Olympus Mju

[RaglanSurf]

What are peoples thoughts on the Olympus Mju series?

I have been offered a choice from Mju I, Mju II and a Mju Zoom 105.

What would you go for and why?

 

[FruitFlakes]

MJU II, it’s the most hyped one out of the three.

 

[Sky]

I had a MJUII about twenty two years ago - the first compact I bought for flying (in Africa )with as my SLRs were too heavy.

Some rotten sod stole it from me.

 

[Cuchulainn]

The Mju II is really reliable - small, light and sharp. I had one, sold it and currently have another. It's really handy if you want something that you can keep in a bag or with you and that you know will take a good shot, but I can't say I've fallen in love with it. It's all a bit soulless (and I love the 35mm FOV - the X100, with the equivalent FOV, is one of my favourite cameras ever)

 

[FishyFish]

Mju2 has a faster lens at f/2.8. I think the Mju 1 is f/3.5. The zoom will have some extra flexibility, but I'd go for one of the fixed lens models.

Mju 2 > Mju 1 > Mju Zoom 105

 

[dmb]

They are great little holiday cameras, the only one of the Mju family I have had problems with was a lovely looking Mju V zoom that had light leaks round the lens. The other problem seems to be that I need to add extra bromide to their film emulsion to stop them breeding. I swear I do not remember having 16 of the family.

 

[Retune]

For me, Mju II > Mju I > Mju Zoom. The Mju II should have the best lens (4 element vs 3 element in the earlier version, but either is probably preferable to the very slow zoom in the 105). By the 90s, when the market had shifted to zooms, prime lens compacts were rather unusual and tend to fetch a premium today (especially those with 4 element lenses). The Mju II is comparable to the Yashica T4 (which goes for even sillier prices on ebay).

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Most of the Olympus compacts were good value and I've owned several over the years but none of them had particularly good lenses, viewfinders or handling. There were many cameras that were better in one way or another that cost the same or less at the time. I don't understand why some of these cameras suddenly become the subject of special interest. Anyway, some pictures taken around 1994 with an Olympus XA...

 

[joxby]

I've had loads of MJU's, all from charity shops.

What I can say for me is, the 2 isn't worth the money over the 1 unless you buy it from a charity shop
I have never shot the 1 and thought shooting the 2 would have been a better choice......ever.
And, it fits better in my hand, the door slide is a quick one handed one thumb operation whatever its orientation in my hand, mebbe I'm just used to it but the 2 is a bit of an odd tapered wedge that doesn't quite integrate the same way, I find myself having to look at it sometimes to open it.
Imo, image quality is about the same, I highly doubt I could ever make use of the faster lens, the 2 is daft dear and the 1 for me has better ergonomics, so that'll be the 1 from me...
Bet I've got 2 of each somewhere in this craphole..

 

[stevelmx5]

I've had all three at different times (but only when I found bargains for <£20). Technically, the MJUII is better than the MJU1 because of it's slightly faster lens, and marginally better AF. I'm not sure if the MJU1 is weatherproof either, but the 2 was marketed as such. The zoom versions I've used have been a bit lacklustre. They had slower lenses, that were noisy/slow to extend and retract, and run greater risk of failure due to grit getting in the lens barrel and blocking it.

Either way, I wince whenever I see MJU2's going for >£150, and seeing MJU1's for >£100 is just nuts!

 

[Nod]

Got an underwater Mju somewhere. The only waterproof camera that's remained Nod-proof! Shame it's APS and film for it is a bit hard to come by...

 

[ChrisR]

We have an Olympus Stylus (which appears now to be bricked), the American version of the original mju, and I now have a mu ii. I also briefly had a mju zoom that someone advertised as a mju II. I concur with @Retune's suggestion, mju II > mju > mju zoom.

One advantage of the original mju that I don't think has been noted is that the shape is better (I think), slightly larger and easier to open the clamshell. Also, IIRC, the original mju doesn't default to "flash auto". With the mju II you have to switch off the flash every time you turn it on, which could be multiple times on an outing (not that flash fires every time, but that it decides when to fire on its own, and it's very annoying as it changes the shot a lot).

The mju II f/2.8 lens IMHO is much better than the original f/3.5 lens. I think the zooms are even slower, and from what I've seen, results not so good.

Very easy to load. Very pocketable. But for some reason it takes me months (actually years, it appears, last finished roll was finished in October 2018) to finish a film, as I never take the cameras out with me!

They're also completely automated. Point, shoot, whirr (or, at the end of the roll, Whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr).

 

[Asha]

One advantage of the original mju that I don't think has been noted is that the shape is better (I think)

Joxby mentions similar about the ergonomics of the first version.

 

[cymruchris]

I had an XA-2 and an XA-3 - and always wanted a Mju - I never got around to getting one at the time - it's a lovely size and form. I wouldn't go for the zoom myself though - I'd stick with either the 1 or the 2.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I wince whenever I see MJU2's going for >£150...

If I could sell mine for that I wouldn't be wincing!

I used mine as my number two camera and had lots of pics from it published in fishing mags back in the old days. Great little camera.

 

[NickT]

I've got a MJU III-80,which is a zoom model. I bought it on ebay for very little and all I can say about it, is that it's OK, The postcard size colour prints are fine. When my friend had a yacht, I took it sailing and it certainly got quite splashed, without ill effect. I agree that the default flash on setting is annoying. My favourite tiny cameras however, are either my XA or XA3.