I'm primarily a rangefinder shooter (love my little Leica iif) who's looking for "my" SLR system as a compliment. I have an Olympus OM2 now, and love the small size but don't love the somewhat fragile feeling build and clunky film wind.
And on that point, does anyone know how both compare to something like the Nikon F3 or F2 in terms of weight and handling?
That's such a bummer. I CLA cameras myself so I trust your opinion if you've been inside one of these lenses. It's amazing what cameras are actually like when you strip them down, for example the Pentax SV I got for $15 was one of the most robust SLRs I've worked on, whereas a Rolleiflex SL35 was pretty disappointing. Pity the viewfinder on the SV hasn't aged well at all.I have a "Zeiss" Planar 50/1.4 C/Y mount, made in japan, here, for service, and i'm not too impressed with the build quality, even less to see how the paint easily peels off in the similar way as the lower priced japanese lenses.
I have heard this quite a bit, is it just the sticky mirror problem? As I understand it it's due to a poorly designed rubber piece that has to be replaced every 5-10 years. If that's all it is I can live with that, since I could probably do it myself.The LX has not held up as well as other pro level bodies of the 80s
I've always heard that the MX was a step below (or at least sideways) from the OMs, rather than a true "pro" camera like the F's, LX, etc.
But they're so cheap that it might be worth trying one. Has anyone had a 139Q and these other compact "prosumer" level cameras? How does the build compare?
I really wish Olympus went all out on at least one of their cameras. The design of the OM is genius, but it does feel like they cut a few corners to keep prices reasonable. Same with the two Zuiko lenses I have, both have plasticky loose aperture rings. Maybe the OM3ti is different, it has to cost those exorbitant prices for some reason.
I CLA cameras myself
I have heard really good things about the macro Zuiko's, I use the 50mm f3.5 with my digi to scan film and I have zero complaints. Bit of a slow chunky lens as a walk around though.
I was prizing the 139Q a bit highly for it's lovely design and Zeiss glass
I also have the Pen S and it's such a wonderful little half frame, that tiny lens is super sharp.
For some reason unknown to me, Olympus has always been at the forefront of macro and micro (microscope) optics. Whenever I end up in a lab or clinic that uses this type of gear, I usually see "OLYMPUS" more often than Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, etc. -- although they made great stuff too.
From what you've said, I'd bet you would be happier with the 139.
I've had an RTS, and an RTS II, and they both died. Electrical failures. Done. RIP. Call it. They are notorious for this, so I cannot recommend them.
The 139 is meant to be much more reliable.
As for lenses? Well the "Zeiss" lenses that Contax used as made by Cosina - just like the Zeiss lenses they currently make for Nikon!!! The advantage of the Nikon F3 is that it will still be working, and you can also buy Nikon lenses for it!
I sold of my Nikon Fs because I much prefer my F2s. Everything that was "wrong" with the F was fixed in the F2. The F3 is a much more modern camera than the F2 - basically if you want AE, you want the F3. If you don't care, then the F2. Both my F2s (F2AS, F2 plain prism) needed to be serviced. The meter on the F2AS failed due to the common resistor ring failure. Sover Wong was able to fix that with a replacement part he makes.
Anyway, I'm not going to say get a 139, or F2, or... However I will say do not get an RTS/II
Get a 35RD instead. It's a lean, mean machine:Someday i'll get a mint Olympus 35RC, that's a great machine.
(There may be some general rules of thumb; for example, while I take Flavio's point that older Yashica DSB lenses feel more heavy and solid than ML lenses, I have seen several DSB's with stuck apertures and rarely see that on ML's.)
An off the wall suggestion, for something that costs little, lasts forever, and feels like a precision winding machine, there's the Nikkormat. Rather larger than an OM-2 or FE, and you need to make sure the meter works, but not quite as brick-like as the pro models.
Realty
sets in for what you want and Nikon was the only camera(SLR) with a 100% finder, everything else had around 95%.
I’ve never shot anything Pentax, outside of the cheaper lenses how does the glass stack up to Nikon and Contax? And other than the sticky mirror issue (which I think is easy enough to fix?) are there any other issues with the LX?
What I've read in the Pentax forums is that the LX is experiencing shutter issues, failing electronics. I have Pentax lens, most of the M42 primes from 24 to 400, all are coated, many super mc along with a few K mounts. I've shot Konica, Nikon F to F3 with primes, a few zoom, currently have Minolta MF and AF, along with odd and ends, Petri, Topcon, etc.. In the past I had Leica and Canon 39mm screw and used Leica M bodies and lens in the Air Force. My old M42 lens will hold their own, Pentax limited edition lens are highly rated. In the 90s Popular Photography tested a brace of 50mm lens rated the Pentax LE 50mm as the best on the market. In term if IQ, Minolta and Konica are very good lens. I don't think Konica ever made a bad lens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?