View Full Version : Is the OM1 that much better than ...
oftheherd
06-25-2007, 15:04
OK, this is RFF. But we have a very lively discussion going on about Olympus OM's. I agree they are good btw. Several times here I have mentioned the Fujica ST 901 and the Fujinon lenses. I don't think anyone has ever commented.
So, my question is this, anyone else have or had Fujica screw mount cameras or screw mount lenses? Especially the ST 801 or ST 901. Even the AZ1, although I don't think it was as handy as the 901, even with its dedicated flash and motor wind.
How about it? Do/Did you own one and what was your opinion of it and the Fujinon glass?
All of this OM talk has had me thinking and looking. An OM1 looks to be the ideal OM, other than the later pricey models largely due to the big viewfinder. The Pentax MX also looks to be a similar contender.
I gave M42 cameras a run once, but these Fujica's are full aperture metering correct? That is different for the lot. I will have to go look.
oftheherd
06-25-2007, 15:22
Yes the ST 801/901 and AZ models were open aperture metering. And the ST models were small. I don't recall that the OM-1 was any smaller. And the ST's came out before the OM-1. :D
All of this OM talk has had me thinking and looking. An OM1 looks to be the ideal OM, other than the later pricey models largely due to the big viewfinder. The Pentax MX also looks to be a similar contender
I agree - I love the OM1n (the n version is later and has some improvements). But it does have the mercury battery problem - I had mine modified to take an SR44 battery. The Pentax MX is also excellent - it feels great in the hand. But I think it feels a bit lighter and less solid than the OM1 (I can't be sure, because I haven't handled them both at the same time, but that's what I remember).
I need an M42 body, and I've settled on an Olympus FTL or a Fujica ST801. The FTL is to keep "peace in the family", the Fujica because it's smaller, more like an OM-1. IIRC, the viewfinder is very good, very OM-like.
All this SLR talk on a rangefinder forum indeed ... the 'bartender' may have to dicipline us. :eek:
I too have been ogling OM-1's and 2's ... St901's and MX's on eBay over the last few days. Every time one of these discussions comes up I learn a little more about various cameras and my information base broadens which is good ... someone recently offered to give me a Fujica and I didn't even bother to get back to them ... I may now!
These SLR's from this era are fine cameras and not representative of the thundering monsters a lot of them evolved into. I think aside from an OM, I will probably look seriously at an MX Pentax, as my old SP500 which I have had for thirty years, impresses me with it's rugged simplicity and small dimensions. It's had no attention in that time and has even survived my son's attempts to meddle with it at various stages ... I ran a roll of film (1/2 a roll) through it the other day and was very impressed with the results and it's ease of use was outstanding!
I can see myself now heading towards a small collection of classic SLR's ... it's my own damned fault for starting these threads about them. ('show us your SLR') The amount of enthusiasm that bubbles away in these threads about non RF cameras at times makes me proud to be a member of this forum and confirms in my mind that it really is all about ... 'PHOTOGRAPHY.'
:D :D :D
back alley
06-25-2007, 17:14
never used a fujica camera but i did sell them in the old days when i worked in a camera shop.
they always struck me as well built and solid.
i had 2 fuji enlarging lenses that were excellent so i would suspect the fujinons on the st cameras would be excellent also.
but i would still cast my vote for the om cameras, bayonet mount and small winders do it for me.
joe
oftheherd
06-25-2007, 21:07
I need an M42 body, and I've settled on an Olympus FTL or a Fujica ST801. The FTL is to keep "peace in the family", the Fujica because it's smaller, more like an OM-1. IIRC, the viewfinder is very good, very OM-like.
The ST 801 is small and light with a good viewfinder. It is rugged as well. One thing it has that others at the time mostly did not was a top shutter speed of 1/2000. I can't tell you much about using them. As I have mentioned before. I got mine along with two lenses (the legendary Series 1 35-85 was one). I gave it to my daughter to try and interest her in SLR's over P&S cameras. She won't let it go.
She has produced some very good photos and gotten a lot of compliments from friends about that camera. They seem to recognize it as different and therefore good(?). She also loves the Fujinon 43-75mm lens. IIRC Fujica pioneered that lens length. Several other camera lines later copied it, including Nikon.
EDIT: I had not heard of the Olympus FTL. I didn't know they had tried the M42 mount before their bayonet mount. I'll have to watch for one of them. Just another of the reasons I like RFF: the knowledge here.
All this SLR talk on a rangefinder forum indeed ... the 'bartender' may have to discipline us.
Well, as we are RFF all of this SLR talk is Off Topic here, but a little variety is not a bad thing. I have moved the recent SLR threads to our OT forum.
That said, it is shameless plug time.
We do have a sister site, DSLR Exchange at which all things SLR are On Topic.
http://www.dslrexchange.com/
You will find a lot of familiar names there, and I am sure that growing the archives there will serve us all as a great resource in the future.
oftheherd
06-26-2007, 03:51
never used a fujica camera but i did sell them in the old days when i worked in a camera shop.
they always struck me as well built and solid.
i had 2 fuji enlarging lenses that were excellent so i would suspect the fujinons on the st cameras would be excellent also.
but i would still cast my vote for the om cameras, bayonet mount and small winders do it for me.
joe
Joe,
I don't remember you ever mentioning you used to work in a camera store. Always wanted to myself but just never did.
You are right about all Fuji glass; enlargers, LF, MF, and 35mm, at least in the screw mount. Probably the bayonet mount lenses were also just as good, but I never had any experience with them. By the time Fujica made the switch to bayonet I was too much in love with my ST 901 and too heavily invested in screw mount lenses to want to make the switch.
And a funny thing, I personally have never been a fan of bayonet mounts. I had it in the Contax and now in the FX 103, also a breech lock in the Super Press 23. I can't always see the tabs to tell me which way to mount the lens in low light. I have no problem geting a screw mount set proberly by reverse twisting until I know where it is, then tightening it up. Maybe it is just me.
KoNickon
06-26-2007, 04:08
Based on a lot of favorable comments here and elsewhere, I took a flyer and got a Fujica STX-1N with the 55/1.9. Nice camera and lens -- but finding the X-Fujinon lenses has proven difficult. I have seen the 43-75, but that's not a very useful focal length range, and I believe it's woefully slow -- f3.5-4.5.
back alley
06-26-2007, 04:55
Joe,
I don't remember you ever mentioning you used to work in a camera store. Always wanted to myself but just never did.
You are right about all Fuji glass; enlargers, LF, MF, and 35mm, at least in the screw mount. Probably the bayonet mount lenses were also just as good, but I never had any experience with them. By the time Fujica made the switch to bayonet I was too much in love with my ST 901 and too heavily invested in screw mount lenses to want to make the switch.
And a funny thing, I personally have never been a fan of bayonet mounts. I had it in the Contax and now in the FX 103, also a breech lock in the Super Press 23. I can't always see the tabs to tell me which way to mount the lens in low light. I have no problem geting a screw mount set proberly by reverse twisting until I know where it is, then tightening it up. Maybe it is just me.
i worked full time for a couple of years in one small shop in the mid 70's and then years later when i was out of my regular work i also did a full time stint at a local pro shop. i continued to work there on saturdays for years. it fed my gas at the time, having access to great used gear that we took in trade and getting to play with all the new toys.
Brian Sweeney
06-26-2007, 05:20
The ST701 was contemporary of the first OM-1 cameras. The original OM-1 was known as the "M-1". I've read that is it was out in 1971, same year as the ST-701. The ST-701 was stop-down metering. The ST-801 was out afterward, and had a special 42mm screw mount lens for wide-open metering.
Olympus had a short-lived full-frame screw mount camera, the "Olympus FTL".
oftheherd
06-26-2007, 07:51
Based on a lot of favorable comments here and elsewhere, I took a flyer and got a Fujica STX-1N with the 55/1.9. Nice camera and lens -- but finding the X-Fujinon lenses has proven difficult. I have seen the 43-75, but that's not a very useful focal length range, and I believe it's woefully slow -- f3.5-4.5.
I am surprised you have trouble finding the x-Fujinon lenses. I used to do a search just on Fujinon lenses of ebay looking for the screw mount lenses and seemed I used to see too much of the X-mount.
I agree on the 43-75. I never thought too much of it, but my daughter loves it. How is the STX-1N? I have never used any of the bayonet mount cameras since I only wanted to increase my stable of screw mount lenses.
oftheherd
06-26-2007, 08:00
The ST701 was contemporary of the first OM-1 cameras. The original OM-1 was known as the "M-1". I've read that is it was out in 1971, same year as the ST-701. The ST-701 was stop-down metering. The ST-801 was out afterward, and had a special 42mm screw mount lens for wide-open metering.
Olympus had a short-lived full-frame screw mount camera, the "Olympus FTL".
I guess that is why I seem to remember the OM-1 coming out just after the ST-901 (it may have been earlier but somehow I don't remember it that way). I didn't know they had an earlier version under another name.
I never used any of the other ST models, nor even saw them. I started with the 901, and only about 6 or 7 years ago ran across an 801 I won on ebay with two extra lenses. I know they had one, I don't remember if it was the 601 or the 701, that could use an accessory winder. They didn't have winders again until the AZ-1. I think some of the X mount cameras, perhaps the 5, had winder capabilities.
I never thought too much of winders. I had one for the Contax 139Q and still have it, but don't use it with the FX 103's. I can easily crank with my thumb and save the weight.
BillBingham2
06-26-2007, 08:25
If I remember right, Fuji was one of the first to come out with LEDs instead of a meter needle.
I have an OM-1 and while I use my F2 (A and AS) as my main camera, I still shoot with her from time to time. My initial impression is the same, she's just a bit too small for my hands. My Ms, my F2, my S2 all feel great in my hand, but the OM-1 just is too small, my fingers cramp up. I love everything else about the camera. She is quiet, light weight, takes great lenses, a bright viewfinder and has a wonderful flash system.
IMHO, the OM-1 is tied with the F/F2 as the best SLR ever. The OM-1 wins kicks butt on size, the Fs get the nod on ruggedness and flexibility. While the OM-1 finder is brighter, the 100% view and removable heads of the F/F2 brings them into a dead heat in the viewfinder space.
B2 (;->
shadowfox
06-26-2007, 08:30
Well, as we are RFF all of this SLR talk is Off Topic here, but a little variety is not a bad thing. I have moved the recent SLR threads to our OT forum.
That said, it is shameless plug time.
We do have a sister site, DSLR Exchange at which all things SLR are On Topic.
http://www.dslrexchange.com/
You will find a lot of familiar names there, and I am sure that growing the archives there will serve us all as a great resource in the future.
Here's an idea which may incur the wrath of the bartender, although then again it may not.
Why don't we incorporate DLSRx into RFF?
Why?
1. We don't have to have a separate user account
2. As these threads have proven, there is a lot of SLR love amongst RFFers
3. Because Off-Topic will soon turn into SLR sub-forum :eek:
4. We'll help bring the RFF goodness to the SLR world
Why not?
It may be confusing to talk about SLR in a RangefinderForum.com.
Me personally, I don't think it's a big issue. RangefinderForum is the friendly, knowledgeable, civil, and edgy community of photo enthusiasts that we all love. Nothing will ever change that. SLR would be a sub-forum, just like Fixed Lens, and TLR.
In a sense, it's kinda a jab towards the silly RF vs SLR "war" out there.
So, what say thee?
Second this motion !
Roland.
Here's an idea which may incur the wrath of the bartender, although then again it may not.
Why don't we incorporate DLSRx into RFF?
Why?
1. We don't have to have a separate user account
2. As these threads have proven, there is a lot of SLR love amongst RFFers
3. Because Off-Topic will soon turn into SLR sub-forum :eek:
4. We'll help bring the RFF goodness to the SLR world
Why not?
It may be confusing to talk about SLR in a RangefinderForum.com.
Me personally, I don't think it's a big issue. RangefinderForum is the friendly, knowledgeable, civil, and edgy community of photo enthusiasts that we all love. Nothing will ever change that. SLR would be a sub-forum, just like Fixed Lens, and TLR.
In a sense, it's kinda a jab towards the silly RF vs SLR "war" out there.
So, what say thee?
Second this motion !
Roland.
Great idea ... but possibly unpopular with some ... ???:o
BillBingham2
06-26-2007, 09:07
I would welcome it if you could limit the first page to perhaps one of two topic areas. The first being Rangefinders, the second being SLRs (D and F). One user ID works in both, you could jump back and forth as you want. The key is keeping the RF world very isolated from the SLR world. This is important from the perspective of advertisers and many members.
In a perfect world, just add a higher level branch at the top. I'm sure it would not be that easy. I think what makes RFF the success it has been is it's focus on one topic. Stephen has expanded it a bit, but I think opening it up too far would kill it.
Again, your milage may vary.
B2 (;->
loneranger
06-26-2007, 09:28
can you guys post some pics of these cameras, I dont know much about olympus slr's, but your discussion makes me curious.
BillBingham2
06-26-2007, 09:39
Loneranger,
Try here......
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/index.htm
Beware, the gas pains that follow are strong!!
B2 (;->
KoNickon
06-26-2007, 09:59
[QUOTE=oftheherd]I am surprised you have trouble finding the x-Fujinon lenses. I used to do a search just on Fujinon lenses of ebay looking for the screw mount lenses and seemed I used to see too much of the X-mount.
Well, I'll keep looking -- for example, right now on eBay there are eight X-Fujinons listed, all but one of them the normal lenses.
How is the STX-1N?
It's OK -- nice small size and well made. Not a tremendous feature set but a decent little camera. I will say I was very impressed with the performance of the 55/1.9 -- very high resolution lens, as far as I can tell.
oftheherd
06-26-2007, 12:23
[QUOTE=oftheherd]I am surprised you have trouble finding the x-Fujinon lenses. I used to do a search just on Fujinon lenses of ebay looking for the screw mount lenses and seemed I used to see too much of the X-mount.
Well, I'll keep looking -- for example, right now on eBay there are eight X-Fujinons listed, all but one of them the normal lenses.
How is the STX-1N?
It's OK -- nice small size and well made. Not a tremendous feature set but a decent little camera. I will say I was very impressed with the performance of the 55/1.9 -- very high resolution lens, as far as I can tell.
I noticed the listing myself. It used to be much different, and now may be an aberation (hopefully).
Glad you like the STX-1N. I had forgotten Fuji had a 55mm f/1.9. I thought all were 50mm. In general, their glass is superb.
Hmmm, though the lens itself looks small, the depth of the body at the mount is surprising. I have never looked at this view before.
Completely changing the subject sorry ... I have just read something interesting about my SP500. The SP500 was bought out as a budget camera and was supposedly fitted with a shutter that only went to 500 and not 1000 ... the truth is the shutter mechanism was exactly the same but they removed the 1000 setting from the dial. I had always noticed there was a detent after 500 in 'no man's land' that seemed faster and now I know the bizzare truth ... OK, we can go back to Oly verses Fuji now! :)
PS ...(my Pentax will be graced by an Oly's company soon ... I hope)
nikon_sam
06-26-2007, 17:57
I don't remember why but back in the early 80's I chose to go with the Pentax MX instead of the Olympus...I bought two Black Body MX's and then mounted Vivitar Series 1 lenses on them...35-85mm & 70-210mm...
Both Pentax and Olympus cameras were very small and somewhat hard to shoot with...Later I bought Winders for my MX's and that really helped...
I have one MX sitting in the closet...it needs help with its shutter curtain (sticky)...I don't use it so it will sit...
The other one has been on loan for the last 2 or 3 years...I'm not even sure who has it now or where...
A few years ago I bought my daughter a chrome Pentax MX with a 50mm lens...She used it for awhile but would rather have a digital camera...
BillBingham2
06-26-2007, 18:45
When I add a winder (mine is not working well) the OM-1 is a great feeling package, then it feels as big as an F2.
B2 (;->
Sam: None of my OMs (many neglected for a long period) have sticky shutters. :D
Sticky seals, yeah, but even I, as a klutz, can remedy that.
The only OM Zuiko I know of that approaches a RF lens in depth is the 40mm pancake, and Maitani (moment of silence) designed it to bring the OM/40mm kit to RF dimensions. Yes, the 50/1.8 is "larger" in terms of depth, but the handling is oh so nice.
The Pentax MX is indeed an OM-like body. I remember when it was launched to the market ... it was Pentax's answer to OM. Before that, it was the Spotmatic or K-1000 form factor, both way bigger than the OM. Nice cameras ( Spotmatic F, K, MX, ME) no jealousy or envy.
oftheherd
06-26-2007, 19:06
If I remember right, Fuji was one of the first to come out with LEDs instead of a meter needle.
...
B2 (;->
That is correct. IIRC they heavily advertised that fact. The ST 801 has led's in the viewfinder that light up next to a shutter speed as you rotate the aperture ring or look at different amounts of light. Then the ST 901 put the actual shutter speeds at the top of the rangefinger.
nikon_sam
06-26-2007, 21:10
Trius,
The problem with the shutter is this...It looks like the bottom half of the second curtain is not connected properly...it has a bit of a bag in it...looks like it's an easy fix...I don't know enough about it to even try to fix it myself...I would rather have the camera sit than ruin it completely...
oftheherd
06-27-2007, 03:45
...
then mounted Vivitar Series 1 lenses on them...35-85mm & 70-210mm...
...
A few years ago I bought my daughter a chrome Pentax MX with a 50mm lens...She used it for awhile but would rather have a digital camera...
When I got my ST 801 from a pawn shop off ebay about 7 years ago, part of the reason I bid was it came with the Series 1 35-85mm and 70-210. Unfortunately, the 70-210's diaphram doesn't work and I just haven't had the courage to look inside. But the 35-85mm is a dream is it not? Of course, it sort of dwarfs the ST 901 and is a bit heavy. It isn't a lens to use all the time, but when it is time, it is nice. Do you still use them?
I have not handled an OM before. After my vacation I will take care of that problem.
marcust101
06-27-2007, 05:44
I use my Om's as much as my Leica's, they're little, tough and easy to use. Try the 85m f2 if you can my favourite for portraits. It gives a creamy quality similar to older leica lens or maybe i need to clean it.
I have not handled an OM before. After my vacation I will take care of that problem.
People complain about the shutter speed on the lenses’ housing; I've used both from the 1970s and prefer the OM’s layout to the top mounted ones
BillBingham2
06-27-2007, 06:49
The only design point I wish Olympus had done differently was to make the focus and the aperture spin the same direction as the Leica M lenses.
B2 (;->
People complain about the shutter speed on the lenses’ housing; I've used both from the 1970s and prefer the OM’s layout to the top mounted ones
OK, now I get it. I was trying to figure out where the shutter speeds were.
OK, now I get it. I was trying to figure out where the shutter speeds were.
At first you try to twist off the film-speed selector, and stop down the wrong way :rolleyes:
it's second nature now I don’t notice any difference switching between the Leica layout and the OM’s
shadowfox
06-27-2007, 08:46
When I add a winder (mine is not working well) the OM-1 is a great feeling package, then it feels as big as an F2.
B2 (;->
Speaking about winders:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1021/528770859_9b829d8a90.jpg
That's a direct comparison between OM winder 2 vs Nikon's MD12. The FM2 in the picture is not mine, but that's also another handsome camera. (Sorry for those who have seen this picture on another thread)...
nikon_sam
06-27-2007, 09:47
When I got my ST 801 from a pawn shop off ebay about 7 years ago, part of the reason I bid was it came with the Series 1 35-85mm and 70-210. Unfortunately, the 70-210's diaphram doesn't work and I just haven't had the courage to look inside. But the 35-85mm is a dream is it not? Of course, it sort of dwarfs the ST 901 and is a bit heavy. It isn't a lens to use all the time, but when it is time, it is nice. Do you still use them?
oftheherd,
Sorry that would be a "No"...I still have them...actually they're my wifes...I bought her a Pentax years ago but it was too complicated for her so it really never got used...Then I gave her a Pentax Program Super that I had but didn't use and handed the Vivitars to her also...long story short...she doesn't use any of it...So I guess I have some Pentax stuff I could get rid of...Her stuff and the MX my daughter doesn't use...
BUT, I did get a Vivitar Series 1 135mm 2.3 in Nikon mount and do used it plenty...Now that's a heavy lens...nothing but metal and glass...:D
oftheherd
06-27-2007, 16:07
oftheherd,
Sorry that would be a "No"...I still have them...actually they're my wifes...I bought her a Pentax years ago but it was too complicated for her so it really never got used...Then I gave her a Pentax Program Super that I had but didn't use and handed the Vivitars to her also...long story short...she doesn't use any of it...So I guess I have some Pentax stuff I could get rid of...Her stuff and the MX my daughter doesn't use...
BUT, I did get a Vivitar Series 1 135mm 2.3 in Nikon mount and do used it plenty...Now that's a heavy lens...nothing but metal and glass...:D
Alas! Poor Series 1's. :D I have seen the 135mm on ebay and bid several times, but they always got too expensive for my blood. Now my Fujinon 135mm is light, but then it is an f/3.5 too. One thing Fuji tried hard to do was keep all its lenses with 49mm filter sizes. As I recall, Olympus tried to keep theirs the same size too. Made for compact lenses, but not always desired low light capabilities. Fuji had a 75-150mm that was small and light. I think I have only seen one for sale. I would love to have one. But they are more rare than other Fujinons in screw mount.
Is the Series 1 135mm a close focus lens also?
nikon_sam
06-27-2007, 16:36
I got the 135 on ebay and for a great price...it had issues but not stated in "Item Description"...the linkage for the aperture blades was slightly bent and would cause a slow movement of aperture blades...I worked on it till I got it right...everything else is just about perfect...nice clean glass and it came with a filter...72mm...
Yes, it does focus very close...and then you can mount extension tubes on it too...WOW!!!
I wasn't too happy with the built-in lenshood...found that the Nikon HN-20 works just fine...
Trius,
The problem with the shutter is this...It looks like the bottom half of the second curtain is not connected properly...it has a bit of a bag in it...looks like it's an easy fix...I don't know enough about it to even try to fix it myself...I would rather have the camera sit than ruin it completely...
I wouldn't know how to do that, but folks on the OM list (including John Hermanson) would. http://www.zuikoholic.com/
Is that the 40mm on there?
BillBingham2
06-28-2007, 10:53
28/2.8 is almost the same size about 32mm long!
B2 (;->
All of this OM talk has had me thinking and looking. An OM1 looks to be the ideal OM, other than the later pricey models largely due to the big viewfinder. .........
Hi Rover,
not to tease you, but it seems to me all OMs have the same big viewfinder, and I own several models. I happen to use most the OM2n, as for me it is a kind of compromise between the advanced models and the OM1. It is a nice compromise too in terms of shutter noise level.
Take care, OMs are very addictive. And btw, if you go, take care of getting a new looking 1.8, the latest ones are the best.
Cheers,
Ruben
Per specs I have seen the 1 has a higher magnification and % of actual field coverage.
Well, as we are RFF all of this SLR talk is Off Topic here, but a little variety is not a bad thing. I have moved the recent SLR threads to our OT forum.
..............
Well, in my case, I went back to my OM4Ti, shot several times, and compared to my Kievs it was like a series of slaps on my face. A positive experience to bring me back to range finders.
In my opinion we have to be open hearted to different types of cameras, not only range finders. Of course some 90% of RFF should deal with rf, and not the opposite. But let us remember that range finders do have an intrinsic value of their own, which we will allways be happy to re-discover upon comparizon.
As for the OM stuff, there is no question that an SLR system, specially the OM, is very comprehensive, all embracing, enabling wider capacities than a rf system.
But love is love, and nothing to do about.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
And RFF is RFF, and no OM site or SLR site even close to it.
Per specs I have seen the 1 has a higher magnification and % of actual field coverage.
OM[124] feel very similar wrt viewfinder size, Ralph.
WRT sound, the OM2 and OM1 sound similar. I find the 4 to sound different,
a bit louder and harsher.
Roland.
OM[124] feel very similar wrt viewfinder size, Ralph.
WRT sound, the OM2 and OM1 sound similar. I find the 4 to sound different,
a bit louder and harsher.
Roland.
I find the OM2 and OM1 to sound quite different; I noticed the other day for the first time in all my shooting!
What lenses are we looking at?
Ho rover,
Had our friend showed the OM1 with the Zuiko 40mm he would had make the size gap even more smashing on behalf of the OM...
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
Third time quoting you, but you happen to point to the most interesting issues for me.
When I add a winder (mine is not working well) the OM-1 is a great feeling package, then it feels as big as an F2.
B2 (;->
I fully agree Bill. The winder adds size, but the gripability of any OM with a winder is award wining.
Cheers,
Ruben
Spyderman
06-28-2007, 12:34
Actually, the later models (OM-2SP and later) have the VF magnification lowered and their VF is generally dimmer. The reason is, that they made the mirror semi-transparent, so that all sensors could be in the bottom part of mirror box, and part of the light goes through the mirror and to the light sensors...
plummerl
06-28-2007, 12:37
OM[124] feel very similar wrt viewfinder size, Ralph.
WRT sound, the OM2 and OM1 sound similar. I find the 4 to sound different,
a bit louder and harsher.
Roland.
The difference is most likely attributable to the secondary mirror found in the 2Sp, 3(Ti) and 4(Ti).
Well, in my case, I went back to my OM4Ti, shot several times, and compared to my Kievs it was like a series of slaps on my face. A positive experience to bring me back to range finders.
;)
I had my Minolta SRT's repaired after years of neglect. The first time I tripped the shutter of 101 when shooting again with it, it almost fell out of my hands. I was not ready for the BOOOMMMMMMM.
Hi Rover,
EDIT
Take care, OMs are very addictive. And btw, if you go, take care of getting a new looking 1.8, the latest ones are the best.
Cheers,
Ruben
I always liked the SC f1.8, is the MC better?
http://bp1.blogger.com/_U-t2tGr6I1A/RoQZ8TWSZvI/AAAAAAAAAK0/dwblFbkXTpo/s1600/pic0018%2Bcopy.jpg
Actually, the later models (OM-2SP and later) have the VF magnification lowered and their VF is generally dimmer. The reason is, that they made the mirror semi-transparent, so that all sensors could be in the bottom part of mirror box, and part of the light goes through the mirror and to the light sensors...
Ondrej,
In what refers to VF brightness, I think you are mistaken. To my knowledge the OM3/4 titanium were given Lumi micron screens, even brighter than a Beattie, and ceirtainly of much better quality.
The same Lumi micron screens were customary for the OM20 (OMG), OM30 (OMF) and OM40.
Yet I don't know for sure the fate of the OM3 and 4 not titanium.
Excuss me for this amicable correction.
Cheers,
Ruben
I always liked the SC f1.8, is the MC better?
http://bp1.blogger.com/_U-t2tGr6I1A/RoQZ8TWSZvI/AAAAAAAAAK0/dwblFbkXTpo/s1600/pic0018%2Bcopy.jpg
By no means I am entitled to such level of knowledge. Trius or Ferider are required here.
Nevertheless, if you pick a Zuiko 1.8 looking absolutely new, which are thrown away for penauts as if sellers where begging you to release them from a liablity, you cannot go wrong. Outstanding performance !
Cheers,
Ruben
By no means I am entitled to such level of knowledge. Trius or Ferider are required here.
Nevertheless, if you pick a Zuiko 1.8 looking absolutely new, which are thrown away for penauts as if sellers where begging you to release them from a liablity, you cannot go wrong. Outstanding performance !
Cheers,
Ruben
I got mine new in 1973 and used it as a bench mark since
BillBingham2
06-28-2007, 13:29
Did they ever bring that type of screen to the OM-1?
B2 (;->
The Lumi micron screens were manufactured after the OM1n ended, but can be used in an OM1 by a very small filing of the tongue used to place them in the camera screen metal frame. The problem is to find one.
Sparrow, no doubt your SC is, in general terms, very outdated. I say "in general terms" because unbelievable as it may sound there are "quality control issues" with the Zuikos too. My request for Ferider or Trius intervention was due to the fact that four or five different series of 1.8 were manufactured.
Cheers,
Ruben
BillBingham2
06-28-2007, 14:29
Ruben,
Can I take a screen out of an OMG and with a bit of tweaking use it in an OM-1?
Thanks.
B2
MelanieC
06-28-2007, 15:08
Well, you are walking over eggs with these pics. But if I was your lawyer, I allways could argue on your behalf that you abstained from showing a black OM1...
You mean like these?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/109/313656122_16e1c872e0.jpg
My ex-OM-1n, stolen
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1137/626122721_2387376036.jpg
My "new" OM-1, rear left
I found OM's are extremely addictive, OM-1 in particular, for some reason, I don't really like the sound and character of OM-2 and OM-4ti, they are like the souless twin of the OM-1 and OM-3 .... once you remove the battery, they turned into an expensive ... good looking paper weight :).......will show my OM collect shortly..
SteveM(PA)
06-28-2007, 16:19
Mine just arrived. It is crazy brassy. Looks like the shell and most controls are steel, the bottom plate, round part of the winder, rewind crank, and self timer are brass. This is my first black laquer camera, the paint gives it a really smooth silky feeling, nice! Yeah the firing is really loud, but I really enjoy the crispy crackly winding, sounds and feels nice. I'm missing the drive cover as you can see, but unless somebody has an extra, I'll just put some tape over it. I have a 1.8 "MiJ" and a Wein cell still to come, can't wait to get out with it.
oftheherd
06-28-2007, 16:56
Note should be taken about the many semi complains being heard about having the shutter speed control over the top plate, "where it belongs" :D
Who has written that bible ?
The place Maitani put the shutter speeds, enables the user to see the correlation of the EV with all possible combinations of speed and aperture available. Dennying this from the user is not great wisdom.
Cheers,
Ruben
"Where it belongs" was in jest.
As to seeing the correlation of shutter speeds and aperture, the ST 901 shows the selected shutter speed and aperture in the viewfinder. If I know one combination I can quickly run through others in my mind or change the aperture and watch the shutter speeds change (leds in the top of the viewfinder). Works for me, YMMV
oftheherd
06-28-2007, 17:05
;)
I had my Minolta SRT's repaired after years of neglect. The first time I tripped the shutter of 101 when shooting again with it, it almost fell out of my hands. I was not ready for the BOOOMMMMMMM.
One night when I was in Korea the first time, I was in my room just playing with my Yashica TL Super. I had the back open, watching the shutter fire and the aperture stop down from the back. I was probably the only one awake, except I suddenly realized just how loud that thing was. I quickly stopped so as not to wake others. Of course, they were probably so used to putting up with my snoring they didn't notice. :D My room was jokingly called the bear's den.
Interesting you mention the Minota SRT line. You don't hear them talked about so much, but they were used by some pros of the day. The were known to have good glass and be quite rugged.
Steve: The winder connection covers go missing quite frequently ... I think they're addicted to perambulating around the globe. In any case, beljan on eBay sells new replacements that are the ticket. $15 or so, as I recall.
I have a nicely brassed OM2 that I'm sure will get the GeneW (digital) treatment this weekend.
Melanie: SWEET! My rig this weekend will be the OM-2 black and 28/2.8. And the 50/1.4. And a schweet Vivitar 2x macro-focusing adapter. I'm stoked.
Ruben,
Can I take a screen out of an OMG and with a bit of tweaking use it in an OM-1?
Thanks.
B2
I really don't know Bill, but you could ceirtanly start by measuring the size of the screen in your OMG. The size of the OM1 screens, including the Lumi micron, is 35x26mm.
The OMG screen is fixed, not removable. Given that the size matches, I would go to an Olympus repairman for the dismounting.
Another alternative, quite acceptable, is to use an OMF (OM30), INSTEAD of both the OM1 and the OMG. The OMF with its fixed lumi-micron screen, weights a fifth less than the OM1, is less noiser than the terrible OMG, has like the OMG a very nice exposure compensation button on its top, a correct focus signal, a very very nice shape, a very special shutter release knob a la Olympus Pen, and many slightly used models are circulating around.
The OM1 is a great camera, no doubt. But if you have never tryied an OMF, there are a lot of chances you will be surprised for good.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
Top and bottom plates of the OM30 are plastic, meaning you can easily paint them black forever, if you want, as I did.
Melanie,
Just in case you have a Zuiko pancake too, P L E A S E have a minimum of mercy towards the crowd, and don't show the combo.
Cheers,
Ruben
back alley
06-28-2007, 17:34
Mine just arrived. It is crazy brassy. Looks like the shell and most controls are steel, the bottom plate, round part of the winder, rewind crank, and self timer are brass. This is my first black laquer camera, the paint gives it a really smooth silky feeling, nice! Yeah the firing is really loud, but I really enjoy the crispy crackly winding, sounds and feels nice. I'm missing the drive cover as you can see, but unless somebody has an extra, I'll just put some tape over it. I have a 1.8 "MiJ" and a Wein cell still to come, can't wait to get out with it.
steve,
p.m. me your address, i have an extra one.
joe
The 2-series screens (OM-3, OM-4, OM-2SP) can be modified to work in the OM-1 and OM-2 bodies. They are brighter (lumicon) than the OM-1/2 screens, so the meter needs to be adjusted accordingly. Once adjusted, you can no longer use the 1-series screens without compensation. It is a mod I am considering.
I agree that a proper OM technician is the best resource for both knowledge and work.
"..... If I know one combination I can .....
You can, I don't doubt it. But this is beyond the intrinsic features of a camera.
I am hearing myself getting harsh, so it seems to me I will leave the computer now, after apologizing to you in such event.
Cheers,
Ruben
The 2-series screens (OM-3, OM-4, OM-2SP) can be modified to work in the OM-1 and OM-2 bodies. They are brighter (lumicon) than the OM-1/2 screens, so the meter needs to be adjusted accordingly. Once adjusted, you can no longer use the 1-series screens without compensation. It is a mod I am considering.
I agree that a proper OM technician is the best resource for both knowledge and work.
Just for the sake of clarity, Series 2 screens of OMs, which Trius calls them lumicon, ARE NOT THE LUMI-MICRON SCREENS I was refering, built in OMG, OMF, OM40, and attached as standard ones in titaniums OM3T and 4T.
Series 2 screens were indeed brighter than Series 1, but still far from the Lumi-micron screens.
The Lumi-micron screens were not a third series for the simple fact that they were all of the same pattern: collar prism and split image within the collar.
Anyway all these is much rethorical, as Lumi micron screens are extremely hard to find. Which OM user will sell an OM4Ti with the Lumi-micron inside ?
Perhaps any one interested in can ask at Olympus Germany, the European center. Be ready to pay.
Cheers,
Ruben
And besides, folks, it is true that they are a pleasure to look through, but let us be grown kids and release gas at our bathrooms.
Just as a matter of interest how does one pronounce 'Zuiko?'
close enough to Zweeko or maybe Zoo ee ko
SteveM(PA)
06-28-2007, 18:30
Thanks for HU on the cover thingie, Earl. And Joe, thanks for the extra one, you're the best. Now she won't be half nekked. :)
back alley
06-28-2007, 18:35
i thought it was zuko.
SteveM(PA)
06-28-2007, 18:53
I think it's pronounced "shar-day." (Sorry I know I use that one every couple months.)
plummerl
06-28-2007, 18:56
Just for the sake of clarity, Series 2 screens of OMs, which Trius calls them lumicon, ARE NOT THE LUMI-MICRON SCREENS I was refering, built in OMG, OMF, OM40, and attached as standard ones in titaniums OM3T and 4T.
Series 2 screens were indeed brighter than Series 1, but still far from the Lumi-micron screens.
The Lumi-micron screens were not a third series for the simple fact that they were all of the same pattern: collar prism and split image within the collar.
Anyway all these is much rethorical, as Lumi micron screens are extremely hard to find. Which OM user will sell an OM4Ti with the Lumi-micron inside ?
Perhaps any one interested in can ask at Olympus Germany, the European center. Be ready to pay.
Cheers,
Ruben
And besides, folks, it is true that they are a pleasure to look through, but let us be grown kids and release gas at our bathrooms.
Actually, Ruben, the Lumi-micron screens ARE the 2-x series screens (http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/esif/om-sif/findergroup/focusingscreens.htm, http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/accessory/screens/index1.htm). This pair was first introduced with the OM-3Ti and works with the 2Sp, 3 and 4. The 2-4 and 2-13 screens can be adapted to the 1 & 2 series cameras, with some snipping and meter adjustments (I have a mint black OM-1 with the 2-13 screen). The only other screens made for the OM series were the ones by Beattie. One other source (from the OM god, himself) http://lists.tako.de/Olympus-OM/2004-02/msg00130.html. The screens in the non-interchangeable OM's are the same screen size, with the tab gone.
amateriat
06-28-2007, 20:34
I've worked with Olympus gear off-and-on for the last 20 years. I keep leaving the brand behind, but it won't leave me. ;)
After I ditched my AF Minoltas for my current Hexars, an old friend called to help her choose an AF SLR to replace her OM-2n and lenses (she was closing in on 60, and said her eyes weren't up to the task anymore). After helping her make a choice – a Canon Elan 7, plus a few zooms – she gave me her OM-2n and 50 f/1.8, plus a T32 flash and set of Vivitar extension tubes. (She had an 85 f/2 and 28 f/2.8, but needed them to trade for that Canon glass.) So this is my lone SLR, lots of mileage on it but not abused. It gets occasional use, usually close-up work, but sometimes when I'm going out with just one camera, I'll grab it on a lark. An honest, solid machine.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46199&stc=1&d=1181714386
And, galfriend has an OM-2SP that she positively loves. (And, guards...carefully.)
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46905&stc=1&d=1183093028
- Barrett
Actually, Ruben, the Lumi-micron screens ARE the 2-x series screens (http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/esif/om-sif/findergroup/focusingscreens.htm, http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/accessory/screens/index1.htm). This pair was first introduced with the OM-3Ti and works with the 2Sp, 3 and 4. The 2-4 and 2-13 screens can be adapted to the 1 & 2 series cameras, with some snipping and meter adjustments (I have a mint black OM-1 with the 2-13 screen). The only other screens made for the OM series were the ones by Beattie. One other source (from the OM god, himself) http://lists.tako.de/Olympus-OM/2004-02/msg00130.html. The screens in the non-interchangeable OM's are the same screen size, with the tab gone.
YEAP, I HAVE CHECKED IT AGAIN AND I WAS MISTAKEN, YOUR INFO HERE IS ACCURATE.
Cheers,
Ruben
Interesting you mention the Minolta SRT line. You don't hear them talked about so much, but they were used by some pros of the day. The were known to have good glass and be quite rugged.
Yes, I love my SRTs, I have 3 (101, 201 and 102).
Interestingly, photography was such an interest and hobby in the 1970s. With the dawning of the digital P&S I would bet there are more people taking more photos now than ever before, but photography is so changed. We are stuck as RFF fans enjoying the old technology that was replaced by the great SLRs of the 70s, Olympus, Minolta, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Konica..... I wonder if today's digi wonder things (not DSLRs) will hold the same nostalgia in the future? Don't answer that question, we all will have very similar answers.
The film SLR was a tool used by amateurs. Today a P&S is the tool of amateurs.
Anyways, back to that SRT comment. Yes, Minolta made great cameras. The SRT 101 was introduced in 1966 with full aperture TTL meter reading (nothing to stop down there) with a big bright finder and great lenses. The SRT, I believe, was the best selling SLR (in the US only?) in it's time. Perhaps because it was the first to put all the little things together in one package. It is a big lug, not the cute quiet OM for sure, but not as much of a brick as the Nikon F or others with which it was a contemporary. Similar to the later K1000 but with a few extra creature features.
So, all of this SLR talk has had me thinking. I have completed my collection of 1954 RF cameras (Canon IVsb2, M3, Nikon S2, Contax IIa, Zorki 3m, Retina IIa) now I need something else to do. I have my SRTs, an x-570 and I think I will need to get an XD-11. Pentax has always interested me, ME Super, MX, LX, this Olympus OM-1n, Canon FTbn and A1, and as wonderful the OM4Ti may be, the Nikon FM3a seems to be the manual focus SLR dream machine to me, and a good FM2n is nothing to shake a stick at.
Now, I won't be getting all this stuff, but I most likely will pick up that OM just for fun, and we will see where we go from there.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46905&stc=1&d=1183093028
- Barrett
Hi Barret,
Upon your pic, I happen to remember several women attached to the OM more advanced models, and all of them black. I.e., the OMs in black seem to have a special appeal to women too.
Perhaps the cases I know are just a coincidence, who knows.
Cheers,
Ruben
oftheherd
06-29-2007, 08:47
Well, I still don't know what I was doing wrong, but my ST 901 is at
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=65368&ppuser=50
and a photo of it with one of my FX 103s and a ruler to show size is at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=65367&ppuser=50
Contrary to some ill flung abuse in another thread, ( :D ) I think the ST 901 is a good looking camera as well as being versatile.
For that matter, the FX 103 isn't bad. It was the cheaper Yashica version of the Contax 139Q. However, it also has the ability to go with shutter preferred which the Contax didn't have. Unfortunately, just like the Contax, if the battery dies, so does the camera. The ST 901 however, has mechanical shutter speeds from 1/60 to 1/1000 and B in the event of a battery failure.
shadowfox
06-29-2007, 08:51
Ok, folks, here it is (sorry, oftheherd, I still can't find a Fujica :( ):
I just got access to a Pentax MX. Here's a comparison with my OM-1, both with auto-winder, which should tell you that Pentax was going all out to out-compact Olympus at that time.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1407/662523686_282dff2ea2.jpg
I must say I'm very impressed with what Pentax pulled off. The MX is very nice, all manual like the OM-1, the viewfinder is cool with the half-circle speed indicator (and yes, I can peek to see which aperture is selected on the lens). To me, it feels lighter and less rigid than the OM-1, and the shutter sound is coarser. But darn, it feels good in my hands.
What do you guys think?
oftheherd
06-29-2007, 09:38
Ok, folks, here it is (sorry, oftheherd, I still can't find a Fujica :( ):
...
But darn, it feels good in my hands.
What do you guys think?
Both look good. Sorry you can't find an ST 901. I guess someone with an OM1 is going to have to send it to me for comparison photos. Just to show how fair and unbiased I can be, I will reluctantly agree to field test the OM1 against my ST 901 for two or three years. Am I a nice and fair guy or what? :D :D
Seriously, did you happen to measure either? You might have noticed from the photo of the FX and ST together that the ST is about 5 1/2 inches across. I don't know the deminsions of the OM1 or the various smaller Pentax models.
EDIT: BTW, I can relate to how a camera "feels" in your hands. The ST is that way for me. What is curious to me is that we are up to 5 pages and no one else has yet stated they ever owned or used a Fujica. Of course there weren't that many who owned them even when I had my Fujica in Korea in the mid 70s.
Of course we all knew each other and watched carefully for those who simply borrowed Fujicas to seem important. They might have a Fujica and even some lenses, but it they never attended the meetings and didn't know the secret handshake we knew right away there was something phony about them. :D
What do you guys think?
I think I really have Pentax MX gas now!
nikon_sam
06-29-2007, 13:38
I must say I'm very impressed with what Pentax pulled off. The MX is very nice, all manual like the OM-1, the viewfinder is cool with the half-circle speed indicator (and yes, I can peek to see which aperture is selected on the lens). To me, it feels lighter and less rigid than the OM-1, and the shutter sound is coarser. But darn, it feels good in my hands.
What do you guys think?
I was so impressed I bought two...and then added the Winder...The Mx Winder was a nice handle, wasn't that fast (Winder not motor drive) the weakest part sorry to say is the battery cover...other than that, hey nice set-up...
The ME II Winder is the better of the two but alas does not mount to the MX...
I do believe that the OM-1 came out before the MX...correct me if I'm wrong...So when looking for my next camera Pentax had the MX and it was fairly new to the scene in the early 80's...and very pretty wrapped in black...
nikon_sam
06-29-2007, 13:42
Hey...Just noticed, NO Hot Shoe on the OM...!!!???
Did I know this years ago...I forget...!!!
plummerl
06-29-2007, 13:45
Hey...Just noticed, NO Hot Shoe on the OM...!!!???
Did I know this years ago...I forget...!!!
Only if you don't want it. It screws on and off the pentaprism!
oftheherd
07-01-2007, 08:46
I was so impressed I bought two...and then added the Winder...The Mx Winder was a nice handle, wasn't that fast (Winder not motor drive) the weakest part sorry to say is the battery cover...other than that, hey nice set-up...
The ME II Winder is the better of the two but alas does not mount to the MX...
I do believe that the OM-1 came out before the MX...correct me if I'm wrong...So when looking for my next camera Pentax had the MX and it was fairly new to the scene in the early 80's...and very pretty wrapped in black...
Pentax was still a screw mount when the OM1 came out. So was Yashica and Fujica as well as others.
nikon_sam
07-01-2007, 13:49
Pentax was still a screw mount when the OM1 came out. So was Yashica and Fujica as well as others.
My very first 35mm camera was a Vivitar 400 SL and it was a 42mm screw mount...later with the Pentax MX I was able to mount the old screw mount lenses on the MX with an adaptor...I was so cool back then...:cool:
oftheherd
07-01-2007, 14:10
Yeah, when I got my Contax 139Q it didn't take me long to find the Yashica/Contax adapter. I forget where I got it. I don't think it was Spiratone as they usually only sold store branded accessories of that nature. My worked, but it never fit as solidly as I would have hoped. Actually, I still have it to use on my Yashica FX 103's. Some of the screw mount lenses were too good/convenient to no use them. I suppose adapters should still be available for the various bayonet monts to use 42 mm lenses. In fact, I think I heard one was available for the Canon DSLR cameras.
shadowfox
07-02-2007, 08:25
Hey...Just noticed, NO Hot Shoe on the OM...!!!???
Did I know this years ago...I forget...!!!
Yes, as plummerl said, it's taken off mine. Those thing are so flimsy, can you imagine using *plastic* as the base of the hotshoe? it seems like they are an afterthought.
I'll never do flash photography with the OM-1, that's my E-300's job :p
shadowfox
07-02-2007, 08:28
Yeah, when I got my Contax 139Q it didn't take me long to find the Yashica/Contax adapter. I forget where I got it. I don't think it was Spiratone as they usually only sold store branded accessories of that nature. My worked, but it never fit as solidly as I would have hoped. Actually, I still have it to use on my Yashica FX 103's. Some of the screw mount lenses were too good/convenient to no use them. I suppose adapters should still be available for the various bayonet monts to use 42 mm lenses. In fact, I think I heard one was available for the Canon DSLR cameras.
Ok, I'd appreciate some education here, I'm always confused when reading about "screw mount" and "M42 mount" and "K mount", are they the same? compatible? which is compatible to what? which one comes first? what top lenses goes for each mount. And more interestingly, which camera maker uses what?
One more thing, I just found out that Pentax MX is quite rare :eek:
oftheherd
07-02-2007, 15:08
Ok, I'd appreciate some education here, I'm always confused when reading about "screw mount" and "M42 mount" and "K mount", are they the same? compatible? which is compatible to what? which one comes first? what top lenses goes for each mount. And more interestingly, which camera maker uses what?
One more thing, I just found out that Pentax MX is quite rare :eek:
Screw mount and M42 mount in SLRs is the same thing. The K mount is what Pentax called its bayonet mount when they went to that. As I recall their first bayonet mount was the K-1000. It went on to become its own standard. That is, many camera manufacturers licensed it and used it on their cameras. Vivitar did, and I think Cosina as well as others. I don't recall all the others who used it.
I don't recall that the M42 mount was patented, nor do I remember who first brought it out. I don't think it was Pentax, although Pentax got so popular that it was often called the Pentax mount as well. Basically, all screw mount lenses work on all screw mount cameras. But sometimes, the mechanisms that were used for open aperture metering caused minor problems. I have a 28mm lens by a company that I have to be very careful of if trying to mount it on my Fujica. It will try to jam itself due to its open aperture linkage not setting well with the Fujica's. Once in a while a screw mount lens will go on so far that the aperture readings won't be centered straight up. Even so, they usually work fine.
I am sure others will be able to add pertenent comments. There were an untold amount of camera makers and independent lens makers that made lenses in both mounts. Some were quite good.
nikon_sam
07-02-2007, 15:14
My screw mount or 42mm lenses are Vivitar...I have seen Vivitar cameras that state they are made by Cosina for Vivitar...I have never had any Pentax other than the MX/ME Series so I never knew they used a screw mount too...
Shadowfox...Not too sure the MX is a rare camera...just maybe the owners are not too willing to part with them...
oftheherd
07-02-2007, 15:25
My screw mount or 42mm lenses are Vivitar...I have seen Vivitar cameras that state they are made by Cosina for Vivitar...I have never had any Pentax other than the MX/ME Series so I never knew they used a screw mount too...
Shadowfox...Not too sure the MX is a rare camera...just maybe the owners are not too willing to part with them...
Well, as I am sure you know, Vivitar made lenses in just about every camera makes mount. Many years ago, their Series 1 lenses got really great reviews.
Anyway, the M42 was the original Pentax SLR mount as far as I know. I am still waiting for someone to remind who was the first with the M42 mount. I want to say it was Praktica (sp) but I am not sure.
nikon_sam
07-02-2007, 15:58
Vivitar Series 1 lenses are nice...I have the 35-85mm and 70-210 in Pentax K mount and the 135mm 2.3 in Nikon mount...
I would have to say that none of the Pentax stuff I own will ever be used again since I've been shooting Nikon...also found a Minolta SRT 102 that I gave to my son (garage sale item) years ago, never even shot one roll through it...
Time to hit the classifieds...
amateriat
07-02-2007, 18:14
Screw mount and M42 mount in SLRs is the same thing. The K mount is what Pentax called its bayonet mount when they went to that. As I recall their first bayonet mount was the K-1000. It went on to become its own standard. That is, many camera manufacturers licensed it and used it on their cameras. Vivitar did, and I think Cosina as well as others. I don't recall all the others who used it. You can include at least Ricoh, which was possily the biggest booster of the K mount, outside Pentax itself, with its SLR line at the time (remember the solar-paneled KR they made?). And it has the distinction of being only the second pre-autofocus SLR lens mount to make it more-or-less intact into the digital era (Nikon's F mount being the other one, though a few Leicaphiles might browbeat me into including the Leicaflex mount as well, even though the digital connection there is through a retrofitted back, as opposed to a new, digital-only body).
- Barrett
Anyway, the M42 was the original Pentax SLR mount as far as I know. I am still waiting for someone to remind who was the first with the M42 mount. I want to say it was Praktica (sp) but I am not sure.You're right, it was Practica, and Pentax adopted it as a more universal and already established mount.
...Screw mount and M42 mount in SLRs is the same thing. The K mount is what Pentax called its bayonet mount when they went to that. As I recall their first bayonet mount was the K-1000. ...
I don't recall that the M42 mount was patented, nor do I remember who first brought it out. I don't think it was PentaxThe first Pentax K-bayonet mount cameras (1975) were the K2, KX, and KM. The top-of-the-line K2 DMD and stripped price-leader K1000 came along the next year. ( http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/index.html )
The earliest "Pentax" SLR camera, the Asahiflex, used a 37mm thread mount, but this lasted only a couple years until they redesigned the camera, adopted the Pentax name for it, and the Contax/Practica M42 mount (East German, and therefore without patent agreement). This was May 1957 and the camera was also sold by Sears under their "Tower" name.
oftheherd
07-03-2007, 03:39
You're right, it was Practica, and Pentax adopted it as a more universal and already established mount.
The first Pentax K-bayonet mount cameras (1975) were the K2, KX, and KM. The top-of-the-line K2 DMD and stripped price-leader K1000 came along the next year. ( http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/index.html )
The earliest "Pentax" SLR camera, the Asahiflex, used a 37mm thread mount, but this lasted only a couple years until they redesigned the camera, adopted the Pentax name for it, and the Contax/Practica M42 mount (East German, and therefore without patent agreement). This was May 1957 and the camera was also sold by Sears under their "Tower" name.
Thanks for confirming it was the Practica. I didn't realize the Asaheflex was not M42. I thought it was, at least as sold here in the United States. I almost bought a couple off ebay. Lucky I didn't. Fascinating what one can learn on RFF!
I had also forgotten there were models prior to the K1000. Thanks for correcting me. I was going off my memory of the times. Too many tired old brain cells. :D
Anyone here use the old Pentax SP? IIRC it was just before the Spotmatic, and without a light meter built in. There were two models of light meter that I know of that fit over the pentaprism as an add on. One was more rounded and I thought didn't look as good. The other seemed to have been designed to "fit" the look of the camera.
shadowfox
07-03-2007, 08:21
Shadowfox...Not too sure the MX is a rare camera...just maybe the owners are not too willing to part with them...
... hence "Rare", no? :D
my definition of rare is not that it barely exist anymore, it's "not-easily-aquired-via-common-trading-methods"
oftheherd
07-03-2007, 08:52
... hence "Rare", no? :D
my definition of rare is not that it barely exist anymore, it's "not-easily-aquired-via-common-trading-methods"
Well, that makes the Fujicas rare then, doesn't it? :D
nikon_sam
07-03-2007, 09:16
shadowfox,
I was using the other form of "Rare"...not too many of them on the open market...
Rare as in ..."you rarely see them anymore these days"...
I read your statement as..."MX's are Rare...they only made five or six of them..."
I never saw them as Rare only because I had two (of the six) they made...then bought another one for my daughter (now I own 3 of the 6) then about 2-3 years ago I put a nice Black Pentax MX w/Winder & 50mm 1.8 out to loan...
A young student needed a manually operated SLR...since then the camera has gone to ??? I don't know where it is...not too worried either...
Since my daughter hasn't used her chrome MX (would prefer a digital) I have reclaimed the MX...
It's been years since I've really used one of these cameras...Maybe I should try it again...
Since my daughter hasn't used her chrome MX (would prefer a digital) I have reclaimed the MX...
It's been years since I've really used one of these cameras...Maybe I should try it again...Indeed you should! According to your rareness figures, it's fully 1/6 of the world supply... I had a chrome one resurrected from the dead (electronics + water) and really enjoy it. And there's a black one on its way to me from Nova Scotia. Given the rarity, that might be the very same one you lost track of... :D
SteveM(PA)
07-04-2007, 13:56
I'm missing the drive cover as you can see, but unless somebody has an extra, I'll just put some tape over it.
crap...I have one on the way from Joe...I haven't covered up the opening...just realized that my film is probably ruined...? :confused: :bang:
I'd bet your film is fine, Steve. There should be seals in there, and the cover is for appearance and keeping crud out of the coupling. These covers get lost, or forgotten in their storage recess on the top of the drive housing (maybe not all drives have these storage spots), and yet the cameras are used without them.
BillBingham2
07-04-2007, 15:04
Steve,
Your film should be fine. The seal between the drive and the OM is not close to light tight.
B2 (;->
SteveM(PA)
07-04-2007, 20:00
Thanks gents...that is good news.
Henry ... four OM-1's ????? :eek:
oftheherd
07-07-2007, 02:51
Henry ... four OM-1's ????? :eek:
Good thing you haven't decided to collect Olympus cameras! :D
Nice stable for sure. Wish I had the equivalent in a particular brand I am fond of.
Henry ... four OM-1's ????? :eek:
actually 7, the last three black also OM-1n's ... :)
shadowfox
07-09-2007, 08:46
my addiction
Those qualifies as an OBSESSION :D
(where's that darn checkbox that hides my signature...??)
Chris101
07-09-2007, 08:49
... (where's that darn checkbox that hides my signature...??)It's below the editing box in the full editor mode, in a box called Additional Options. It's not available in Quick Reply mode, but you can get to it by clicking the Go Advanced button.
Those qualifies as an OBSESSION :D
(where's that darn checkbox that hides my signature...??)
I know, I'm taking medication for it lol...you should pay attention to your "Oly rangefinder" issue my man..... wait until you see my Zuiko collection :D
nikon_sam
07-09-2007, 12:39
After seeing all that...I'm doing okay...
SteveM(PA)
07-11-2007, 20:54
Using this old black OM-1...it's fun. Although I have a pretty basic question. Do you right-eyed guys/gals still shoot these things right eyed? As well as experiencing a little more camera shake than my other cameras, it's just not possible to mash it against my right cheek, in landscape position. Whichever eye I use, it's my nose that's getting mashed. That's just how it is I guess? I don't think I like it. :(
Guys, there's an article in next weeks Amateur Photographer about the OM-1. Knew you lot would be interested.
shadowfox
07-12-2007, 07:49
Guys, there's an article in next weeks Amateur Photographer about the OM-1. Knew you lot would be interested.
kyvvy, thanks for the heads-up, unfortunately, I've never seen this magazine here locally (US). Anyone else in the US can get this magazine on the newsstand?
Peter_Jones
07-12-2007, 07:58
Using this old black OM-1...it's fun. Although I have a pretty basic question. Do you right-eyed guys/gals still shoot these things right eyed? As well as experiencing a little more camera shake than my other cameras, it's just not possible to mash it against my right cheek, in landscape position. Whichever eye I use, it's my nose that's getting mashed. That's just how it is I guess? I don't think I like it. :(
Send it to me for safe disposal :D Persistence is the key - the OM way is the right way ;)
BillBingham2
07-12-2007, 12:06
What a second, I think there is some led in the meter circut somewhere. Better send it over to me, here in the US, I can take that problem off your hands!!!
B2 (;->
BillBingham2
07-12-2007, 12:12
..... it's my nose that's getting mashed....:(
This could be why I'm beginning to look like a pug! And I thought it was the fact that I chased parked cars on my bike!!
B2 (;o>
shadowfox
07-12-2007, 12:31
Using this old black OM-1...it's fun. Although I have a pretty basic question. Do you right-eyed guys/gals still shoot these things right eyed? As well as experiencing a little more camera shake than my other cameras, it's just not possible to mash it against my right cheek, in landscape position. Whichever eye I use, it's my nose that's getting mashed. That's just how it is I guess? I don't think I like it. :(
For camera shake, get the winder, it helps adding the heft without much weight. And when shooting in events where noise is not a problem, it's very handy.
oftheherd
07-13-2007, 20:33
Is there an equivalent Olympus? :D
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fujinon-50mm-f1-2-Very-Rare-Leica-mount-lens-Excellent_W0QQitemZ250141338472QQihZ015QQcategoryZ 30063QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Chris101
07-14-2007, 00:10
Is there an equivalent Olympus? :D ...
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/50mm1.htm
oftheherd
07-14-2007, 06:18
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/50mm1.htm
Good job Chris101 !!!
Now, does it mate to the Leica? :D
BillBingham2
07-14-2007, 06:29
For LTM you should go to the Canon 50/0.95!
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/s_50_095.html
B2 (;->
oftheherd
07-14-2007, 06:39
For LTM you should go to the Canon 50/0.95!
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/s_50_095.html
B2 (;->
Well, yeah, but then it wouldn't be a Fujinon. :D :D
I just picked up an OM-1n, can anyone please recommend where to send it for a CLA?
Thanks,
Cary Chin
I just picked up an OM-1n, can anyone please recommend where to send it for a CLA?No personal experience here, but I've heard recommended:
Camtech Photo Services, Inc.
21 South Lane
Huntington, NY 11743-4714
631-424-2121
http://www.zuiko.com/index.htm
Factory trained Olympus technician specializing in Olympus only. Thirty years experience, former Olympus employee 1977-85.
I just picked up an OM-1n, can anyone please recommend where to send it for a CLA?
Thanks,
Cary Chin
hi Cary,
Unless you detect a specific problem in your new camera, calling for fixing or CLA, this is not a type of camera that it is taken for granted automatically that it needs CLA just for being old.
Cheers,
Ruben
plummerl
07-18-2007, 11:26
No personal experience here, but I've heard recommended:
Camtech Photo Services, Inc.
21 South Lane
Huntington, NY 11743-4714
631-424-2121
http://www.zuiko.com/index.htm
Factory trained Olympus technician specializing in Olympus only. Thirty years experience, former Olympus employee 1977-85.
I have had four OM's done by John and I will attest to his expertise. Very, very satisfied! Just prepare to wait. You can email him (he responds very quickly) and get his opinion on a CLA. If it has never had one, you will want one done just to safeguard the pentaprism from rot. Once you detect the rot, it is to late. He also converts the OM-1's to a modern battery.
Eryximachos
07-18-2007, 12:31
I second Plummel's comment on Camtech. I had two OM-1n's CLA'd and the leather replaced with lizard from cameraleather.com. I'm really happy with them. At the same time he cleaned Zuiko lenses (50mm macro and 100mm) for the two bodies. I forget the exact cost but it was reasonable.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.