[TwoUptons]

I've always been curious as to whether the same optical formula (on any given K and M series lens) still provides the same results given that K series have that bigger filter thread, hence wider front element at the least.

I thought the general consensus was that the K lenses that became M lenses with no change to the optics were indeed the same, with changes in construction allowing the smaller filter thread.

There is a different question about ergonomics and build quality...

And yet another question about optical qualities of lenses that did change. I’ve never heard the M 50mm f2 talked about with the same regard as the K 55 f2, for example... but there are M lenses that are better regarded than their K predecessors as well, I’m sure.

-Eric

[Digitalis]

Not something I bought but, when visiting a local camera shop I spotted something that would have been right at home in Auric Goldfingers lair

[microlight]

Well that’s cute!

[womble]

I thought the general consensus was that the K lenses that became M lenses with no change to the optics were indeed the same, with changes in construction allowing the smaller filter thread.

There is a different question about ergonomics and build quality...

And yet another question about optical qualities of lenses that did change. I’ve never heard the M 50mm f2 talked about with the same regard as the K 55 f2, for example... but there are M lenses that are better regarded than their K predecessors as well, I’m sure.

-Eric

The K55/2 and K55/1.8 shared the same optical formula (six elements in five groups) and are pretty much identical. The M50/1.7 is also six in five, but the cheaper M50/2 is only five in five and was thus the actually a cheaper lens, rather than one marketed as cheaper...

[nickthetasmaniac]

I've always been curious as to whether the same optical formula (on any given K and M series lens) still provides the same results given that K series have that bigger filter thread, hence wider front element at the least.

On lenses with the same optical formula (eg. K and M 50/f1.4) the front element is identical, it’s just the filter thread that’s different.

[gofour3]

Not something I bought but, when visiting a local camera shop I spotted something that would have been right at home in Auric Goldfingers lair

Nice! You're going to need a sturdy tripod to support that huge lens...

Phil.

[womble]

nice! You're going to need a sturdy tripod to support that huge lens...

Phil.

🤣🤣🤣🤣😹

[Digitalis]

You're going to need a sturdy tripod to support that huge lens...

The standard lens is a 2.5cm f/3.5 Uni-focal lens. With a bit of research on the internet I found out the telephoto is a rather modest 40mm f/5.6 - which works out to about 200mm +/- 35mm equivalent on the Pentax Q.

[K-Three]

The standard lens is a 2.5cm f/3.5

Looks like it's using 16mm cine lenses?
What's it using for film, could you even get any?

[g026r]

Looks like it's using 16mm cine lenses?
What's it using for film, could you even get any?

16mm single perforation film, from the looks of the manual. So not too difficult to find. Bulk loaded though, so you'd better hope the camera still has both the feed & take-up cassettes or else you're out of luck.

[wkraus]

On lenses with the same optical formula (eg. K and M 50/f1.4) the front element is identical, it’s just the filter thread that’s different.

The construction of the two lenses is basically the same (7 in 6 double Gauss) but with some modifications—at least if the diagrams in the review section are to be trusted. But the front element did indeed not change a lot.

[danielblues]

I wanted the lightest manual focus camera possible, that worked with the DA lens and had Aperture on the viewfinder... I ended up with a 0 click MZ-m, I love it, even with all that plastic glory, hoping that it lasts more than the reviewers say it will.

[Eyewanders]

Just finished (except for the rear-door seals which I've not bothered with quite yet) refreshing the OM-1n that belonged to my brother-in-law's dad. He had with him on a couple tours of duty (though I don't know any details). He shot many cameras (including a Hasselblad I believe is still lost in a second storage unit yet to be sorted through). He was a heavy smoker and of all the cameras that have come out of similar environments I'd never had one in my possession that was *THAT* drenched in the smell. Every corner of this thing smelled like deep inside an ashtray. It's much much more subtle now, but I doubt it'll ever completely go away.

At any rate, noticed it has some prism deterioration in the VF so I took that opportunity to clean beneath the top cap and remove the nasty old foam - not nearly as badly broken down as many others (surprisingly in this case), but still enough. At least the prism wont' degrade further now. The meter works but gives incredibly low readings. More than anything though I discovered that I hate Zuiko glass, probably just the later variants, with a white hot passion. Not a fan of their construction and fiddly mechanisms, and less of a fan of the element construction that uses very few spanner points and COPIOUS numbers of retaining rings (all friction, none spanner) and heavily applied contact cement. I was never able to get into the rear of each innermost element, from front and rear groups (every single element has quite a bit of fungus tracks though no heavy etching that I could find). After two nights of alcohol and then naptha applications, as well as scoring the the inner finish twice from two spanner slips, I finally gave up. It's far clearer than it once was but was the success I'd assumed I'd have with it. I think I'd have completely remove the helicoid and do some sort of light "percussive" maintenance to free that inner group.

Anyhow. It's good enough to shoot. Funny to me because I don't particularly care for it, particularly when compared to it's Asahi counterpart, and don't much want to run a test roll through.

[Swift1]

Anyhow. It's good enough to shoot. Funny to me because I don't particularly care for it, particularly when compared to it's Asahi counterpart, and don't much want to run a test roll through.

You should give a chance and shoot with it
Everyone I know that shoots with the OM-1 seems to really like them.
A friend gave me his old OM-1N last year. I gave it to my daughter so I haven't shot with it, but it's a pretty cool camera.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Speaking of OM's

I've been really keen to try an OM1 for years (since I got into 35mm photography really).

I finally found a nice single-owner kit locally earlier this year. It was in beautiful condition, had been sitting on a shelf for a couple of decades after the owner went digital. The hardware was all good (luckily no viewfinder issues) but there were a bunch of mechanical gremlins. The main one being that the shutter would only fire at about 1/125", regardless of where the dial was set.

Anyway, I just got it back from Yoshi at Nagami Camera Service and it's working a treat. It'll be interesting to use it side-by-side with the MX