Is the OM1 that much better than ...

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.

attachment.php


And, galfriend has an OM-2SP that she positively loves. (And, guards...carefully.)

attachment.php




- Barrett
 

Attachments

  • bonwcam.jpg
    bonwcam.jpg
    79 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
plummerl said:
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/photograph...mpusom1n2/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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
amateriat said:
attachment.php


- Barrett
Click to expand...

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
 
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, ( 😀 ) 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.
 
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.

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?
 
shadowfox said:
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?
Click to expand...


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? 😀 😀

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. 😀
 
Last edited:
shadowfox said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Pentax was still a screw mount when the OM1 came out. So was Yashica and Fujica as well as others.
 
oftheherd said:
Pentax was still a screw mount when the OM1 came out. So was Yashica and Fujica as well as others.
Click to expand...


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...😎
 
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.
 
nikon_sam said:
Hey...Just noticed, NO Hot Shoe on the OM...!!!???
Did I know this years ago...I forget...!!!
Click to expand...

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 😛
 
oftheherd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 😱
 
shadowfox said:
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 😱
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
nikon_sam said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom