or motor drives 1 or 2. The OM-2 I purchased in '75 (#102xxx) was not an MD (or grey market) but had the drive coupling and I've used winders and the motor drive 1 on it without any issues. Why Olympus started putting MD logos on OM-2 bodies is unclear, unless some internal parts were modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.118.141 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The OM-2S was the American model, the OM-2SP was the European model (Spot Program). I have one. Several of their models had different names in the States. OM-4T / OM4Ti for example, (indicating Titanium bodywork, though not a Titanium shutter). Shutterbug156 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing up
I tried to fix this up a bit, wikifying, putting a structure in place, and finding some good references. Maybe we could get this assessed, I have one of these old things laying around somewhere and it was a pretty good camera. --Logical Premise (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment
"some professionals considered the lenses inferior due their lighter weight."

This needs a citation - one or more references to identify these "professionals". Also, weight alone is unlikely to influence the optical performance of the lens, though size might. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.53.10 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of those semi-true but hard-to-source things. The impression I get is that the OM system was pooh-poohed by professionals because the bodies looked and felt toy-like in comparison to contemporary Nikons, they didn't evoke images of war photographers, and also because there was a worry that Olympus might suddenly pull out of the SLR market, leaving an orphaned system behind. Perhaps if someone could find a table of sales figures somewhere from e.g. Popular Photography that compares sales - and prices - of the Nikon F2 with that of the top contemporary Olympus OM-1 / OM-2. I know that the OM10 and consumer bodies were very popular. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"The principal difference between the OM-2 and OM-2 MD models was the provision of a removable cap on the base-plate to permit attachment of the OM system Motor Drive 1 (or the later Motor Drive 2) for film advance at 5 frames per second and the placement of an "MD" badge on the front left face of the camera. The non-MD badged OM-2 cameras needed to go to a service facility to enable attachment of a motor drive." This does not appear to be accurate. While early OM-1's needed to have a base plate mod. all OM-2's (at least US imports by P&B) had the opening for the motor drive coupling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.118.141 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)