Leica M5 findings versus Olympus OM-4

[Yoni]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before recently purchasing an M5, I was looking for more information on the M5 versus the Olympus OM-4. Since my interest is street photography, that's a meaningful comparison since the OM-4 is just about the smallest SLR and might be suitable for this style of photography. Here is a quick synopsis of my findings should someone else have similar wonderings.

-size. The M5 is much larger in width and somewhat in depth but the same in height. The specs don't quite tell you that because contributing to the height of the Olympus is the mirror housing which is rather small in width. A 50mm 1.4 Zuiko lens protrudes a fair bit further from the body compared to VC Nokton 40mm - no surprise.  But keep in mind that lenses of these sizes do not really matter since the subject doesn't see the depth of the lens. All-in-all I would say that the M5 is more conspicuous than the OM-4 as far as size is concerned.

-ergonomics. The M5 wins for me (I have large hands). An aspect of the width difference that contributes to the M5 advantage is the shutter advance. I am a left eye shooter, With the M5 I can advance the film without knocking my forehead and so can advance the film while the camera is still up to the eye. I have only seen that point made on one site. It's a point worth while considering if one is thinking of buying an M5. 

-sound. As far as shutter sound, the M5 wins handedly. No contest. This probably trumps the size advantage of the OM-4 for most folks and in most places. I live in the Las Vegas area where most of our visitors are not camera shy and it's noisy. But I am allowed out and do travel a fair bit and so it'll prove important.

-light meter. The OM-4 is much more sophisticated with multi-spot readings and with a smaller spot angle. However, the display is dimmer in low illumination (though it does have a light switch). As for accuracy, I don't yet know.

-focus. Usual consideration. I can focus both readily when viewing through the finder. But, while both have depth markings, the tab on many of the Leica mount lenses are valuable for zone focus.

Despite the many advantages of the OM-4 (and of course advantage of cost of body and lenses), I would say, as it stands now, I prefer by a fair margin the M5 for street photography and just maybe for other approaches. It all comes down to ergonomics. I am leaving behind (mostly) years of shooting digital mirrorless and DSLR because all but 3 cameras (R-D1, 1ds ii, 1ds iii)  haven't fit me and haven't called me out to play. But it's early in my return to film and so my conclusions may be premature.

If there is interest in this topic, I can report on further findings down the road. 

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Yoni

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[newtoleica]

I've used the OM4Ti and the M series extensively (sorry not M5, I think it has all the design of a brick...).

Both are VERY useable on the street, both have nice lenses. Slightly different shooting styles and I agree the tab is very useful.

What makes Leica a winner hands down is that an M7 and an M10 handle almost identically so its simple to swap between film and digital.

[Yoni]

As an aside, I wonder whether my OM’s LCD is unusually dim. Do you find yours to be? Do you find the light when on nonuniform being brightest in the center of the scale? Maybe it’s just old eyes.

[paulleica]

Am 27.4.2023 um 23:32 schrieb Yoni:

If there is interest in this topic, I can report on further findings down the road.

Please keep reporting, I would be interested to read it. I also find the design language of the M5 very interesting and can no longer hear the talk that it looks like a briquette. Those who say that are all parroting what they've read somewhere. 

[Yoni]

Myself, I care little about the looks of a camera. I care about the look of the images taken.

[Fotoklaus]

Interesting, but I think comparing a Rangefinder with an automaticly working SLR is a bit difficult. I´d rather compare the OM with a Nikon FE for example.

 

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 26 Minuten schrieb Fotoklaus:

I think comparing a Rangefinder with an automaticly working SLR is a bit difficult.

I understand where you come from, but both types of cameras are tools for taking images, so comparing them is legitimate.

[Yoni]

While OM 4t does have aperture priority, I am typically using it in manual exposure mode (it doesn't have much else as far as automation). (One of my reasons, among many, that I have returned to shooting film is the fact that even with digital I often work in manual exposure mode anyway).

While at my age auto focus is useful, I find it to be a bother in street photography. Other aspects of modern focus approaches are wasted on me. I almost always focus and recompose. Too many years of shooting pre digital  to break that habit besides which moving focus point is much slower. So, I am battling digital cameras to remove features rather than enable them.

And now, face recognition, eye recognition, dog recognition, plane recognition, wife recognition, you got to be kidding! I am forced to contend with AI in the practical day-to-day life do I need it in my art? No thanks.

I am not yet sure about film per se, but I do like film cameras.

 I do very much like the Zuiko lenses. In fact, I have played with them on my 1ds3 and am pretty impressed with the results.