My new Pentax MX, and first test roll.

Yesterday I received a recently (November 2016 by Eric Hendrickson) CLA'd Pentax MX with a Pentax-M 28/3.5, I already had three Pentax Mount lens (Pentax-M 50/1.4, Rokinon 85/1.4, Tamron SP Adaptall 90/2.8 1:1 Macro) hence the reason was looking for an SLR counterpart to my rangefinders. Plus the general consensus was they had very large/bright viewfinders, but I also wanted to make sure it was fully mechanical outside of the meter.

I went with a formula I found on filmdev.org which calls for stock solution of Microphen for 7 minutes at 68F, course what I didn't realize was that when I set the film speed on top, I must have bumped too far or wasn't attentive enough to notice I put it 2 dots past 400 and was metering for ISO 640. Results still came out, and the massive dev chart shows 640 at 8 minutes, so that explains some head scratching when I was thinking the meter was going a little higher than my guesstimate would have figured.

I'm curious though if the standard 01 screen is sufficient enough for focusing with the f/1.4 lens, I feel like result wise it's not spot on the exact spot, but I was relying more on the microprism ring than the split line, guessing the split is more accurate to "see" in those cases. Though would like to try to see if I can find an SA-3 screen (designed specifically for lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.2 to f2).

I scanned these on my home Canon FS4000US scanner which I prefer over the school's flatbed, but later tonight will be doing some wet printing (some of these might look pretty nice on the Oriental Seagull VC RC II paper I recently got). A number of them are at the GRAM (Grand Rapids Art Museum), then headed back towards campus to snap some spots I usually snap. Most the indoor ones were shot at f/1.4~2, and 1/60th~1/125.

Looking good Karl!

Very nice.

David

Very nice set up. You could bring that grain down a few notches with a different developer.

blockend said:

Very nice set up. You could bring that grain down a few notches with a different developer.

Click to expand...

Microphen is a pushing developer, not a fine grain one, but it probably saved the OP since he had accidently set his meter 2/3 stop too high.

To KB244: Nice to see a fellow midwesterner here. Tri-X will give you much finer grain in D-76 or Tmax Developer. You got nice tonality though, and like I said above, using Microphen probably saved you on these photos since it gives a slight speed increase with most films. I can't give any advice on focusing screens, since I have never used the camera system you have. On scanning and printing: Your Canon scanner is a dedicated film scanner, it will beat any flatbed for image sharpness. If you make wet prints, they'll have less grain than your scans show, since film scanners tend to increase the appearance of grain. I scan all my film because I have serious health issues that keep me from doing darkroom work, but I do miss the finer grain my wet prints had.

I have three (!) MX cameras, one in the gorgeous basic black. I use it with a 50mm f1.2 and I've had no problems with accuracy of focus. You might load up with a slow film, mount the camera to a tripod, and shoot as close as the lens will focus, wide open, a newspaper sheet at an angle, with the point of focus indicated with a scribed line. The lines of print in front of and behind the line will indicate accuracy of focus, at least close enough for most of us. You might use that Tamron macro for this test, since it will have flatter field of focus than a fast 50mm. Again on a tripod with a slow film, shoot at wide open aperture distant trees, or even the moon! Use the basic daylight exposure, since the moon is a day lite object, of f16 and/or f11 at shutter speed of 1 over the ASA index of the film. Thus with ASA 400 you'd use 1/400 or 1/500, which is close enough.

I've had no problems with focus accuracy on my MXs or my LXs (yes, I'm a Pentax junkie!), but I have had problems with the infamous sticky mirror on the LXs and with rapid battery drain on the MXs. Love the viewfinder on the bayonet Pentaxes! I also have a black ME Super, and a KX, and....

Watch for the MX winder. They're typically not too expensive, and add a little added mass and bulk, and make for me at least vertical shooting easier. Do know that the little wheel to access the four AA cells to power the winder threads into the plastic of the winder and can be easily stripped out. Bad design, Pentax! The ME winder has a far better battery tray, as does the winder for the LX. And BTW, the right angle finder for the Olympus OM cameras will fit the MX and the MEs, and may be cheaper. Since you've got the Tamron macro the right angle finder would make those ground level closeups much easier. If you decide to sell that Tamron, let me know....

GRHazelton said:

...

Watch for the MX winder. They're typically not too expensive, and add a little added mass and bulk, and make for me at least vertical shooting easier. Do know that the little wheel to access the four AA cells to power the winder threads into the plastic of the winder and can be easily stripped out. Bad design, Pentax! The ME winder has a far better battery tray, as does the winder for the LX. And BTW, the right angle finder for the Olympus OM cameras will fit the MX and the MEs, and may be cheaper. Since you've got the Tamron macro the right angle finder would make those ground level closeups much easier. If you decide to sell that Tamron, let me know....

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips on accessories/etc.
Far as slow film, I can always load up some of my ultratec film which I rate for ISO 3 or 6 depending on how stark my scenes shadows will be, typically I develop that in hc-110 (though I been thinking of stand developing the ultratec with hc110 to help slowly build up the shadows)

It would fit the bill as it's extremely sharp, very high contrast, and to some extent grain less.

Example off my Canon 7 rangefinder with a Canon Serenar 35/2.8, tray developed to figure a starting point. (which lead me to figure ISO 3 would be best for that formula)



Developer choices for me right now is primarily sprint, hc-110, or the stock microphen I mixed a couple weeks ago and stashed in the campus darkroom. There's also a crap load of FG-7 concentrate in the back room next to all the microphen boxes. In a nutshell that's all at my deposal as the school switched to using sprint cubes for all the class work, I'm the only one using the huge print dryer with the 26 feet belt as well since I'm the only only printing fiber based paper as well (some 1950s stock, and some warm tone Ilford semi mat fb 8x10).

Essentially I want to stick with what I have access to, that won't exhaust in less than a week after mixing.

kb244 said:

Developer choices for me right now is primarily sprint, hc-110, or the stock microphen I mixed a couple weeks ago and stashed in the campus darkroom. There's also a crap load of FG-7 concentrate in the back room next to all the microphen boxes. In a nutshell that's all at my deposal as the school switched to using sprint cubes for all the class work, I'm the only one using the huge print dryer with the 26 feet belt as well since I'm the only only printing fiber based paper as well (some 1950s stock, and some warm tone Ilford semi mat fb 8x10).

Essentially I want to stick with what I have access to, that won't exhaust in less than a week after mixing.

Click to expand...

Actually Sprint is a very good developer. e.g. I prefer it over Xtol and D76 for FP4.

haziz said:

Actually Sprint is a very good developer. e.g. I prefer it over Xtol and D76 for FP4.

Click to expand...

I didn't care for the grain shape it produced when I tried HP5+ with it (I only have a couple of those rolls). Do you perhaps have a different inversion process when you're using it? Here we just do the standard 1:9 dilution, and has us do constant agitation the full first minute, and then just 5~10 seconds each minute after. HP5+ if I recall was about 10 minutes I think on the chart.

Though when I look up the the actual website for them, it's only 15 seconds initially, with a single inversion every minute after.
Maybe I should try it again with this roll of HP5+ I got 4 frames left to do (mostly focusing test on a tripod with my 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 90/2.8 1:1 Macro, with a couple of the shots near 1:1).

I came late to the Pentax system after being a user of Canon and Nikon. But little by little i'm becoming a Pentax fan.

For me, the M-system and the M-lenses are an overall improvement over the Olympus OM system - the compact SLR system that of course was the direct inspiration for the Pentax M-system. Of course, perhaps this is not fair to Olympus since they came first (1971), and they were a small company compared to Asahi Pentax, by then the biggest camera manufacturer in the world. Funny enough, the original name of the OM-1 was "M-1".

The MX, ME and M-this M-that look very nice for being compact cameras. I now own many M42 takumar lenses and the build quality on these is superb; i would expect to be the K, M and A lenses to be good as well. The A cameras also look really good (Super A, Program A). The Super A and Program A seem to have most of the features of the Canon A-1 (a camera I like) but with a proper, well implemented manual mode (a major shortcoming of the A-1). On the other hand the LED display of the A-1 is more beautiful and clearer.

What i find lacking on the Pentax As and Ms is that they don't have memory lock (exposure lock). The P cameras that followed do have the lock.

At the end i settled on a Pentax P30, it was displayed for sale for months and months on a local ads website, nobody wanted it, not even me. Until i researched more about the camera and tested one in real life. It is really a nice camera and the memory lock is really well implemented: Unlike the Canon A-1, Nikkormat EL, Nikon F3, Canon EF and many other manual focus cameras, it really LOCKS, that is, you don't need to keep holding the little button. This makes Program shooting really convenient. You can even lock the exposure in manual mode -- great!

Couple this with the very good GPD sensor of the P30 meter (also used on the M- and A- Pentaxes), and you have a camera that works really well on Program. I also like the very simple operation -- just set the Pentax-A lens to "A" setting and the camera switches to Program mode, no more dials to move. Move it off from "A" and you're in program mode. The shutter speed dial is a dial, not a pushbutton switch like in the ME cameras. The screen is clear and easy to use. It also has DOF preview unlike the MEs.

The only major drawback i find is the lack of ISO setting. It relies on DX code.

All in all i bought three P30 bodies. One in perfect shape is going to be gifted to my girlfriend. The other two were broken and I managed to disassemble them and repair one of them, so I have my own P30 now!!

Internally it is a metal camera, not a plastic camera. But the top cover is plastic. A bit fragile in my opinion. The internal construction of the camera is not superb, but good. The shutter and mirror action is smooth, i was positively surprised to see it uses a governor to reduce mirror shock just like in the Canon A-series. I think the Pentax "A" cameras (Super Program, Program Plus, Super A, Program A) also have it. For me this is a major reason to applaud the camera.

All in all, a great compact SLR camera for going out doing Point&Shoot while enjoying interchangeable, high quality lenses, and being able to nail the exposure every time (using the lock), or using manual mode if one wants. It is ridiculous that the K1000 sells for so much where the P30s are dime-a-dozen and does most of what the K1000 does. It even has a depth of field lever!

Now i desperately want a P50 camera! And more Pentax-A lenses!!

kb244 said:

I didn't care for the grain shape it produced when I tried HP5+ with it (I only have a couple of those rolls). Do you perhaps have a different inversion process when you're using it? Here we just do the standard 1:9 dilution, and has us do constant agitation the full first minute, and then just 5~10 seconds each minute after. HP5+ if I recall was about 10 minutes I think on the chart.

Though when I look up the the actual website for them, it's only 15 seconds initially, with a single inversion every minute after.
Maybe I should try it again with this roll of HP5+ I got 4 frames left to do (mostly focusing test on a tripod with my 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 90/2.8 1:1 Macro, with a couple of the shots near 1:1).

Click to expand...

Dilution is 1:9. I agitate for 30 sec initially then 2 inversions every 30 sec at 20 deg C. The times on the bottle or box are fine. I use 10 min for FP4+ at 20 deg C.

flavio81 said:

I came late to the Pentax system after being a user of Canon and Nikon. But little by little i'm becoming a Pentax fan.
..

Click to expand...

When it comes to older film cameras, I tend to have a inclination to go with one that uses purely mechanical shutters. Which was course one of the reasons why I went towards an MX instead of an ME, or K2 since the latter will only do B,1/125 without a battery (Basically Bulb, and whatever the flash sync speed is for that specific model). I don't mind a battery so as long as it only matters for the meter and not the operation of the camera. Kind of why in the past I went with a Canon FTb and a "New F1"(1981, which only did electronic shutter from 1/60 down, otherwise mechanical for everything else) instead of an AE-1.

I did actually look at the P30 (P30n specifically was what I saw a few of that peeked my interest). But the lack of ISO control without DX coding was the deal breaker since I do a bit of bulk rolling with unconventional film, or may shoot other than the box speed on commercially packaged rolls (some being off brand don't have DX codes).

The only automatic mode I've used on a camera if I use it tends to be aperture priority, and mostly during events or stuff like street protests etc. Otherwise, even on my digital I'm shooting 98% of the time in full manual mode, half the time manually focusing (Even though on my digital now, I have a set of native AF lens for my grab-n-go kit, being an Olympus 12mm f/2.0, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, and Olympus 45mm f/1.8, but I tend to adapt some of my older lens half the time and use those, like the 1951 Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 which is extremely sharp in the center, and sharpens up around 5.6~8 on the edges).

haziz said:

Dilution is 1:9. I agitate for 30 sec initially then 2 inversions every 30 sec at 20 deg C. The times on the bottle or box are fine. I use 10 min for FP4+ at 20 deg C.

Click to expand...

Going to try the box specs this afternoon so I can see what I get. We have these huge cubes of Sprint, since for the developer, we just measure right off the tap of the cube, and discard after the one-shot use. For the rest of the sprint cubes we make large tanks of the stop, fix, fix remover, that we dump back into the top until the whole thing is exhausted. (though on the print side, we dump the trays at the end of the night rather than reuse, but we don't use fixer remover on the print side, same sprint chemistry though).

kb244 said:

..............
Going to try the box specs this afternoon so I can see what I get. We have these huge cubes of Sprint, since for the developer, we just measure right off the tap of the cube, and discard after the one-shot use. For the rest of the sprint cubes we make large tanks of the stop, fix, fix remover, that we dump back into the top until the whole thing is exhausted. (though on the print side, we dump the trays at the end of the night rather than reuse, but we don't use fixer remover on the print side, same sprint chemistry though).

Click to expand...

All of the Sprint chemistry is surprisingly good! Their print developer is my standard print developer. For that matter, so is their stop, rapid fixer and fixer remover.

kb244 said:

When it comes to older film cameras, I tend to have a inclination to go with one that uses purely mechanical shutters.

Click to expand...

Usually, electronic cameras (purely electronic shutter) rely on less mechanical parts, and in my view this makes them more reliable and easier to service. I, contrary of what many people think here, feel camera electronics are highly reliable, at least once you get past the era of old, "early" camera electronics (i.e. Pentax Electro Spotmatic).

flavio81 said:

Usually, electronic cameras (purely electronic shutter) rely on less mechanical parts, and in my view this makes them more reliable and easier to service. I, contrary of what many people think here, feel camera electronics are highly reliable, at least once you get past the era of old, "early" camera electronics (i.e. Pentax Electro Spotmatic).

Click to expand...

Newer electronic ones (i.e.: late 80s onward) are what I liked more, especially once the top speeds started getting more critical (1/4,000th etc)... but I don't like the autofocus cameras, their matte screens tend to be very poor for manual focusing (and I don't have any Pentax AF lens, I had the lens before I got the camera, because I adapted them to my digital).

I used to have a Canon EOS-1 that I used with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk II that I really liked, but outside of that I didn't really use autofocus film bodies. And the one electronically timed shutter manual focus body I did have briefly was an AE-1 that suffered the squeaky death which didn't seem to be self-serviceable.

It's not really a matter of trusting the the timing or reliability or not, it's more a matter of, if the battery dies, I still want to be able to control everything since I can either A) Guesstimate exposure (outside, during the day), or B) use my Gossen Digisix. Since from my understanding it's not like those models warn you of low battery, they just die (i.e.: battery still good as long as the light comes on, but there's no warning when its coming to an end).

I didn't have time to wet print today, too busy with the digital lab, but I did develop the second roll using the sprint chemistry. Just stuck it on the flatbed in the sleeve and just did a quick scan of it.



The notes I took as I shot each frame (also noticed that I wound one too many and started on '1', instead of '0', so there's 35 frames)

Frame 1 : 1/125 f/2.2 50mm
Meter shows green in center of frame
Prints on the wall.
Focus using split on edge of print on Wall.

Frame 2 : same but with 85mm

Frame 3 : same as 2, portrait orientation, focus split prism on edge of flower and bowl prints.

Frame 4&5 (50mm): 1/250 f/1.4 meter shows half a stop over (1/124 would be half under)
Focus on edge of ruler. First one by microprism, second by split and micro really close.

Frame 6 and 7
1/125 & 1.4
1/60 & 2.2
Meter green on both checker shots.
Split focus on #5 on right edge of circle
Microprism focus on neon sign towards left of word got #6

Frame 8 - 16 (50mm f/1.4)
Focus on second thumbtack at the metal pin, via horizontal split prism
Incident Meter Reading 1/1,000 @ f/1.4 for ISO 400, shooting +1 over.

Frame 8: 1/500th @ f/1.4
Frame 9: 1/250th @ f/2
Frame 10: 1/125 @ f/2.8
Frame 11: 1/60 @ f/4
Frame 12: 1/30 @ f/5.6
Frame 13: 1/15 @ f/8
Frame 14: 1/8 @ f/11
Frame 15: 1/4 @ f/16
Frame 16: 1/2 @ f/22

Frame 17: (90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1)
1/500 @ f/2.8 (incident metered to the same)
Focus on center thumbtack with split right on the metal barrel/shaft.

Frame 18 : 1/500 f/2.8 (closer crop, focus approx 0.305 meter)
Frame 19: 1/1,000 f/2.8
Frame 20: 1/250 f/2.8

Focus on closest strip of paper towards lens. Focus approx 0.33m
Frame 21: 1/250 f/2.8 (incident meter reads 10EV + 2/3, so barely 1/3 under, reflective shows 1/2 under light)

Focus on grid directly behind all paper strips, 0.34m
Frame 22: 1/250 f/2.8 (reflective shows green)

Focus on closest strip of paper towards lens on top of wood
TTL Meter shows green for 1/250 @ f/8
Frame 23 : 1/250 f/8
Frame 24 : 1/125 f/8 (+1 over previous, shows +1/2 over on LED)

Focus on wood grain (Incident shows 1/250 @ f/5.6 , EV13)
*almost* 1:1 life-size, reflective shows -1 (red) LED for 1/125 @ f/8
Focusing attempt was primarily between the matte and micro prism ring. Split was getting difficult to eyeball exactly.

Frame 25: 1/125 f/8
Frame 26: 1/125 f/5.6
Frame 27: 1/125 f/4

*Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 from this point*

Frame 28:
Incident meter shows 9-2/3~ 10EV (1/500, f/1.4)
Reflective says +1 stop over (top red LED)
1/500 f/1.4
Focus via micro prism ring on the chrome trim in the middle of the Pentax-50/1.4 lens.

Frame 29: 1/500 f/4 (Same as above, but with green Reflective LED, which brings it to exposed for the background)

Frame 30: Selfie attempt with timer
1/125 @ f/2.8, pre-focused on ledge of window still, then re-composed.

Frame 31: Drawings on hallway, Focus on left edge of the 4th drawing on the bottom row. Roughly split and micro prism seem to match on the vertical.
1/125 @ f/2.8
Reflective meter was put at +1/2 overexposed at the area of the drawings, when recomposing with the shadow area in the center of the frame, meter showed green LED.


Frame 33: 1/250 f/1.4 (meter green at center)

Frame 34: 1/125 2.2 (meter green on brown top portion)

Frame 35:
Focus on second hanging light closest to lens
1/125 2.2
Set meter to show red (-1) on a black painted podium/stand.

Click to expand...

Nice photos. I also have a number of Pentax MX bodies. My only complaint about them is that the grid type focusing screen made for them is not really suitable for use with a macro lens, especially a slow one. The screen with only the central microprism and no split image area works best for me. Lately I have been using my ME Supers more. I find myself using the exposure compensation dial regularly but with good results.

Looking forward to see your results and findings with the SA-3 focusing screen.

MrclSchprs said:

Looking forward to see your results and findings with the SA-3 focusing screen.

Click to expand...

Got an SA-1 in there currently, if I can find an SA-3, I'll likely snag it.

Only issue I can see just from the small previews of the second test roll, is I think there's a possibility that f/22 isn't being fully stopped down (like it's no narrower than f/16) on frame 16.

kb244 said:

And the one electronically timed shutter manual focus body I did have briefly was an AE-1 that suffered the squeaky death which didn't seem to be self-serviceable.

Click to expand...

But it IS user-serviceable. You can google the many ways you can fix that yourself.

Kudos to you for guesstimating exposure, that's what Real Photographers do.

kb244 said:

Only issue I can see just from the small previews of the second test roll, is I think there's a possibility that f/22 isn't being fully stopped down (like it's no narrower than f/16) on frame 16.

Click to expand...

Typical problem on many lenses. Just a bit of dirt / lack of cleaniness on the internal cam that sets the aperture diameter will make f22 appear the same as f16. Even f16 equal to f11 in some cases.

Those scans up top are really good for a cheap flatbed. Got any secrets?

Hatchetman said:

Those scans up top are really good for a cheap flatbed. Got any secrets?

Click to expand...

Not sure if the Epson at the school is considered a "cheapie", basically I got lucky because you're supposed to use a film holder/guide, but the epson software lets you do a preview of the whole bed , so all I did was lay the sleeve on the glass, hit preview a couple times until I got it straight, scanned it at 1200 dpi (didn't need to be more since I figured it's not at the 'focused' distance without a holder). Then moved it up and scanned the bottom portion of it, and then stitched them together in photoshop. Since the negative is supposed to be in a holder, closing the lid will not even touch the sleeve, it just sits there un-squeezed/un-pinched.

The remainder of work in photoshop was simply adding a levels adjustment layer, clicking the black point on the clear portion of the leader at the bottom (ie: the black area), and the white eye dropper on the white point of the leader on the bottom (ie: 100% total exposure to light, or the densest part of the negative, since the little info on the edge of the negative isn't going to be as dense as total overexposure). And then just a curves adjustment level to taste, as long as the layer applies to the whole image, then it should remain relatively equivalent to each other when evaluating.

I just got back home from a movie (today is my birthday), so later tonight I'll load the strips up directly in my Canon FS4000US and get some 4000dpi scans and see how they are. I really want to wet print but might not be able to until next week.

The scan above was my 'lazy' attempt because I didn't want to have to remove them from the sleeves, rather take them out when at home on my good scanner.

Edit If you meant the single scans up in post #1, that's not a flat bed, that's my Canon FS4000US which is a dedicated 35mm scanner, that's old as hell, and has two SCSI 50 pin ports and a USB port which I use with VueScan (no other software since windows 98 will recognize the scanner that I'm aware of on Windows 10).

Oh my mistake! I thought the Canon was a flatbed. Sorry. They looked really good, no wonder!