5 Frames with a Free Olympus OM10 and Optomax 35mm Lens

Thanks David, for the lovely vignette of a "found" sweet little camera and your experience using it. A perfect read to accompany a morning coffee in the sunny back garden. The grain suits the subject matter and the story.
Articles like this are why I subscribe to 35mmc.

Thanks for a bit of Olympus history. Although I own an OM-1 and a few M.Zuiko lenses I don't own any Olympus film cameras. I'm hopeful that the new owners of the Olympus camera business are able to sustain growth in the mFT world.

Thanks for this reminder of a camera I used to own in the pre-digital days and whenever I see a nice one advertised I have been tempted to go for it, though its hard to justify when I have other OM cameras which, to be honest, are just as good. Like you, I am happy to leave cameras in aperture priority most of the time. I am impressed with the natural colours of the Kodak Gold 200. Since returning to film, I have stuck with B&W because when I tried scanning old colour negatives, I could never get the colours right. No problem with transparencies and I wonder whether the problem is technique or whether the old negatives have deteriorated. You make me think I should try again with some new film and perhaps let the lab that processes the film do the scanning.

Are you sure the Thames shot is facing upstream? The flow around the post makes it look like downstream to me.

Hi David,
Your final shot of the Thames at Maidenhead looking into the light stands out for me. The back lighting darkens the foliage making a frame around the water while yielding the patterns of eddies in the water to convey the timeless motion of the water. I can place myself on the bridge in this shot, feel the breeze and hear the water as it swirls past.
Thanks for sharing.
Cheers
Daniel

All I could find is that Optomax lenses were probably a private store brand, made in Japan, and qualified as 'average' according to the few opinions I found. But those are just opinions.

I was relieved to learn it was not one of those brands with a similar name that I think were offered on 'included advertising cards' placed in magazines before distribution. They looked like SLR's in shape only (SISO), but were made of plastic, as were the attached lens assemblies. The lens 'beauty ring', already a strange term, and a misused one in the case of these plastic cameras, had terms like Genuine Optical Lens or similar. I don't remember the cost, or they might have been free with some other purchase.

I saw one in a thrift store for USD1.00 once, yet resisted the temptation to walk faster (maintained constant velocity) and being wise beyond my years, also ignored another one for USD3.00 in a different store (can't fool this fool).

Actually, I'd say this Optomax lens is excellent compared to the above cameras, which didn't even seem to have developed a following with toy camera fans. Were they too good, or a shameful waste of plastic and genuine optical lenses?

Oh, regarding the Vivitar zoom lens, if it is a Series One lens, the initial supplier was Kino, who later made their own Kiron series of lenses, and were generally excellent at the time. Certain designs are highly respected. Several other contractors over the years were used by Vivitar, presumably to save money. Some of them are still excellent. There is a chart online, that identifies, with variable accuracy, the manufacturer codes that were typically) the first two digits of the serial number. I think I trust my memory that 22 was the code for Kino.

The optical engineers at Kino had begun using a silicone-based lubricant instead of what was the norm earlier. With clocks, horological lubricants were resistant to migration, and originally were derived from whales. Whaling declined due to responsible objection, and alternative materials including synthetics were used.

Very common over many years, the silicone-based lubricant creeps from the places it belongs and makes its way to the leaves of the aperture diaphragm or iris. If it looks wet upon visual inspection, that is a quick indicator of this phenomenon. The lens may still function normally for more years, but eventually the 'oil', which possibly might have been a grease originally, accumulates in sufficient volume and viscosity that the aperture remains 'stuck open', at full opening. If the aperture ring is rotated, the oil is stronger than the spring that pulls the aperture to the place it belongs based on the f-stop ring. Eventually the lens stays wide open regardless of the ring position. It can also fog the lens. I have two identical very costly, huge custom lenses that was confirmed by the camera service department at the company that purchased the lenses, that they were made by Kino. The one lens I had mounted in a way to use it also has a wet iris and some misty fog on the internal surface of the at least one lens element. It still operates. I have had it over 20 years. It weighs about 2 kg, and I think my current camera is about 0.8 kg. It is very awkward to hand carry. It was a portrait camera lens with a single speed electric shutter and not used outdoors. So I am using it outdoors.

Some people have figured out how to open the back section of such lenses and clean them. I am not one of those people. I purchased a few, and was given others, that ALL ended up this way. Shooting wide open is OK for a little while then I find myself not bothering reaching for them. They are a lot of work to disassemble, but I have taken clean optics subassemblies out of the front of them that are rumored to be highly corrected on their own. More short-term amusement. Luckily I didn't invest much. I think they date back to the 1970's.

Really good shots, David, I am especially taken by the first one, which shows very nice colours and a good use of the T20. Th OM10 is a really reliable camera, although it is somehow overlooked in favour of its better known siblings, the OM1, OM2n, and so forth. The OM10 was a camera that made my joys back in the very early 90s, and I still have it. Even without the manual adapter, the OM10 can stand its ground against other cameras, is dependable and if taken care of, can work for ages without any troubles.

Good writing too, I really enjoyed it!

Hey, that cheap lens looks pretty good! Find an Olympus lens for it and really go to town! It'll not only be sharp, it'll probably have unbeatable color and contrast! Enjoy!

Hi,
For My main 35 mm film system the OM10 was my camera choice.
Looked at the OM10 and Pentax ME super...the pentax at the time way more expensive.
Essentially the camera body being a light tight box to hold the film, the lens quality being the business end.
I still have the original lens that came with the camera, though at the time looking at cost of lenses I opted for the Tamron adaptall 2 mount system.
My main Tamron lens was the 35 - 210 macro that I still own...one reasonable sized lens that covered most situations as opposed to a full bag of lenses.
The grain is often the lure to film photography I would usually shoot 100 iso film ( first known as asa film rating)...a choice of finer grain and controlling the manual settings.
For the contributor asking about colour rendering while scanning.
An IT8 target can help correct the colour imbalance.
I studied photography City and guilds 923 & 747...my OM 10 and Tamron lens set up more than stood its ground against Canon and Nikon cameras.

Interesting report, David. I used an original Pentax ME for years and I wish I had not swapped it when I bought an SFX. As a railway photographer, the aperture priority served me well.