The Balloon game begins - Pentax K Mount vs Olympus OM Zuiko

tbhv55 said:
I've never used the 139, but I know someone who had one - and rated it highly. Also, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Yashica bodies share the same mount. Yashicas tend to be relatively inexpensive, and (fairly) easy to find.

I had an FX-3, back in the day, and I found it to be light, well-made, and easy to use.
Click to expand...

I was looking at Yashicas FX3 2000s but the current crop available seem to be being sold by the usual loons on Ebay. That 1/2000th is highly attractive.
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
The one thing I don't have in either system is spot metering. My local dealer has an OM2SP - worth an experiment?
Click to expand...

People seem to love them a lot in the om-35 group in Facebook. Recently they seem to be gaining in price and almost reaching OM4 levels. I am not a big fan, especially with the increase in price. The battery drain issue is the same but the way the battery check button or the viewfinder illumination button it means that you can run out of battery when you can find another around. And of course no multiple spot reasons either.

I used the Yasica FX-D in the past and it was a great camera. But I never got used to the separate button for light reading being in the front of the camera.
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
That 1/2000th is highly attractive.
Click to expand...


Is that because you like to shoot at wider apertures? If so, you could just use an ND filter to cut the light, which would permit those wider apertures. Then you wouldn't need to search for a camera with the higher shutter speeds!
 
nickthetasmaniac said:
What do you mean by that? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious!
Click to expand...

It's not a scientific conclusion by any means on my behalf but whilst I find the Pentax lenses generally marginally better than the Zuiko's, I much prefer OM bodies to the Pentax bodies - especially the later OM cameras a'la OM3/4 to the later Pentax K bodies. So whilst I like the pentax lenses slightly more, I prefer the ergonomics and mechanics of the OM bodies, plus things like the consistency of the OM Zuiko ergonomics and and the feeling of them in use.
I do find a lot of the OM Zuiko's slightly soft as described by the OP, although in saying that, they have their own 'charm' and are still superb lenses. Lenses like the 28mm f3.5 and the 21mm variations in particular are superb - maybe best in class, especially for the era, so this is dependant on which focal lengths one tends to use.
 
p.giannakis said:
I used the Yasica FX-D in the past and it was a great camera. But I never got used to the separate button for light reading being in the front of the camera.
Click to expand...

IIRC, that was one of the upgrade changes made on the FX-3 2000, over the original.

However, I don't recall there being a '2000'-style upgrade for the FX-D. :confused:
 
It gives the option without having to carry a filter which invariably gets forgotten, dropped or lost in the bottom of the bag. Whereas looking fills many a happy evening!
 
Purely to help your de-gassing I think you ought to get a Minolta and a Konica SLR outfit and then do one huge comparison test. Otherwise you'll never settle the matter and will lay awake at night worrying...


Regards, David
 
I do actually have an entire Minolta kit (XD7 &X500 plus 28, 35, 45, 50, 85 and 135 :D). Plus Topcon and, if it returns from repairs, an Exakta with sufficient lenses. Oh and don't forget my Nikons... :angel:

Tried a cheapo Konica SLR at my friendly dealers yesterday (to settle an argument between the owner and his unterling) and could see no reason to try any others...
 
One of the nicest kits I recently used was a Pentax Super A with 35/2.0, Pentax-M. Maybe the lens is not sharpest wide open but its good enough for me and ergonomics of the camera are simply great.
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
Just to make life more interesting, I found a 139 Quartz in good condition from a dealer with a full 1 year warranty. So in the interests of science, and because it's a super useful lens for mirrorless, also ordered in the Vario Sonnar 35-70.

So it's now a 3 way fight between Contax/Olympus/Pentax. Well, when the last gets back from the repairer - 4 months so far!
Click to expand...

Atta boy! That’s the spirit! Now that you have the Vario-Sonnar (the Macro is quite handy on that one) you just need the 50/1.4 or 1.7, the 28/2.8, and the 85/2.8 Sonnar for starters, as those three are all exceptional and smaller/lighter than the Vario-Sonnar for those times when that matters.
Always glad to help. :)
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
I do actually have an entire Minolta kit (XD7 &X500 plus 28, 35, 45, 50, 85 and 135 :D). Plus Topcon and, if it returns from repairs, an Exakta with sufficient lenses. Oh and don't forget my Nikons... :angel:

Tried a cheapo Konica SLR at my friendly dealers yesterday (to settle an argument between the owner and his unterling) and could see no reason to try any others...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, surely there were no Hexanons in the cheap kit?

Regards, David
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Atta boy! That’s the spirit! Now that you have the Vario-Sonnar (the Macro is quite handy on that one) you just need the 50/1.4 or 1.7, the 28/2.8, and the 85/2.8 Sonnar for starters, as those three are all exceptional and smaller/lighter than the Vario-Sonnar for those times when that matters.
Always glad to help. :)
Click to expand...

I already have a 50mm Planar and the 85 Sonnar. The big problem is they are Rollei QBM :)

I'd forgotten about my Rolleiflex SL35 system. Now that is a camera that is less than a sum of its parts. Brilliant lenses, hopeless metering and a viewfinder that requires you to zone focus to have any chance of nailing focus...
 
Charles, Which camera do you favour, as far as handling goes? I know that i end up most often leaning in that direction.
 
Good question Greg. I'll have to give the Contax with zoom a decent run at proving itself, as it's not a make or style of equipment I'm used to. Of the LX and the OM2n, the former is just that bit meatier in my hands, but the sound of the shutter is quite horrid...
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
but the sound of the shutter is quite horrid...
Click to expand...

The last time i used an LX was on a trip to the Himalaya in '88. I took an LX with a 24 and 80-200 Pentax M lenses and an M6 with a 35 & 50 Summicron. The transparencies showed pretty well together.....but i don't recall the shutter sound at all. I did like the MX, but compared to an M shutter it sounds more like a Nikkormat (no offense meant Erik). Good luck with your choices/decisions Charles.
 
Still no LX back from repairers, but in the mean time a Contax 139Q arrived. Also, the Vario Sonnar I found turned out (according to the excellent West Yorkshire Cameras) to be a little less than excellent optically so didn't want to send it. But the day before they'd had a Distagon 35mm f2.8 and an 85mm Sonnar f2.8 arrive in immaculate condition. So a slight balancing payment and they were dispatched.

The test roll will be developed this afternoon. I like the 139Q, light and compact, although it's a faff to make exposure compensation and the front button rather than a shutter press to check exposure is a departure from my normal ergonomics. We'll see how I get used to it.
 
Let us know what you think - I don't think you can go wrong with any of the modern systems that take zeiss lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom