What's the difference between Pentax MX and Olympus OM-1?

[Markster]

Just curious... I noticed by chance that the OM-1 style of camera is almost identical to the Pentax MX camera in looks. I understand many of these cameras look alike, but I mean they look almsot like clones of each other.

Coincidence? Licensed copy?

What are the differences, if any?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Identical?!? Apart from the OM-1 having the shutter speeds co-axial to the lens instead of on the top deck, they don't look any more similar to each other than most other cameras at that time.

The only thing Pentax may have copied from Olympus was the trend towards compact SLRs (like almost all other manufacturers).

If anything, it's Leica who set the classic layout of a 35mm camera in stone: Lens roughly in the middle, film advance, shutter release and shutter speed dial on the right, rewind button/lever on the left.
Very few cameras used different layouts (Exakta comes to mind, as do Olympuses, Nikkormats and Japanese Contaxes, which have the shutter speeds in the "wrong" place).
That explains why many cameras look basically similar.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

The only difference is the person behind the camera!

Jeff

 

[elekm]

Olympus began the move toward smaller SLRs with the OM-1. Pentax and others followed.

Pentax had the M series: MX and ME, MV-1, etc.

Canon had the A series, which weren't as small as the Pentax but were significantly smaller than its previous FTb, F1 and others.

Minolta added the XD11 and XG series to supplant the SRT cameras.

Nikon came in with the FE and FM, which were lighter and smaller than the F2 and the various Nikkormats.

The OM-1's handling is different from other cameras. With many of the lenses, the aperture ring as at the front, while the shutter speed dial is coaxial to the lens mount, as another person explained.

The Pentax MX is much more traditional.

I've used both cameras, and if you have large hands, the Pentax MX might be a bit too small. Even so, I've always liked the Pentax. Nothing wrong with the OM-1, either.

I think you have to try them both and see which you like better.

 

[wblynch]

I think the Pentax MX was introduced 5 or more years after the Olympus OM1.

I don't believe the MX has mirror lockup.

The OM1 has a removable hot shoe for the flash, the Pentax has a permanent hot shoe on the cover.

The Pentax displays the shutter speed and aperture setting in the viewfinder. The OM1 has only a 'match needle' visible in the viewfinder.

The Pentax does not accept the world renowned Zuiko lenses from the OM system. (shameless plug for the OM1)

 

[Markster]

Well, I realize a lot of the cameras all have similar base layouts. However these two REALLY look alike. A small switch on the OM-1 by the rewind is the major difference visible. Although, as posted above this, there's the shutter speed location. I didn't realize it was on the lens mount for the OM series. That answers my question I guess.

Example of how closely they resemble each other:

 

[wblynch]

I should add.. one advantage for the Pentax is it uses currently available batteries for the meter.

The OM1 needs a modification or adapter to use a 1.55v battery, or short-lived zinc oxide (hearing aid) batteries for proper metering.

 

[darinwc]

While they look alike, they are very different and it is immediately apparent upon using them.

As others have mentioned, the shutter speed on the Olympus is set with a ring around the lens mount. The pentax with the knob on the top.

The Olympus uses a cloth horizontal shutter, the pentax a metal vertical shutter.

The Olympus was made as a pro camera and the mx as a mid-level.

The Olympus used a mercury battery as stated above.

 

[lxdude]

While they look alike, they are very different and it is immediately apparent upon using them.

As others have mentioned, the shutter speed on the Olympus is set with a ring around the lens mount. The pentax with the knob on the top.

The Olympus uses a cloth horizontal shutter, the pentax a metal vertical shutter.

The Olympus was made as a pro camera and the mx as a mid-level.

The Olympus used a mercury battery as stated above.

The Pentax MX uses a horizontal cloth shutter.
Pentax did market the MX as "The Little Professional", though it was not promoted that way as intensely as the OM-1 was. The OM-1 had a much larger "system", too.

As stated in another post, the MX does not have mirror lockup. But the mirror can be "pre-released" on most of them by quickly flicking the shutter button with a finger.
The MX has shutter release lock-the OM-1 doesn't. The meter in the OM-1 is the basic CDS cell, center the needle type, while the MX has gallium arsenide (similar in function to silicon cells) with an amplifier circuit outputting to LED's.
In the OM-1 the galvanometer for the needle is inside the ASA knob on top, a very clever way to reduce size while retaining a standard form.

The physical similarities are superficial, and if you had them in front of you, you could easily see (and feel) how different they are. The MX is a little smaller, with a lower top deck. That makes it hard for some people to grasp it comfortably. They are similar in specification, with the same shutter type, shutter speed range and X-sync speed, both are designed to be light and compact, both take winder or motor drive, have a huge, bright finder, etc.

They are both nice machines. As a Pentax user, I have a couple of MX's, but I think the OM-1 handles better. MX shutter knobs have heavy click stops and are too short to grasp easily. I find the OM-1 layout easy and quick to use. On the other hand, the MX's shutter speed and aperture readout are nice to have at times.

 

[Les Sarile]

Probably the biggest difference between the two is that the Pentax - with the exception of new "digital" lenses, can use past and present lenses while the OM mount is orphaned. Of course there were some very good OM lenses.

Here is a great article from the OM-1 designer about it's development - http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/lecture2/

The "traditional film slr layout" all came from Pentax but the whole industry was caught by surprise by the OM-1's size. Interesting Pentax first is essentially what all film slrs adopted - http://www.cameraquest.com/pentorig.htm

It is tough picking between the two so get them both!

 

[Markster]

Lol! I don't have that kind of budget. But it is interesting having the pentax's light metering off the film, being able to automatically run many minutes' worth of shutter speed (i.e. night skies, moon, nighttime scenery, etc) and the all-mechanical nature is intriguing.

So the MX runs all shutter speeds without a battery? Or it needs a battery for some and others not?

 

[MattKing]

Lol! I don't have that kind of budget. But it is interesting having the pentax's light metering off the film, being able to automatically run many minutes' worth of shutter speed (i.e. night skies, moon, nighttime scenery, etc) and the all-mechanical nature is intriguing.

So the MX runs all shutter speeds without a battery? Or it needs a battery for some and others not?

Your description sounds to me more like a Pentax LX than a Pentax MX - if I remember the MX correctly.

EDIT: It occurs to me that the similarity in appearance you have noted might just have something to do with how successful the OM-1 was when it came to market.

 

[lxdude]

Your description sounds to me more like a Pentax LX than a Pentax MX - if I remember the MX correctly.

Right you are. The MX is all mechanical, and manual exposure. 1 sec. to 1/1000 sec., same as the OM-1. No auto anything. The meter reads off the finder screen. The battery is only for the meter.

The LX has off the film plane metering (shutter curtain or film, depending on length of exposure). 1/75th and faster (and B) are timed mechanically; below 1/75th they are timed electronically.
So sayeth the lxdude.

 

[Les Sarile]

If you haven't already seen one, here are some side by side pics . . .

This link to larger version -> http://www.fototime.com/2A70455C878FA43/orig.jpg

The OM lenses are typically smaller then their equivalent in other brands and Pentax has the M series lenses that are smaller for their M series cameras.

 

[Steve Roberts]

There is plenty of technical info on both cameras available on the web as well as in the previous postings on this thread. They are both very capable cameras, whilst being IMHO totally different in their layout and user-friendliness. My position is that of a long-time Pentax devotee who was recently given an OM1n and whose stable also includes an MX. Pentax's programme of advertising of many years ago sums it up for me "Trust your hands to tell you it's Pentax". Somehow, everything about Pentaxes (not just the MX) falls just where it should, and their operation is intuitive.
On picking up the OM1n, I immediately found it fiddly in three respects - the film rewind button (which is tiny and has to be turned), the meter switch (small lever buried between the pentaprism and rewind knob, doesn't switch off automatically and doesn't fall under the shutter finger/hand) and the lens release button which is buried away at the rear of the lens far too close to the shutter selection ring for comfort. Also, the match-needle meter is strangely poked away at the bottom left hand corner of the viewing screen - not even half way up, as is the norm.
My large hands undoubtedly don't help, but I have no trouble whatsoever with the smaller MX, which for usability knocks spots off the OM1. That's not to say that Pentax are infallible - the shutter speed selector buttons on the ME Super are fine if you're an elf. Not forgetting also the ASA setting and exposure compensation rings on the K2...
Ultimately when you get beyond the tech specs and whether mirror lock-up is essential, etc. it's what suits you. For the time at least, I'll leave the OM1n in the drawer!

Controversially,
Steve

 

[Les Sarile]

BTW, another great Olympus design is the OM Varimagni Finder as it fits all my classic cameras (except the Nikons) including both my K and M Series Pentax. With the Pentax, I would need a different one for each series. It's great for absolute critical focusing as well as a right angle finder.

 

[Markster]

Very informative info! Thanks, all.

 

[lxdude]

Controversially,
Steve

Not controversial, as far as I'm concerned. The differences in our preference between two really great all-manual compact cameras illustrates how important it is for someone to compare them personally. No spec sheet can tell anyone how well a machine will work for them, or how it feels in the hand. I have Pentax, and still enjoy using the MX, especially with an LX focusing screen in it.

The MX or ME Super in a coat pocket makes a great, unobtrusive city camera.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

You take pictures of coat pockets?

Jeff

 

[lxdude]

Sure! What could be more interesting!

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Just one additional remark: You do not need to see the shutter in the finder as you can feel the speeds by the position of the speeddial. You need a certain kind of workflow for to take advantage of the lack of information in the viewfinder though.
Before you take the camera to the eye you decide on the required aperture you want to take the picture with so you wont need to see it in the finder. If the grips of the speeddial are in horizontal position you know that the dialed in speed is 1/30s. Turn it to the left you get faster speeds and vice versa. At least after some pictures with this camera there is not any need to clutter the finder with distracting information. You need just the framed scene and the match needle.

Ulrich

 

[BetterSense]

It's interesting that in order to make the OM1 as small as it is, Olympus had to locate the shutter speed governor in the bottom of the body instead of in the top-right area around the shutter release, where it is on most cameras. That's what led to having the shutter speed ring around the lens mount (which I prefer anyway). To make the MX as small as it is, and still have the shutter speed dial in a conventional location, Pentax puts the shutter speed governor in the same location as the OM1, but it uses a Tungsten wire on a system of pulleys to link the shutter speed dial and the shutter speed governor.

 

[wblynch]

As a longtime OM1 user, (36 years) the Olympus OM is the only film SLR system I have ever owned.

But of course the thread isn't about which camera we prefer, it's about the differences between two, specific models.

In the end, the difference on the film won't be much at all... likely not visible, much less measurable.

I'm curious to see differences between them in market pricing.

 

[Markster]

I actually enjoy the comparisons, though. I was very interested in both of these. I'm a 1-camera guy for now, but I would like to get one of these other cameras eventually. They do sound nice. Maybe in a year or two. For now I'll continue my skills development with what I have, but you are all helping with my eventual decision.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

As a longtime OM1 user, (36 years) the Olympus OM is the only film SLR system I have ever owned.

But of course the thread isn't about which camera we prefer, it's about the differences between two, specific models.

In the end, the difference on the film won't be much at all... likely not visible, much less measurable.

I'm curious to see differences between them in market pricing.

For whatever reason the MX is kinda expensive, if I remember correctly. At KEH they have an OM1N in EX without a shoe for $109. They don't have an MX in stock, but I recall their being quite a bit higher. I think that the OMs were quite a bit more common back in the day, that could be part of the reason. I have owned both, probably would rather have an MX, but I think that is mostly nostalgia since the MX was the first "real" camera I had. Both are really wonderful cameras.