Any Pentax MX or Olympus OM users out there??

Messages
472
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
For a while now I have been wanting to add a compact SLR system to my collection - mainly to help me decide whether I get on better with RF or SLR in certain situations.

I had originally homed in the Olympus OM1 - simple, mechanical, compact and good glass. Something like an OM4 Ti would be nice, but for now, the simpler OM1 appeals.

But then I started reading about the Pentax MX - also compact and mechanical, with aperture & shutter readout in the VF (which would be a plus for me), but an LED meter rather than match needle.

Ultimately though, it's just a light tight box and they're similar enough - I'd be interested to hear from users who have used either or both systems and comment on their preferred lenses. I'd be looking for a wide ish prime (24/28mm), 50mm and maybe a 135mm. From what I have read, the Zuiko lenses are well regarded, but so too are the Pentax lenses - with the latter being slightly cheaper maybe?

Is the cloth shutter on the MX a problem at this age? Any other major reliability issues with either, other than the usual light seals, lens fungus, etc?

Any suggestions, most welcome. Thanks :)
 
I used to have two Pentax MX bodies, together with 28, 35, 50, and 135 lenses. I don't obsess over the characteristics of lenses but I never had any doubts about the image quality. My Pentax images can be seen here - https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=33186310@N03&sort=date-taken-desc&text=pentax&view_all=1

I loved the camera and I can't really remember why I sold them ! I was trying to move away from 35mm to medium format but never completed the break.

The only problem I had with the Pentax MX was that on one occasion the film got stuck mid-roll.

I have recently entered the Olympus SLR world at the entry level with the purchase of an OM10 and 50/f1.8 for £29. It doesn't have the manual adaptor which I will probably end up buying. So far I've shot two test rolls which I developed last night. I can see that there are no light leaks and the exposure looks OK but I'll get a better idea when I scan the films tonight.

Using the camera was a pleasure. It feels like the lightest and most compact SLR system I've used, but it's probably no different in practice than the MX was.

I'll be using Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses to supplement the OM standard lens so I won't be buying any more Olympus lenses unless I see a charity shop bargain.

In my brief experience of shooting two rolls, I did encounter two minor issues:

  1. although the power switch is on, the camera seems to go to sleep and doesn't display the selected shutter speed. I need to just flick the switch slightly to wake it up.
  2. I accidentally put the auto/manual/bulb switch to B and took a few shots handheld on bulb my mistake. It's too easy to move this switch, and quite fiddly to use it to change ISO/exposure compensation.

Hope this helps somebody.

Finally here's my favourite image taken with the Pentax MX on TMax 400:


Henry Moore at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park
by Kevin Allan, on Flickr
 
I have a OM2 Spot and OM4Ti which I both love. I also have a MX Super which does seem good but have not used very much, it is smaller and lighter. Lenses for OM systems are widely available and compatible ones can be very good. I have a Tokina 28mm which does the job. For 135mm I have a Zuiko and a Hoya, I usually prefer the Zuiko ones but in this case the Hoya is faster and smoother but they are both good.

I had to oil the MX shutter mechanism to get it to fire correctly than had to run it on a power winder a few times, probably due to lack of use. The OM2 Spot can suffer with the LED fading mine is slowly going that way but it is still very usable but A bit more difficult to see in bright sunlight. The OM4Ti has a lovely bright viewfinder more so than an OM1 and OM2. I have an OM1 but it needs a service and haven't used it yet.

Hope this helps
 
Well in my experience, for 35mm, most of the lenses from the well known makers give excellent results and you'll be hard pressed to see the difference and lets face it, they would be out of business selling crappy lenses....so it just depends on what camera body you fancy and only you can decide.
I always thought if you were basically a digi guy then MF film camera would be better....digi for general use and want to slow down then why use another 35mm camera when you can get better shots using MF.
 
I have also tried the OM10,20,30 and 40 in the past year. The OM40 being my first SLR nearly 30 years ago and still love it.
 
I had a Pentax MX years ago, bought brand new - and the build quality was rather crappy. But I prefer it ergonomically to the OM series - and the more sophisticated iterations of those (OM2 onwards) are so finely-engineered that they can be like racehorses - a bit on the fickle side. To my mind a better option to either MX or OM would be a Nikon FM, or even more an FM2. Simple, basic and robust. FE - more to go wrong. FM3 - maybe out of budget.

Lenses aren't really an issue - they're all 'good'.
 
Thanks for the replies guys!

I used to have two Pentax MX bodies, together with 28, 35, 50, and 135 lenses. I don't obsess over the characteristics of lenses but I never had any doubts about the image quality. My Pentax images can be seen here - https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=33186310@N03&sort=date-taken-desc&text=pentax&view_all=1

I loved the camera and I can't really remember why I sold them ! I was trying to move away from 35mm to medium format but never completed the break.

The only problem I had with the Pentax MX was that on one occasion the film got stuck mid-roll.

I have recently entered the Olympus SLR world at the entry level with the purchase of an OM10 and 50/f1.8 for £29. It doesn't have the manual adaptor which I will probably end up buying. So far I've shot two test rolls which I developed last night. I can see that there are no light leaks and the exposure looks OK but I'll get a better idea when I scan the films tonight.

Using the camera was a pleasure. It feels like the lightest and most compact SLR system I've used, but it's probably no different in practice than the MX was.

I'll be using Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses to supplement the OM standard lens so I won't be buying any more Olympus lenses unless I see a charity shop bargain.

In my brief experience of shooting two rolls, I did encounter two minor issues:

  1. although the power switch is on, the camera seems to go to sleep and doesn't display the selected shutter speed. I need to just flick the switch slightly to wake it up.
  2. I accidentally put the auto/manual/bulb switch to B and took a few shots handheld on bulb my mistake. It's too easy to move this switch, and quite fiddly to use it to change ISO/exposure compensation.

Hope this helps somebody.

Finally here's my favourite image taken with the Pentax MX on TMax 400:


Henry Moore at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park
by Kevin Allan, on Flickr

Thanks for that Kevin, sounds like you were more than happy with either system!! I tried to check out your Flickr pics but the link wasn't working, so will try again later on!

I have a OM2 Spot and OM4Ti which I both love. I also have a MX Super which does seem good but have not used very much, it is smaller and lighter. Lenses for OM systems are widely available and compatible ones can be very good. I have a Tokina 28mm which does the job. For 135mm I have a Zuiko and a Hoya, I usually prefer the Zuiko ones but in this case the Hoya is faster and smoother but they are both good.

I had to oil the MX shutter mechanism to get it to fire correctly than had to run it on a power winder a few times, probably due to lack of use. The OM2 Spot can suffer with the LED fading mine is slowly going that way but it is still very usable but A bit more difficult to see in bright sunlight. The OM4Ti has a lovely bright viewfinder more so than an OM1 and OM2. I have an OM1 but it needs a service and haven't used it yet.

Hope this helps

A bright viewfinder is always a nice thing to have - I had forgotten that the VF was improved on the OM4 Ti. Quite a premium over the lesser models though!

Well in my experience, for 35mm, most of the lenses from the well known makers give excellent results and you'll be hard pressed to see the difference and lets face it, they would be out of business selling crappy lenses....so it just depends on what camera body you fancy and only you can decide.
I always thought if you were basically a digi guy then MF film camera would be better....digi for general use and want to slow down then why use another 35mm camera when you can get better shots using MF.

I have had the same thoughts myself, but I very much enjoy the film process and the different look you can get from different emulsions. I find that I spend less time post processing (but more time scanning) as I leave the natural look of the film down to the film stock. Digital is almost too easy once you have started to play around with film!! I still shoot & carry both though.
I had considered dropping 35mm as I always prefer the results from my MF cameras - but sometimes the lack of bulk and more frames on a roll is an advantage - besides, 35mm still has it's own look.

I had a Pentax MX years ago, bought brand new - and the build quality was rather crappy. But I prefer it ergonomically to the OM series - and the more sophisticated iterations of those (OM2 onwards) are so finely-engineered that they can be like racehorses - a bit on the fickle side. To my mind a better option to either MX or OM would be a Nikon FM, or even more an FM2. Simple, basic and robust. FE - more to go wrong. FM3 - maybe out of budget.

Lenses aren't really an issue - they're all 'good'.

Thanks for that - I had the heard the build was a little lightweight, although they sound fairly reliable.

I haven't really looked at the Nikon bodies as I had homed in on the OM series due to size, then the MX as a comparable body - but maybe I should look at Nikon and Canon's offerings. A friend uses a Canon F1, it's a nice camera, but a bit of a beast! I am a Canon digital user, but any of the Canon film bodies that would be of interest are FD mount, so it doesn't have any carryover to my existing lenses.

Thankfully, the replies have confirmed by gut feeling - both systems are much of a muchness, so best to pick the one which ergonomics suit the best. Maybe I'll try a few out and stick with the one that feels the best :)
 
My first 35mm body and lenses was a Pentax LX , wish I still had it now :(
 
I purchased it new from London camera exchange on finance just after we married , The other half went bonkers :eek:
 
I have had two MXs (btw, I've never heard of a MX Super @Quendil ! Maybe a ME Super?). I wrote a review of the MX for the much neglected Massive Review thread: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...nal-camera-review-thread.529199/#post-6109241 . Also read the reviews at https://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/pentax-mx.html where it currently averages 9.3/10.

I really love the camera, as should be plain from the review. The only two ergonomic issues worth mentioning are that (a) the shutter speed control is rather stiff, so I always have to take the camera from my eye to change speeds (but I have a damaged right hand so others may well find it easier) and (b) to use the self-timer you have to press an almost-invisible button in the centre of the timer pivot, rather than pressing the shutter button as in the LX.

The MX is light and well-balanced. It's fully manual, no aperture priority. The little aperture window I find extremely useful. It's possible it could be an issue for very long daylight exposures? The viewfinder is one of the best in the business, and there are two available screens, one with split prism and one with a plain central circle. I had one of each and now have the black one which has the plain circle. There's no dioptre variation, but oddly, although I need this for the LX I seem to be able to focus the MX just fine!

One of my MXs developed a minor glitch where at slower speeds the exposure on the two halves of the image could differ slightly. A trip to Miles Whitehead sorted it out but a year or two later I noted it occasionally again, so passed that one on after I got the LX.

Batteries are LR44 and last absolutely ages (I think the OMs used to have batteries now illegal, but I've never owned one).

Many (though not all) of the K-mount lenses are absolutely excellent. Some are getting pricy but if you stick with the SMC M lenses prices are more affordable (generally). I have had or still have A24/2.8, M28/3.5, M35/2, M50/1.7, M50/1.4, M85/2, M100/4 (semi macro), M135/3.5. Not a single bad lens among them. All but one of those have a 49mm filter thread! The 85/2 was expensive but brilliant; OTOH it developed a sticky iris, again had a trip to Miles and again re-developed the fault and got sold for a song. I also had the M35-70 zoom which I loved but dropped on some rocks, sadly also sold for a song as damaged. BTW if you're buying A-mount lenses (aperture can be set from the camera, irrelevant for a MX) make sure it's SMC A rather than just A.

There are also many excellent 3rd party lenses, including some of the Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses. I use the Vivitar 28/2 lenses (specially the Wide Angle Close Focus) and the Vivitar 35-70, plus a Tokina 8-200 zoom that's light and pretty good. I have the Tamron-f 85-210/4 which also has macro, pretty good but very heavy. There's plenty more choice, but that's all the lenses I need (except a high quality 24-80 zoom with a non-rotating front element, I'm afraid this mythical beast is rarer and more phantasmagorical than the unicorn).

Basically, if you buy a MX from a good source you can't go wrong. Oh, they've gone up in price so I've probably doubled my money on mine!
 
Just to add, I think the build quality of the MX is excellent, it's a very robust camera. I've dropped mine, and carried two in a small shoulder bag, one downwards on sideways. They just work. The faults I mentioned are minor.

I do love my LX, which spends its days mostly in the aperture priority setting but also has full manual. It is a little bigger and a little heavier. It's great, absolutely fantastic virtue is off-the-film in-shot metering when in A mode. It will hold the shutter open until it's got enough light, thanks you very much (I use exposure compensation to account for reciprocity failure). That could easily be 30 seconds or more! It meters from -6.5-20 EV in A-mode (1-19 in manual). Manual shutter speeds down to 4 seconds as well, and up to 1/2000.
 
I had the MX, but I prefer the P30n in use though. The viewfinder is slightly smaller (the MX viewfinder is huge). I find it comfier to hold, and it's easier to move the shutter dial with your finger without looking up from the viewfinder. Like the MX, it's a wonderfully simple camera.

I did a DIY job on my MX lightseals, and never felt 100% confident about my own work! No foam lightseals on the P30n.

Re lenses, the Pentax M 20/4, 28/3.5, 50/1.7, and 85/2 are all lovely and very compact. The K version of the 28/3.5 is reputed to be exceptional but the M version is still a nice lens IMO.
 
Last edited:
I think the build quality of the MX is excellent
Not the one I had! I think it was thrown together. I would distinguish between the design (excellent) and the quality of assembly which was pretty damned poor. The viewfinder framing, for instance, turned out to be significantly out of register with the actual film frame. Note that I didn't say focus, I said framing. How the hell? Never seen such a thing (in an SLR) before or since. Then there were bits that fell off ...

It was out of warranty before I noticed the main defect, and years later I gave it away ...

Another thing was that the standard 50mm f/1.8 lens had barrel distortion ....
 
I started put with a ME (not the ME super) while my dad used a MX & my brother had a super. I now have them all, but have hardly used them in years. All nice cameras for their day.
I didn't have any issues with the MX last time I used it but I guess light seals will vary from camera to camera.
Not the one I had! I think it was thrown together. I would distinguish between the design (excellent) and the quality of assembly which was pretty damned poor. The viewfinder framing, for instance, turned out to be significantly out of register with the actual film frame. Note that I didn't say focus, I said framing. How the hell? Never seen such a thing (in an SLR) before or since. Then there were bits that fell off ...

It was out of warranty before I noticed the main defect, and years later I gave it away ...

Another thing was that the standard 50mm f/1.8 lens had barrel distortion ....
I think that confirms you didn't have a Pentax MX :eek:
The MX build quality was excellent, generally being classed as a professional camera & the K mount 50mm weren't listed as a f/1.8 Pentax sold their 50mm K mount lenses as f/4 macro f/2, f/1.7, f/1.4, & f/1.2.
Most other manufacturers quoted f/1.8.
 
Last edited:
@Petrochemist there was a SMC Pentax 55/1.8 though, not a M but the "K" range, which might have been sold with it if an early Mx model. There was an earlier screw mount version of that lens as well; I had it on my first Spottie, I think.
 
As has been said, comes down to the handling in the end. Both are great systems. The OM1 has the 1.35v battery issue but that's easy to get around.

I've owned a couple of MXs and now have a couple of OM1Ns and an OM2N. The OMs have great viewfinders but the handling takes a bit of getting used to compared with the "traditional" layout of the MX.
 
Not the one I had! I think it was thrown together. I would distinguish between the design (excellent) and the quality of assembly which was pretty damned poor. The viewfinder framing, for instance, turned out to be significantly out of register with the actual film frame. Note that I didn't say focus, I said framing. How the hell? Never seen such a thing (in an SLR) before or since. Then there were bits that fell off ...

Sounds like you had a duff example. My MX feels pretty solidly built. They are nice cameras - the viewfinder size and brightness is always a surprise considering the size.

Honestly both systems (Pentax/Zuiko) hold their value so well that if you buy a sensible well priced example used, you could recoup most of your investment if you didn't like it. Online reviews are useful, YouTube reviews can be really helpful, but there is no substitute for shooting a few rolls in different conditions with a camera.
 
I am a Canon digital user, but any of the Canon film bodies that would be of interest are FD mount, so it doesn't have any carryover to my existing lenses.

AAMOI will your Canon digi take Pentax or Olympus lenses with an adapter? But one consolation is: - if you were given any M42 screw lenses and with adapters a FD Canon and Digi Canon (also Pentax) will take them BUT an Olympus (or Nikon) can't. But not the end of the world as if you owned an Olympus, and were given some screw lenses, you'd just buy a screw mount film camera...something cheap like a Praktica.
 
I used Pentax and OM bodies side by side. I prefer the basic ME to the MX though, the viewfinder is larger in it and it's permanent aperture priority mode rather than manual. I used several Pentax bodies though - ME, MX, LX, Super A. With Olympus I had OM2Spot and OM4Ti which were much better specced than the Pentaxes but have issues with battery life. There's not much to choose between Pentax and Zuiko glass either - personally I feel Pentax was better suited to vibrant colours if that's what you're after. Zuikos tend to be cheaper for the same lens.
 
AAMOI will your Canon digi take Pentax or Olympus lenses with an adapter? But one consolation is: - if you were given any M42 screw lenses and with adapters a FD Canon and Digi Canon (also Pentax) will take them BUT an Olympus (or Nikon) can't. But not the end of the world as if you owned an Olympus, and were given some screw lenses, you'd just buy a screw mount film camera...something cheap like a Praktica.

All recent Olympus models are micro four thirds like my Panasonics, and can use lenses from any SLR I know off, even the miniature Pentax 110 models :)
 
All recent Olympus models are micro four thirds like my Panasonics, and can use lenses from any SLR I know off, even the miniature Pentax 110 models :)

erm but Andy has a Canon digi and could be buying an Olympus or Pentax film camera ;)
 
@Petrochemist there was a SMC Pentax 55/1.8 though, not a M but the "K" range, which might have been sold with it if an early Mx model. There was an earlier screw mount version of that lens as well; I had it on my first Spottie, I think.
Yes I forgot that one.
It was quite common as a M42, but I've never seen the K mount.
The M50's are very common I still have 5 of them! :eek:
 
I used Pentax and OM bodies side by side. I prefer the basic ME to the MX though, the viewfinder is larger in it and it's permanent aperture priority mode rather than manual. I used several Pentax bodies though - ME, MX, LX, Super A. With Olympus I had OM2Spot and OM4Ti which were much better specced than the Pentaxes but have issues with battery life. There's not much to choose between Pentax and Zuiko glass either - personally I feel Pentax was better suited to vibrant colours if that's what you're after. Zuikos tend to be cheaper for the same lens.

I have been reading this morning about the OM3 & OM4 - the 8 spot averaged metering sounds interesting!! A friend of mine has an OM4 so I'll have to ask her if I can borrow it maybe!
 
OM3 is shockingly expensive.

Filmies are fortunate as expense doesn't equate to better quality shots as cheap and expensive film cameras use the same lenses......when you think some digi guys spends £1000s :eek:
 
OM3 is shockingly expensive.

Yep - found that out earlier this morning!! I assumed the OM3 would be cheaper than the OM4, but the OM3 is rarer and perhaps preferable being mechanical.

I'll stick to my original plan for now - OM1 (N) or MX.
 
I'll stick to my original plan for now - OM1 (N) or MX

Dunno about the MX but with my OM2 (probably OM1 is the same) I find it difficult to see the exposure meter reading in low light, and at these times give up and set it on semi auto which might not be the best for what you want to achieve.
 
I've got OM1 OM2 OM4 and OM4Ti.

My take on the OM3 was that the advantage over the OM4 was that it was mechanical. Hence, I'd be buying it for the eventuality of battery failure. But the OM3's advantage over the OM1 was the metering - and that disappears without a battery. Hence, there was no point for me in having one.

The other OM1/OM3 differences didn't really bother me as I've not a flash user and don't need the all speeds sync.
 
Hey Chris what is the "A" setting for on my Pentax A 35-70 f3.5 f4.5 zoom..all it seems to do is lock it at f22 ???

pentax zoom.jpg
 
Hey Chris what is the "A" setting for on my Pentax A 35-70 f3.5 f4.5 zoom..all it seems to do is lock it at f22 ???

View attachment 137110

I think it's for use with cameras with shutter priority or Program (P) mode that allow control of the aperture from the camera. There's be something at the bayonet end that you wiggle to adjust the aperture, I think. However, I don't have a P-mode SLR to try it out. I'd guess it potentially makes the lens more useful to digital camera users, if they have an appropriate adaptor...

Is that a one-touch or two-ring zoom? The M version is a lovely one-touch, 70mm when short and 35mm when zoomed "out". I damaged mine by dropping it on some rocks while falling over, and replaced it with a similarly lovely but somewhat lighter Vivitar 35-70 that works in the same fashion (but also has an A setting. IIRC).
 
Hey Chris what is the "A" setting for on my Pentax A 35-70 f3.5 f4.5 zoom..all it seems to do is lock it at f22 ???
When attached to a suitable body, the aperture should remain open for composing and focusing and only close when you press the shutter release.
 
Back
Top