Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX

Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

technically inferior? In what way(s)

"Mike" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

technically inferior? In what way(s)


Was really thinking of lacking spot-metering, really.
Duncan.

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
"Mike" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

technically inferior? In what way(s)


Was really thinking of lacking spot-metering, really.
Duncan.

Lack of spot metering hardly makes the LX technically inferior does it?
Really?

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

I suppose the flippant answer would be that most LXs ever made still work...

But more seriously, I think if you handle one, you'll know the answer. And
while I much prefer the LX, the OM4Ti should surely be counted as something
of a classic too, though more for its electronics than anything else - this
isn't a case of "there can only be one".



Peter

"Mike" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
"Mike" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

technically inferior? In what way(s)


Was really thinking of lacking spot-metering, really.
Duncan.

Lack of spot metering hardly makes the LX technically inferior does it?
Really?

Well... I think it's extremely useful to have, but I concede that the LX
has other features, like the waterproofed seals and interchangeable finders.
It's just that my perfect camera would be small, quiet, have a spot meter
and a 100% finder.

Any ideas? I've seen an Olympus OM4 for sale at £230 and was wondering why
the LX is thought to be better.

Duncan.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

I suppose the flippant answer would be that most LXs ever made still
work...

And the OM4? Do they break down a lot? That would be a definite negative
for me...

But more seriously, I think if you handle one, you'll know the answer.
And
while I much prefer the LX, the OM4Ti should surely be counted as
something
of a classic too, though more for its electronics than anything else -
this
isn't a case of "there can only be one".

I've handled both the LX and the OM4 (not Ti), and found the OM4 to be
extremely competent, particularly regarding the funky lcd metering, which
seems to be precise to 1/3 stop, and very comprehensive with exposure lock
and spot metering. I think it is more on the gadgety side, especially re
the highlight and shadow buttons which are totally unecessary, and are not
adjustable for different film.

I suppose that the LX has a much more professional feel to it, with the safe
exposure compensation and sturdy parts.

What about the optics? How does Olympus glass compare to Pentax glass
around this era?

Duncan.

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

What about the optics? How does Olympus glass compare to Pentax glass
around this era?


There are some very good Zuiko OM lenses, notably the wide aperture
fixed focal lengths and the most recent MC lenses. There are some
very poor ones too. The zooms were disappointing by the standards of
the 1970s and 1980s, and even more so by today's standards.

Pentax lenses are more uniformly good. The first series of bayonet
mount manual lenses, commonly known as K lenses, included some real
gems. The second series, the M series, were intended to compete
directly with Zuikos for the OM and were optimised for size rather
than optical performance. However, the M series still included some
good performers. The third series, the A series, was consistently
good and included some outstanding performers, while maintaining
compact design. The A series zooms were not as good as the fixed
focal length lenses, but you can still choose from several good
performers.

If the above is confusing, I apologise. It simply isn't possible to
say which range (Zuiko/Pentax) is better than the other, because it
depends which lenses you choose from within each range. However,
having used both Olympus OM and Pentax over the years, I would always
choose Pentax glass.

That's because most Pentax lenses have a particular "look", with a
pleasant, soft rendition of out of focus areas of the shot, which most
Zuikos simply don't offer. That "look", sometimes called "bokeh", is
also fairly consistent across the range.

[Ironically, I now use Olympus digital equipment and the Digital Zuiko
lenses have that same "look". ;-) ]

The SMC anti-reflection coating is also significantly better than
anything Olympus offered in the OM system until the late MC series.
You can use SMC Pentax lenses in situations where other brands would
suffer from flare.

Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

I have used all of the listed lenses. There are others with good
reputations but I haven't used them so cannot credibly recommend them.

Beware different versions of the lenses listed above, such as the 28mm
f/2.8 M, which is a poor performer. The A version is a very different
optic, with a different optical formulation and much better
anti-reflection coating.

I use Leica M equipment and some of the Pentax lenses come
surprisingly close to Leica glass in terms of optical performance.
The 35mm f/2 K and A may have different optical formulations, but both
are outstanding performers, as are the later autofocus versions. They
aren't as good as the classic Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron (any version)
but they do come close by having excellent sharpness and surprisingly
good rendition of out of focus areas of the shot ("bokeh"). This
combination of sharpness and bokeh is difficult to find in Zuiko
lenses for the OM system.

Used Pentax lenses are easy to find (try eBay) and cost very little
money for such excellent optical quality. You will pay much more for
the few Zuikos that are optically their equals.

The Pentax LX is a superb working tool, one that was never adequately
marketed so it didn't sell so well against such cameras as the Nikon
F3. Beware the deterioration of the mirror bumper foam and felt light
traps that signals the need for a thorough service, including the
replacement of several rubber components in the mirror system which,
when perished, give incorrect infinity focus. This service can be
carried out by Pentax UK, although many UK Pentax enthusiasts go to
Asahi Photo in London, who do an excellent job for under £100, which
will last for about 15 years until it needs doing again.

As for spot metering, I accept that the OM4 has the superb, multiple
award-winning Spot Program system of averaging a number of spot meter
readings. However, despite owning many cameras over the years that
offered spot metering, I always use a hand held meter, so I have never
missed spot metering on the LX. The LX meter is centre-weighted, and
once you gain experience with it, it is superbly accurate and (above
all) consistent tool.

If you do buy an OM4, do make sure you put sufficient time and effort
into locating the best Zuiko lenses for it. In my opinion, you would
find it far easier to build a Pentax outfit, because there are a
greater selection of excellent performers and they are far more easily
available.

There are other cameras you might consider, such as the Nikon FM3A or
one of the higher-specified Minoltas, such as the X-700. Minolta
glass is a little like Pentax glass; a reasonably wide range of good
performers with pleasant bokeh. The bodies are good - nothing
special, though they contributed components to the Leica R series.

The Nikon FM3A is a very fine camera, and can be obtained new for only
slightly more than the cost of a good used OM4Ti. There is a massive
choice of Nikon glass, and used manual focus Nikkors represent
incredible value because they don't meter on many Nikon AF cameras, so
they get sold on eBay at low prices.

However, finding Nikon lenses with both good sharpness *and* the
"look" is not easy. Try the 24mm f/2.8, the 105mm f/2.5 and the 180mm
f/2.8 in AI or AIS versions. They are very good. But there isn't any
35mm Nikkor (out of the many different versions) that remotely
compares to the SMC Pentax K or A 35mm f/2.

But if you want sharpness and don't care about bokeh, there are many
very sharp Nikkors including the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8,
and the FM3A is probably the best manual focus body Nikon ever made.
Buying new means that you get a full warranty and guaranteed spares
availability for at least 10 years.

Choices, choices ...

I would probably choose the FM3A or OM4Ti - and Pentax lenses!

;-)

There are some very good Zuiko OM lenses, notably the wide aperture
fixed focal lengths and the most recent MC lenses. There are some
very poor ones too. The zooms were disappointing by the standards of
the 1970s and 1980s, and even more so by today's standards.

A friend of mine had a 50mm f1.8, which, from the small prints she got,
seemed extremely good, in terms of colour and contrast etc... So wondered
about the other lenses. Many thanks for the info that the quality is less
uniform than Pentax.

Pentax lenses are more uniformly good. The first series of bayonet
mount manual lenses, commonly known as K lenses, included some real
gems. The second series, the M series, were intended to compete
directly with Zuikos for the OM and were optimised for size rather
than optical performance. However, the M series still included some
good performers. The third series, the A series, was consistently
good and included some outstanding performers, while maintaining
compact design. The A series zooms were not as good as the fixed
focal length lenses, but you can still choose from several good
performers.

I have a 35-70mm SMC-A f3.5-4.5, which I've found to have excellent colour,
contrast and resolution. I recently enlarged a photo taken at f8 at night
on fuji sensia 100 (or was it reala?) to 30x20", and the level of detail was
astonishing (good, that is). Currently, being a poor student, this is the
only lens I have, though I am looking to a 50mm f1.7/f1.4 for my next
acquisition.

If the above is confusing, I apologise. It simply isn't possible to
say which range (Zuiko/Pentax) is better than the other, because it
depends which lenses you choose from within each range. However,
having used both Olympus OM and Pentax over the years, I would always
choose Pentax glass.

Not confusing at all. Pentax has more consistent optical quality over the
range than the OM lenses - I didn't know that.

That's because most Pentax lenses have a particular "look", with a
pleasant, soft rendition of out of focus areas of the shot, which most
Zuikos simply don't offer. That "look", sometimes called "bokeh", is
also fairly consistent across the range.

[Ironically, I now use Olympus digital equipment and the Digital Zuiko
lenses have that same "look". ;-) ]

The SMC anti-reflection coating is also significantly better than
anything Olympus offered in the OM system until the late MC series.
You can use SMC Pentax lenses in situations where other brands would
suffer from flare.

Good point - I like shots into light, so this could be a potential problem.


Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

Ha ha! Logarithmically totally out of my price range! But I've heard that
they are something special. (the 43mm lens looks very nice...)

24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

A goldmine of information... many thanks. Although do you really think the
50mm f2.0 is any good? It's just that I've actually got one, and havn't
used it since I got disappointing results from a trip to South Africa. I
think it had the resolution, but the colour was a bit bland and
non-contrasty. However, there are loads of other factors, like it being in
rubbish condition, having no UV filter, and I can't remember the processing.
I'm eyeing the 24mm and 28mm....

I have used all of the listed lenses. There are others with good
reputations but I haven't used them so cannot credibly recommend them.

Beware different versions of the lenses listed above, such as the 28mm
f/2.8 M, which is a poor performer. The A version is a very different
optic, with a different optical formulation and much better
anti-reflection coating.

I use Leica M equipment and some of the Pentax lenses come
surprisingly close to Leica glass in terms of optical performance.
The 35mm f/2 K and A may have different optical formulations, but both
are outstanding performers, as are the later autofocus versions. They
aren't as good as the classic Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron (any version)
but they do come close by having excellent sharpness and surprisingly
good rendition of out of focus areas of the shot ("bokeh"). This
combination of sharpness and bokeh is difficult to find in Zuiko
lenses for the OM system.

Used Pentax lenses are easy to find (try eBay) and cost very little
money for such excellent optical quality. You will pay much more for
the few Zuikos that are optically their equals.

Good point. Looks like I'm tending towards Pentax here.

The Pentax LX is a superb working tool, one that was never adequately
marketed so it didn't sell so well against such cameras as the Nikon
F3. Beware the deterioration of the mirror bumper foam and felt light
traps that signals the need for a thorough service, including the
replacement of several rubber components in the mirror system which,
when perished, give incorrect infinity focus. This service can be
carried out by Pentax UK, although many UK Pentax enthusiasts go to
Asahi Photo in London, who do an excellent job for under £100, which
will last for about 15 years until it needs doing again.

Hmmm... The LX sounds a great camera, apart from this sticky mirror problem.
If I were to spend 200+ on an LX and then another 100 for servicing I think
I'd be a touch disapointed. But if it last 15 years, then I suppose it
might be worth it.

As for spot metering, I accept that the OM4 has the superb, multiple
award-winning Spot Program system of averaging a number of spot meter
readings. However, despite owning many cameras over the years that
offered spot metering, I always use a hand held meter, so I have never
missed spot metering on the LX. The LX meter is centre-weighted, and
once you gain experience with it, it is superbly accurate and (above
all) consistent tool.

Isn't a hand held meter big, clunky, expensive and awkard to use?

If you do buy an OM4, do make sure you put sufficient time and effort
into locating the best Zuiko lenses for it. In my opinion, you would
find it far easier to build a Pentax outfit, because there are a
greater selection of excellent performers and they are far more easily
available.

Do you anything about the 50mm f1.8? I think that would be what I'd start
with if I were to go for an OM4 in the future.

There are other cameras you might consider, such as the Nikon FM3A or
one of the higher-specified Minoltas, such as the X-700. Minolta
glass is a little like Pentax glass; a reasonably wide range of good
performers with pleasant bokeh. The bodies are good - nothing
special, though they contributed components to the Leica R series.

I currently have a Pentax Super-A, and the X-700 doesn't look too
dissimilar. I don't have any problems with the Super-A, apart from it would
be nice to have a camera that feels more solid and with 100% viewfinder
coverage (or near there).


The Nikon FM3A is a very fine camera, and can be obtained new for only
slightly more than the cost of a good used OM4Ti. There is a massive
choice of Nikon glass, and used manual focus Nikkors represent
incredible value because they don't meter on many Nikon AF cameras, so
they get sold on eBay at low prices.

Yes, the FM3A seems a very nice camera, at a reasonable price. However, I
was surprised to find it didn't have a 100% viewfinder (I thought most top
Nikon's did). And what you say about he glass is very enticing...
Particularly as they are Nikon lenses.


However, finding Nikon lenses with both good sharpness *and* the
"look" is not easy. Try the 24mm f/2.8, the 105mm f/2.5 and the 180mm
f/2.8 in AI or AIS versions. They are very good. But there isn't any
35mm Nikkor (out of the many different versions) that remotely
compares to the SMC Pentax K or A 35mm f/2.

That is surprising.


But if you want sharpness and don't care about bokeh, there are many
very sharp Nikkors including the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8,
and the FM3A is probably the best manual focus body Nikon ever made.
Buying new means that you get a full warranty and guaranteed spares
availability for at least 10 years.

Again, another good point, for consideration.


Choices, choices ...

I would probably choose the FM3A or OM4Ti - and Pentax lenses!

;-)

Ah. That could be tricky! Do you know of any manual cameras with 100% or
near to that viewfinder coverage. My Super-A has 92%, which can be slightly
annoying. The LX has an excellent 98%, FM3a 93%, Olympus OM4 97%, X-700
92%.

Duncan.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

What about the optics? How does Olympus glass compare to Pentax glass
around this era?


There are some very good Zuiko OM lenses, notably the wide aperture
fixed focal lengths and the most recent MC lenses. There are some
very poor ones too. The zooms were disappointing by the standards of
the 1970s and 1980s, and even more so by today's standards.


I've used Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Olympus/Minolta cameras and lenses. My
favoutite zoom of all is the Zuiko 35-105 mm of the 1980's. Superb image
quality, beautiful construction and handling, and compact size. Makes a
great combination with the elegantly-simple, gadget-free OM-1.


Pentax lenses are more uniformly good. The first series of bayonet
mount manual lenses, commonly known as K lenses, included some real
gems. The second series, the M series, were intended to compete
directly with Zuikos for the OM and were optimised for size rather
than optical performance. However, the M series still included some
good performers. The third series, the A series, was consistently
good and included some outstanding performers, while maintaining
compact design. The A series zooms were not as good as the fixed
focal length lenses, but you can still choose from several good
performers.

If the above is confusing, I apologise. It simply isn't possible to
say which range (Zuiko/Pentax) is better than the other, because it
depends which lenses you choose from within each range. However,
having used both Olympus OM and Pentax over the years, I would always
choose Pentax glass.

That's because most Pentax lenses have a particular "look", with a
pleasant, soft rendition of out of focus areas of the shot, which most
Zuikos simply don't offer. That "look", sometimes called "bokeh", is
also fairly consistent across the range.

[Ironically, I now use Olympus digital equipment and the Digital Zuiko
lenses have that same "look". ;-) ]

The SMC anti-reflection coating is also significantly better than
anything Olympus offered in the OM system until the late MC series.
You can use SMC Pentax lenses in situations where other brands would
suffer from flare.

Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

I have used all of the listed lenses. There are others with good
reputations but I haven't used them so cannot credibly recommend them.

Beware different versions of the lenses listed above, such as the 28mm
f/2.8 M, which is a poor performer. The A version is a very different
optic, with a different optical formulation and much better
anti-reflection coating.

I use Leica M equipment and some of the Pentax lenses come
surprisingly close to Leica glass in terms of optical performance.
The 35mm f/2 K and A may have different optical formulations, but both
are outstanding performers, as are the later autofocus versions. They
aren't as good as the classic Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron (any version)
but they do come close by having excellent sharpness and surprisingly
good rendition of out of focus areas of the shot ("bokeh"). This
combination of sharpness and bokeh is difficult to find in Zuiko
lenses for the OM system.

Used Pentax lenses are easy to find (try eBay) and cost very little
money for such excellent optical quality. You will pay much more for
the few Zuikos that are optically their equals.

The Pentax LX is a superb working tool, one that was never adequately
marketed so it didn't sell so well against such cameras as the Nikon
F3. Beware the deterioration of the mirror bumper foam and felt light
traps that signals the need for a thorough service, including the
replacement of several rubber components in the mirror system which,
when perished, give incorrect infinity focus. This service can be
carried out by Pentax UK, although many UK Pentax enthusiasts go to
Asahi Photo in London, who do an excellent job for under £100, which
will last for about 15 years until it needs doing again.

As for spot metering, I accept that the OM4 has the superb, multiple
award-winning Spot Program system of averaging a number of spot meter
readings. However, despite owning many cameras over the years that
offered spot metering, I always use a hand held meter, so I have never
missed spot metering on the LX. The LX meter is centre-weighted, and
once you gain experience with it, it is superbly accurate and (above
all) consistent tool.

If you do buy an OM4, do make sure you put sufficient time and effort
into locating the best Zuiko lenses for it. In my opinion, you would
find it far easier to build a Pentax outfit, because there are a
greater selection of excellent performers and they are far more easily
available.

There are other cameras you might consider, such as the Nikon FM3A or
one of the higher-specified Minoltas, such as the X-700. Minolta
glass is a little like Pentax glass; a reasonably wide range of good
performers with pleasant bokeh. The bodies are good - nothing
special, though they contributed components to the Leica R series.

The Nikon FM3A is a very fine camera, and can be obtained new for only
slightly more than the cost of a good used OM4Ti. There is a massive
choice of Nikon glass, and used manual focus Nikkors represent
incredible value because they don't meter on many Nikon AF cameras, so
they get sold on eBay at low prices.

However, finding Nikon lenses with both good sharpness *and* the
"look" is not easy. Try the 24mm f/2.8, the 105mm f/2.5 and the 180mm
f/2.8 in AI or AIS versions. They are very good. But there isn't any
35mm Nikkor (out of the many different versions) that remotely
compares to the SMC Pentax K or A 35mm f/2.

But if you want sharpness and don't care about bokeh, there are many
very sharp Nikkors including the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8,
and the FM3A is probably the best manual focus body Nikon ever made.
Buying new means that you get a full warranty and guaranteed spares
availability for at least 10 years.

Choices, choices ...

I would probably choose the FM3A or OM4Ti - and Pentax lenses!

;-)