[Astro-Baby]

I used to develop stuff and it is fun (well b&w was - color was a pain) - I used to use these cameras an awful lot back in the day and its weird but I could pick them up and automatically remember their quirks from years ago - its as though I had never stopped using them. The AE-1 actually felt even more like worthless tat than it did years ago but thats another story . The OM-1s will see the most use as back in the day I ran shedloads of film through them.

Your right though - I probably need a bit of run in time to get the eye back in.

Mel

[abruzzi]

I’d love to try an Olympus OM, but I can’t bring myself to get into another mount. I already have Pentax K, M42, Nikon F, Pentax 67, and Bronica E. I’ll probably be getting a Minolta SR hand-me-down from my dad soon as well.

[boriscleto]

I’d love to try an Olympus OM, but I can’t bring myself to get into another mount. I already have Pentax K, M42, Nikon F, Pentax 67, and Bronica E. I’ll probably be getting a Minolta SR hand-me-down from my dad soon as well.

You need a few more...

I have Pentax K, Pentax Q, Pentax Auto 110, M42, Nikon F, Exakta (Topcon), Topcon UV, Exakta (EXA), Exakta (Mamiya), Minolta SR, Canon FD, Canon EF, Konica AR, Argus C3, Argus C44, & Olympus OM. I have so far resisted anything medium format...

So many mounts...Miranda, Fujica, Petri, various DKL, Praktica B, too many to even think of...

[Jonathan Mac]

I’d love to try an Olympus OM, but I can’t bring myself to get into another mount. I already have Pentax K, M42, Nikon F, Pentax 67, and Bronica E. I’ll probably be getting a Minolta SR hand-me-down from my dad soon as well.

I don't know why, but the Olympus OM cameras really appeal to me. I've never even held one. But likewise, I'd be adding another mount to K, M42, SR, Miranda, EF & Pentax 645.

[LesDMess]

I don't know why, but the Olympus OM cameras really appeal to me. I've never even held one.

I am not sure we would have had the MX and LX had Olympus not made the OM series so it piqued my curiosity.

[ChrisPlatt]

I was able to fondle all manual focus OM models when I worked in camera service at Olympus USA
headquarters in Woodbury NY for a year in the mid-80's. It was my first job out of technical school.

FWIW I was a Nikon user at the time (along with one of the other camera repair technicians), and
Olympus quality didn't impress me. OM bodies seem more delicate compared to other brands.

Olympus fans will scoff, but later I bought an OM2000, made by Cosina and sold by Olympus.
It's the only OM model with shutter speed dial where it belongs, i.e. up on the top deck - like a Pentax!
Most important it works fine with all OM mount lenses.

Chris

[disconnekt]

I was able to fondle all manual focus OM models when I worked in camera service at Olympus USA
headquarters in Woodbury NY for a year in the mid-80's. It was my first job out of technical school.

FWIW I was a Nikon user at the time (along with one of the other camera repair technicians),
Olympus quality didn't impress me. OM bodies seem more delicate compared to other brands.

Olympus fans will scoff, but later I bought an OM2000, made by Cosina and sold by Olympus.
It's the only OM model with shutter speed dial where it belongs, i.e. up on the top deck - like a Pentax!
Most important it works fine with all OM mount lenses.

Chris

I have a camera similiar to it, a Kalimar K-90 TTL 1000 in K-mount (there's another version of it that came out in a C/Y mount). The one I have, the body style is similiar to the Centon K100 & Vivitar V3300SE (albeit different specs), no back bump (?) on the back right hand side though.

[ChrisPlatt]

FWIW the OM2000 body seems a bit better made than the Vivitar 3800 I gave away.
I have not owned any of the other Cosina SLR clones, e.g. Nikon FM10 etc.

Cosina quality seems to be somewhat variable depending on market segment and price point perhaps.
My entry-level Cosina Voigtlander bodies are solid and well-made; the lenses are exceptional.

Chris

[Lord Lucan]

I am not sure we would have had the MX and LX had Olympus not made the OM series so it piqued my curiosity.

The Pentax MX (and to some extent the ME) was a direct response to the Olympus OM-1. In particular the OM-1 set a trend towards smaller cameras in a certain part of the market. Both the OM-1 and MX were professional quality cameras, aimed at the "lightweight" end of that market.

I don't think that had anything to do with the LX which was a K2 DMD replacement and meant to rival Nikon and Canon in the "heavyweight" professional market, even though it was less bulky than its rivals. I think Pentax were gambling somewhat on a trend to smaller cameras in all parts of the market. Looking at the Canon F1-N of 1982, that did not happen.

We had an OM-1 and OM-2 at work for technical photography, and when I bought my first SLR at that time I seriously thought of the amateur equivalent, OM-10. I was put off by the fact that it was basically auto-only but could be made manual by a physical plug-in gadget - a kludge (later solved with the OM-20 AFAIR). The aperture control ring was at the very front of the OM lenses which meant that a Judas window was never possible. On the OM-1&2 the shutter speed control was a ring on the body around the lens mount roughly where an aperture ring would be on most other brand's lenses, and like the film speed ring on a K2.

After a bit more research I concluded that the OM system was a bit weird, and despite the possiblity of borrowing some special lenses from work, and the obvious quality of the OM-1&2, I bought an ME Super instead. Glad I did.

[LesDMess]

The Pentax MX (and to some extent the ME) was a direct response to the Olympus OM-1.

I don't think that had anything to do with the LX which was a K2 DMD replacement and meant to rival Nikon and Canon in the "heavyweight" professional market, even though it was less bulky than its rivals. I think Pentax were gambling somewhat on a trend to smaller cameras in all parts of the market. Looking at the Canon F1-N of 1982, that did not happen.

The LX took no design queues from the K2 as the latter used a vertical shutter, did not have interchangeable screens or backs, motor drive only with the K2 DMD and viewfinder metering. And unlike the LX, OM2&4, it cannot meter very long aperture priority shots.

Like the MX is to the OM-1, the Pentax LX also borrowed a few technical points from the OM-2 and greatly enhanced them such as off the film meter, TTL flash gigantic viewfinder and of course physical size - with full interchangeable viewfinder!



As far as I can tell, the OM2 was the first production implementation of off the film metering although prior patents indicate Canon and Minolta experimented with it. The OM2 implementation required two metering methods with a cel in the mirror box for auto mode and cels in the viewfinder for manual mode while the LX used a lone cel in the mirror box for both. Later on Olympus used only one cel in the mirror box for all metering in their OM3&4 models.

The LX uses horizontal shutters like the whole OM single digit series except that it is a titanium foil.

The OM2&4 can reliably aperture priority autoexpose for minutes while the LX greatly extended this capability by being the only camera ever - past or present, that can do so for as long as it takes.

[caferacer73]

Working: Pentax SPII (x2), Minolta SR-T202, Minolta XG-A, Minolta AutoCord, CiroFlex Model B (x2), Compco Reflex 620 (x2), Mamiya M645 1000s, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2, Petri 7S, Konica Auto S2, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.

Non-working: Kodak Bantam (no film), Falcon Miniature Deluxe (no film), Kodak Autographic Jr 1A, Argus ArgoFlex

[timw4mail]

Working: Pentax SPII (x2), Minolta SR-T202, Minolta XG-A, Minolta AutoCord, CiroFlex Model B (x2), Compco Reflex 620 (x2), Mamiya M645 1000s, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2, Petri 7S, Konica Auto S2, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.

Non-working: Kodak Bantam (no film), Falcon Miniature Deluxe (no film), Kodak Autographic Jr 1A, Argus ArgoFlex

Is the shutter bad in the ArgoFlex?

[caferacer73]

Yes, the shutter is bad. I tried to get the shutter blades cleaned up with lighter fluid (worked on a couple of other cameras), but there's something else going on below them that is preventing them from moving much. I finally gave up since I have 5 other TLR's that are in working condition.

[timw4mail]

Yes, the shutter is bad. I tried to get the shutter blades cleaned up with lighter fluid (worked on a couple of other cameras), but there's something else going on below them that is preventing them from moving much. I finally gave up since I have 5 other TLR's that are in working condition.

Yeah, the Argoflex is not an impressive TLR when working, so you aren't missing much. The best Argoflex models in terms of picture quality require 620 film too.

[graavan]

Just beginning to collect, so far have: 2x K1000s, ME, ME Super, SF1, SF10, ZX-M, ZX-10, ZX-30, ZX-50, PZ-70 and one Canon EOS 650.