[k100d]

any thoughts?
i just got my MX and think it's an interesting bit of kit. all manual control is gonna take a while to get used to.

[geauxpez]

Do you have an OM or are you fishing? I just sold my OM kit (to carlb). I have to say that the OM2n is a fine camera...I just took issue with not being able to see the needle in low light and the delicate hot shoe. Didn't matter, I didn't use flash with it anyway. I like the shutter sound on it better than I do Pentax film SLR's. Pentax won out since it's such a flexible system lens-wise.

[lithos]

OM1 uses those nasty mercury batteries, don't they?

[raymeedc]

Om1 has great addictive dampened feel to it's shutter & a great large, contrasty screen with simple match needle metering system. What I don't like are the lenses. The shutter speeds at the lens base is odd, but can be gotten used to, & even appreciated. The cheesy feeling f-stop ring at the other end of the lens, however, is another matter..... I don't like it at all, position or feel. I don't like the LED metering system in the MX. Besides this though, the Pentax MX's greatest advantage (besides being a nice camera in it's own right) is that they allow for the use of early P/K Pentax lenses, which were, in my opinion, the best feeling lenses out there. The K lenses aren't nearly as nice as the M42 Takumars (what lenses are?), but still nicer than any other camera of it's era.

---

Last edited by raymeedc; 07-30-2009 at 10:25 AM.

[séamuis]

Om1 has great addictive dampened feel to it's shutter & a great large, contrasty screen with simple match needle metering system. What I don't like are the lenses. The shutter speeds at the lens base is odd, but can be gotten used to, & even appreciated. The cheesy feeling f-stop ring at the other end of the lens, however, is another matter..... I don't like it at all, position or feel. I don't like the LED metering system in the MX. Besides this though, the Pentax MX's greatest advantage (besides being a super nice camera in it's own right) is that they allow for the use of early P/K Pentax lenses, which were (are), in my opinion, the best feeling lenses out there. The K lenses aren't as nice as the M42 Takumars, but still nicer than any other camera of it's era.

I never liked the K series lenses. I love the small size of Takumars, and that most lenses used a 49mm thread mount. people always say they didn't like the 'miniaturization' of the M series, but all they really did was go back to the sizes they were using before. great lenses, but especially on an MX.. just too big.

[Lowell Goudge]

The OP has opened up the battle of the midgets with this posting. Both pentax and Olympus were "competing" to claim the worlds smallest 35mm SLR crown.

While some people love the small compact cameras and lenses, my own take on this is the following:

- Functionally the MX is an excellent camera, but it is soo small, even though it is a lighter body than my KX feels much heavier. It is just so small I can;t hold it comfortable
- The M series lenses, although small have one advantage, pentax attempted for the consumer to have one, and only one, filter diameter (49mm) for all the lenses

While pentax did achieve the small size and single filter for many lenses, at the longer end this was achieved by giving up maximum apertures.

Also, although I have not had a tone of M lenses to play with, I have found the damping and action of the focusing mechanizm on teh M lenses to be much less conssitent than the same focal length K lenses. I cant quantify this but they "feel cheap".

My view of the whole experience, and I think this is confirmed by the range of excellent A series lenses that followed is that the M series, and the drive for a tiny product was chacing a niche marked that was not sustainable.

[Nesster]

The OM series was a game changer, beautifully engineered and thought out cameras. The OM2 in retrospect is probably their pinnacle, as far as sales and market impact - and current usability goes. Olympus came from nowhere to be the #2 selling SLR in Japan for instance, after Nikon. Every other camera maker had to react, just as they later had to react to Canon's elctronic light shows and Minolta's auto focus. The manufacturers who did not, went into peril...

In '85 I was ready to upgrade from my Olympus Pen FT half frame... and for sentimental reasons bought an OM2s rather than a Super Program or one of the Minoltas. And the OM2s is a fine camera, in many ways better built, engineered and designed than Pentax of the time. But it's let down by a couple of glaring problems which the Pentax Programs don't have: it has horrendous battery life, a dim view finder (to permit through the mirror metering)... and although excellent and small, the OM lenses I feel aren't as built to last as Pentax or Nikkor, to take two.

I now have a Program Plus that I use far more often than the OM2s...

The other bit about OM vs Pentax - see above Canon and Minolta challenges - Olympus never did manage to compete with these game changers. Pentax managed, though one may argue how successfully. As a result, OM has become a semi-orphaned camera, while we all benefit from the Pentax lens compatibilty to this day.

Small vs. large has always seemed to be in play with 35mm cameras - you have your Leicas as the prototypical small cam, and Nikon F as the large. Personally, I'm in the small camp, although some of the cameras probably did end up too small for their own good.

[k100d]

Do you have an OM or are you fishing?

i'm just fishing because i'm sure there are people here who have used both.

i think i'm asking because now that i have the MX, i'm really not sure what to think of it... the LED metering thing is kind of weird, i think the KX match needle is probably more interesting. the camera is small, but feels really heavy for some reason.

i read on an RangeFinderForum thread a lot of people prefer the OM to the MX for the shutter, the vf (? i found this hard to believe), the lenses (that really depends). i think in general, the OM series has really endeared itself to a lot of users whereas perhaps maybe the MX does not have such a broad appeal outside of the Pentax community (or even in the Pentax community for that matter).

[séamuis]

i'm just fishing because i'm sure there are people here who have used both.

i think i'm asking because now that i have the MX, i'm really not sure what to think of it... the LED metering thing is kind of weird, i think the KX match needle is probably more interesting. the camera is small, but feels really heavy for some reason.

i read on an RangeFinderForum thread a lot of people prefer the OM to the MX for the shutter, the vf (? i found this hard to believe), the lenses (that really depends). i think in general, the OM series has really endeared itself to a lot of users whereas perhaps maybe the MX does not have such a broad appeal outside of the Pentax community (or even in the Pentax community for that matter).

I dont know about the size and magnification of the viewfinder, but from what I have read Olympus had some really good viewing screens in the OM. I think the MX doesnt have a large following because there are so many other great cameras to lust after, not to mention, eveyone loves the K1000. what did olympus have at the time other than the OM that was really worth lusting after? not much that I know of. thus the OM garners a lot of attention by default.

[BetterSense]

I don't have an MX but I do have a OM2n and a ME Super.

The OM2n has a slightly arger and better viewfinder than the ME Super, but the ME Super's LEDs are a lot easier to see at night. The Pentax is also easier to wind because the lever has a shorter throw. But the OM2n has a smoother and quieter shutter, slightly. They are both about the same size. Manual operation with the OM is worlds better; I personally dig the shutter-speed ring.

I don't do digital, so lenses is a tie for me, except I think my Zuiko 28mm/2.8 is better than my corresponding Pentax-A.

[geauxpez]

... I personally dig the shutter-speed ring...

If the ME Super had that shutter speed ring I would not even consider selling it.

[Ratmagiclady]

I was considering a switch to Olympus when I started getting suspicious of where Canon might be going: I liked the bodies, but something important to me was missing in the lens lineup: I forget what. I did figure Olympus would be staying with the compact-but-old-school smallness thing, nice finders and all. I was looking at OM-3's and 4s, as I recall, maybe the OM2s.

[Cosmo]

I've always wondered, how good is old Olympus glass? They look good, and I always here very high praise of Zuiko lenses.

[Ratmagiclady]

I've always wondered, how good is old Olympus glass? They look good, and I always here very high praise of Zuiko lenses.

Very nice, a lot of it, actually. Though I believe a lot of the better stuff is harder to come by than in the case of Pentax.

[k100d]

there are people using zuiko glass on pentax bodies