Is a Pentax MX worth picking up?

[mtnbkr]

Found this in my in-laws' local Craigslist:

Camera complete with zoom lens, duplexer, filters, flash, unipod, and case.

$80.

I already have a Nikon N80, lenses, flash, and tripod. I also have an OM-1 (CLAed by camtech).

Does the Pentax add anything? It seems to be a slight downgrade from my OM-1, but I don't know anything about Pentax lenses. Are there any standouts in that platform?

Chris

 

[Chan Tran]

I think it's a better camera than the OM-1. I bought one for a mere $5 with the 50mm f/1.4. I sold it cheap for $50. The camera and lens were in near perfect condition except that the flash sync did not work.

 

[Ian Grant]

My first instinct is yes, I like MX's they are excellent cameras, so are the lenses.

But why complicate things by having 3 different lens systems. Why not get a second Nikon body maybe an FM(2) or a 2nd Olympus.

Ian

 

[mtnbkr]

I think it's a better camera than the OM-1.

In what ways? I've never used an MX or any Pentax other than a K1000.

Chris

 

[mtnbkr]

My first instinct is yes, I like MX's they are excellent cameras, so are the lenses.

But why complicate things by having 3 different lens systems. Why not get a second Nikon body maybe an FM(2) or a 2nd Olympus.
Ian

I don't need a 3rd SLR, so it would be replacing the OM-1 if I got it (keeping the Nikon for the auto-everything). That said, I love my OM-1, so I'd only go with the MX if it was a significant upgrade from the Olympus. The MX is attractive because of the size and better availability of lenses, but is it a real upgrade over my OM-1?

Chris

 

[rwyoung]

The MX is my primary 35mm SLR. Fantistic little camera, one step "down" from the LX which was the "pro" camera. 100% full manual, battery only runs meter. Flash sync is 1/60, no communication with the flash so learn your guide numbers!

Down side for me is its size (also a plus but only marginally). I have large hands so it is a little awkward. However with the motor advance it becomes a larger camera and you get a grip for your left hand. I like it that way.

The only think I don't like about mine is the ground glass split image uses a horizontal line. I've used several other K-mount clones and although I can't remember which one it was, it had a split image focusing aid that was on the diagonal. Much more useful in my opinion.

But overall I've been very happy with my MX. It was my Dad's until his eyesight started to go. Get a few good prime lenses (1.4-50 etc) and one of the Vivitar Series I medium zooms and you have a great system.

 

[Ian Grant]

Mmmmh I agree about using a Vivitar S1 f2.8 70-210 witha Pentax MX superb combination. I have an image in my gallery here (Jimmy Page - the Guitarist) shot with just this combination.

More seriously MX's can be difficult to get repaired now as some electronic parts are not available, I have two awaiting repair with dead electrics.

Ian

 

[PhotoBob]

What type of photography will you be using the camera for?

 

[mtnbkr]

What type of photography will you be using the camera for?

Nothing specific. Mostly B&W pics of whatever catches my fancy. I currently use my OM-1 for available light B&W, so it would fall into that role.

Chris

 

[waynecrider]

What I found out about my K1000 when I went looking for the manual lenses was that they are in demand by the digital crowd as they still work on the new cameras. Be prepared to spend for the better lenses. I looked for a 50mm A 1.7 and they are in demand and bided usually heavily.

 

[Eric Rose]

If it comes with that killer 40mm pancake lens you have a real winner. I have an MV with the pancake lens and it's as sharp as any lens I have ever seen.

 

[rwyoung]

More seriously MX's can be difficult to get repaired now as some electronic parts are not available, I have two awaiting repair with dead electrics.

Ian

Ian -

I've made some minor repairs on my MX over the years. Mostly simple things like replacing the foam in the mirror box and the high-density foam/felt in the light trap. Most complex thing was taking the top off to deal with an inconsistent meter issue. Dirty contacts. I did "practice" on a dead ME that I bought for $20 first though. And by the way, he ME works now except for the film counter is boogered. I think the camera belonged to a school as it had seen a very hard life and has many dings in the top cover. Got those tapped out except for a corner by the film counter, just can't get that one straight enough.

 

[mtnbkr]

Might be a moot point as the seller hasn't responded to my email.

Chris

 

[Black Dog]

Deffo!have the pancake 40mm too and it's most excellent

 

[oscroft]

I'm an OM user - I have OM1n, OM2n, and a lot of Zuiko lenses. And I also have a Pentax MX - I bought it solely so I could try a Pentax 40mm pancake (I'd wanted to try a pancake for ages, and then I saw an eBay auction for one with an MX already attached and I snapped it up). I've briefly used an ME Super too.

I think the MX is a great camera, but it isn't in any way a significant improvement over the OM1. It's very slightly smaller, feels great in the hand, and is easy to use. But the OM1 also feels great in the hand and is easy to use, and unless you directly compare the two you wouldn't notice that it's ever so slightly bigger.

When I was deciding what 35mm outfit to buy cheaply from eBay a few years ago, as an alternative to the OM1/OM2 combination I also considered an MX/ME Super and a bunch of Pentax lenses. I sometimes wonder how I would have fared had I gone that route instead, and I think I would probably have been just as happy as I am with my Olympus setup. But what swung me towards Olympus was the Zuiko lenses - I think they're some of the best in the business, and there are plenty for sale on eBay (in the UK at least, there were more Zuiko lenses for sale than Pentax ones, and I didn't want "independent" K mount lenses).

So that's a long-winded way of saying no. I think you'd probably be just as happy with an OM1 or an MX, but I see no good reason for swapping one for the other.

 

[polaski]

If you had a number of Pentax K and M lenses, it would be a fantastic acquisition. $80 for a good user is a great price. But, since you have other brand name equipment, and as Wayne pointed out, good Pentax glass is appreciating in price, why set yourself up for an expensive brand switch?

Which Craig's List did you say that camera was posted on?

 

[mtnbkr]

Which Craig's List did you say that camera was posted on?

Roanoke, Va.

Chris

 

[Colin Corneau]

When I first started out in photography, I went with Pentax. I had the K1000, the MX, the ME Super and then the LX.

The LX was sublime, a wonderful camera. A close second, at least for me, was the MX. I found it very durable, small, simple, and tough. A well-made camera.

It always seemed to me that this was Pentax's version of Nikon's FM/FM2...thoughts?

 

[Bandicoot]

The LX was sublime, a wonderful camera.

How true

A close second, at least for me, was the MX. I found it very durable, small, simple, and tough. A well-made camera.

It always seemed to me that this was Pentax's version of Nikon's FM/FM2...thoughts?

Definitely, I think that's a pretty close analogy. Pentax described the MX as being a professional body, and it seems that the idea was that it would make a good second body for someone who didn't want their 'backup' camera to be as large or heavy as their primary one, or who wanted a lightweight body for use when getting to difficult shooting locations. The lack of flash automation and mirror lockup would prevent it being a primary body for professionals in many fields, but it is lovely as a backup or for 'travelling light'.

The best known advocate of the principal of having a lighter body as one's secondary is probably a Nikon shooter - Galen Rowell - so that ties back to your FM comparison, in a way, too. I think the popularity of the Olympus OM1 with some professionals wanting to 'work light' also parallels the MX design concept.

I have two as backups to my five LXs, and they are indeed great cameras.

Pentax repeated this concept to an extent with the MZ-3. At that time the MZ-S was their top-line body and the MZ-5n probably their best-seller. The MZ-3 is an MZ-5n with a better shutter, which gives it a slightly higher sync. speed and, more importantly, a much higher rated life/duty cycle. Not a difference most amateurs would appreciate or be willing to pay the significant price difference for, and it always seemed to me that the MZ-3 was designed as a 'lightweight second camera' for MZ-S users. (Which is how I use mine...)


Peter

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have never used the Olympus cameras so I cannot comment on them, but I have used Pentax 35mm equipment extensively and I currently have a KX body with an ME backup. What draws me to Pentax is the way underrated lenses. They are pin sharp and handle contrast extremely well. It is true, however, that the good glass is really gaining momentum in the 2nd hand market.
The good ones to watch out for:
28mm f/3.5
35mm f/3.5
40mm f/2.8 pancake
55mm f/2
85mm f/?
200mm f/4
Also, the Vivitar Series 1 lenses are superb for Pentax. A newer Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a great tool too.

Hope that helps. Many times folks are not aware that the f/3.5 wide angle lenses actually perform better than the f/2.8, and the 55mm f/2 is almost unknown but also perform better than the 50mm f/1.4/1.7/2 lenses. Usually they are much cheaper.

- Thomas

 

[okto]

Unless there are lenses in the Pentax K system that appeal to you particularly and aren't available in the Oly OM or, heaven forbid, Nikon F system, spend the money on film and lenses for the systems you already own.

IMHO and in my experience, Nikkor lenses outshine their Pentax counterparts, with the exception of non-optical factors (like the delectably tiny Pentax Limiteds).

 

[Bandicoot]

What draws me to Pentax is the way underrated lenses. They are pin sharp and handle contrast extremely well. It is true, however, that the good glass is really gaining momentum in the 2nd hand market.
The good ones to watch out for:
28mm f/3.5
35mm f/3.5
40mm f/2.8 pancake
55mm f/2
85mm f/?
200mm f/4

I'd second (most of) that.

The 55mm f1.8 is optically identical to the f2 version, so you can go for whichever one you find first. Of the general purpose 85mm lenses, the f1.8 is my favourite and is significantly better than the f2.

I would add the 105mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.5 (not the 'K-Mount Takumar' version) to this list as very special lenses, and the 120mm f2.8 and 150mm f4 offerings are also very nice and often overlooked. The 135mm f3.5 is not as good as the f2.5, but nonetheless is a fine lens, and usually dirt cheap. In wides, the 30mm f2.8 is hard to find, but a superb lens, sometimes you will find one going cheap because the seller thinks it's a weird focal length.

I've never been as crazy about the 200mm f4 as many people are, but maybe I never had a good one. the f2.5 and f2.8 versions, however, are both superb. The 300mm f4 A* or M* is ocassionally seen at good prices when sold by people who don't know what it is - which is a first rate lens and one of the best balanced 300s there is.

I've left out the expensive ultra-fast glass, and the wonderful Limited lenses, much as I like them, because cost wise they fall in a very different bracket from all of the above.


Peter

 

[davela]

It's as fine as any SLR I've seen -- an absolute gem