Remember when SLRs used to be SMALL?

The size difference between my Bessa R and Canon A2E is nuts..

394159638_50c862cad7.jpg
 
If you can believe it, I scarcely could at first, the Pentax MX is actually smaller than the OM-1. I'm an Oly fan, so I am biased, but hey, facts are facts, and the MX is a fun camera to use:

662523686_282dff2ea2.jpg


PS: Sorry to those who has seen this picture before. 🙂
 
You make me happy as a friend of Pentax SLR in general, and of the MX in particular. Olympus, like Pentax, always followed a strategy building the cameras small, lightweight and perfect in form as possible - in conjunction to companies like Nikon or Canon, whoes form followed the function.

I very much like Olympus, what always prevent me from buying it was the placement of the ASA-dial (where one expect the speed dial) and the small number of lenses available at the second hand market. But arguments can be made that the Pentax MX also is a bit "too small" for good handling, except for ladies. And at least the speed dial is unneccessary hard going for fast handling.
 
I'm amused to see the Fujicas mentioned; I had the ST 705 and own the ST 801. I never thought of them as especially svelte, but the 801 is a good fit to my hands. The Fujica lenses are just brilliant.

Also for my hands, the OM's fit better than the Pentax MX, which seems just a little "blocky" in the palm.

The size of one's hands really determines what feels comfortable.
 
The MX's are OK as long as you use the M series lenses. They certainly feel unbalanced when using the original K series lenses. For those the slightly larger KX is better balanced.

The Fuji's especially the M42 ones are definately bigger but do have bright finders. The X series are smaller and better balanced.

Kim
 
Last edited:
Minolta made the compact SR7v pre-1965 a less high SRt with built in meter , not TTL , which , with a 45mm f2 is smaller than my Kiev 2 ... I love the SR7 and the SR1s , but the Kiev is still more fun !
It's not the size of new cameras - it's the plastic - even metal cameras look like plastic !,,, and no simple shutter dial and aperture ring - though the younger generation would not recognise a shutter dial , so it's me !
dee
 
If you added the AE finder to the F1 didn't it look like an Nikon FTn? I have to agree, with the exception of the E-410, the current batch of DSLRs make my back hurt just looking at them. I wish Olympus would come out with some good primes for he 4/3rds system. I know you can use adapters, but I automatic mirror returns, diaphrams and built in meters on my SLRs thank you much.

B2 (;->
 
Kim Coxon said:
The MX's are OK as long as you use the M series lenses.

Kim
Click to expand...



Kim,

I bought two MX's without the standard 50mm's and opted for the Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm & 70-210mm lenses...those were and still are heavy compared to the actual camera...adding the MX Winder helps with handling...

It's also cool to see that the MX is smaller than the Oly...😀
 
nikon_sam said:
Kim,

I bought two MX's without the standard 50mm's and opted for the Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm & 70-210mm lenses...those were and still are heavy compared to the actual camera...adding the MX Winder helps with handling...

It's also cool to see that the MX is smaller than the Oly...😀
Click to expand...

The Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm is a beast. You can imagine how it dwarfs my Fujica ST 901 in size, never mind weight. I don't use it often, but there are times when I think it is the only sane zoom range to use, vari-focal that it is.

How do you like yours?
 
I liked it when I was using it...I still have both lenses but they don't see daylight too often...I gave my wife a Pentax Kit with a ME Super SE and these two lenses but she hasn't used it...she doesn't even know where they are...
 
warren1960 said:
I'm amused to see the Fujicas mentioned; I had the ST 705 and own the ST 801. I never thought of them as especially svelte, but the 801 is a good fit to my hands. The Fujica lenses are just brilliant.

Also for my hands, the OM's fit better than the Pentax MX, which seems just a little "blocky" in the palm.

The size of one's hands really determines what feels comfortable.
Click to expand...

Since you comment on the Fujica lenses being brilliant, you get a pass. I was about to call you out to Fujicas at 30 paces for saying you don't think they are svelte. 😀 😀 😀

I don't remember how the MX compares. I think they might be a little smaller than the Fujicas or OMs. But of course they could never be as sexy and satisfying. 😀
 
Kim Coxon said:
The MX's are OK as long as you use the M series lenses. They certainly feel unbalanced when using the original K series lenses. For those the slightly larger KX is better balanced.

The Fuji's especially the M42 ones are definately bigger but do have bright finders. The X series are smaller and better balanced.

Kim
Click to expand...

I never figured out why the bayonet mount Fujicas didn't do better. Marketing maybe? Or possibly they just waited too long to get into a bayonet mount which by then the magazines had convined everyone was the only mount a "real" camera could have. I am not sure their build was quite what the M42 mount cameras was either. That is just an impression as I never owned any of the bayonet mounts. Did you?
 
IGMeanwell said:
...

though I can say without a doubt the 58 1.2 is easily the most amazing lens I have used, it has that 3d quality to it that is hard to quantify and I will be using it quite frequently in the coming days (fall foliage)

....
Click to expand...

Thanks. Go ahead and throw a match on my GAS. 😀 😀 😀
 
Quite a few of them. The 50/1.2 is certainly on a par with the Pentax offering. The entry level ones were not quite as good and the range of zooms was more limited. My favourite was the AX3.

http://pentax-manuals.com/fujica/fujica.htm

Kim

oftheherd said:
I never figured out why the bayonet mount Fujicas didn't do better. Marketing maybe? Or possibly they just waited too long to get into a bayonet mount which by then the magazines had convined everyone was the only mount a "real" camera could have. I am not sure their build was quite what the M42 mount cameras was either. That is just an impression as I never owned any of the bayonet mounts. Did you?
Click to expand...
 
oftheherd said:
I never figured out why the bayonet mount Fujicas didn't do better. Marketing maybe? Or possibly they just waited too long to get into a bayonet mount which by then the magazines had convined everyone was the only mount a "real" camera could have. I am not sure their build was quite what the M42 mount cameras was either. That is just an impression as I never owned any of the bayonet mounts. Did you?
Click to expand...

My first slr was a Fujica STX-1. Got it about 1982 if memory serves, and, quite typically, a month or so later the new improved STX-1n came out. Can't remember what the differensces were, though. Wish I still had it, just for old times sake. Remember the fastest shutter speed being 1/700th of a second, I liked the honesty. Some manufacturers would've labelled it 1/1000th and not worried too much.
 
>> Since you comment on the Fujica lenses being brilliant, you get a pass. I was about to call you out to Fujicas at 30 paces for saying you don't think they are svelte. 😀 😀 😀

I don't have the 801 here, but you are probably right; it feels about the same as the OM in my hands. I love it, but it's been a problem camera. In the mirror chamber, there's a flap of fabric at the top of the mirror that blurs the VF. A week after I bought it (used) the SS dial fell apart. Then one of the tines of the take-up spool broke, at which time I noticed that it was already missing another tine. This is a fatal flaw, and now I don't use it for fear of rendering the thing a paperweght.

I would love to replace it with a 901, but they are kinda hard to find.
 
juhor, that's just not fair to show int his thread😀
the kowa is a MONSTER, esp with the wide lens!

How do you like it? i have one, the wide lens waiting for shutter blades cleaning, but i have not used it yet, i just can't find the occasion when i could carry such a brick around.
 
my minolta dynax 5 autofocus slr proved to be TOO small for my hands. Once i added the [small]battery pack on the bottom, it became just the perfect size. I also don't have really big lenses for it. The biggest one in length is the 135/2.8 tht is much smaller than a m-summicron 90/2 ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom