Pentax MX vs Nikon FM

[Huss]

I have an MX and the FM (as well as FM2n etc etc).
The FM's shutter speed dial is bigger and easier to turn, on the MX it is smaller and stiffer. Film advance throw is shorter on the FM. Exposure read out is much easier to see on the FM - the MX is easily washed out in bright light. But it is nice how the MX has the shutter speed selection next to the LEDs. So you only have to look to the right side for Shutter and LED, and up for aperture read out. Nikon with the FM has you looking all over thje place - the shutter speeds are on the left, the LEDS are on the right, and the aperture is on the top.
The FM can only shoot with the film advance lever pulled out to the first stop. This also turns on the meter. Pushing it flush turns off the meter and locks the shutter. I prefer how the MX has a separate shutter lock and it can shoot with the lever flush or at the first stop.
The MX has a pretty narrow ISO range - 32-1600 - which is surprising. I shoot a lot of ISO 6, 8, 12 films. FM is 12-3200.
The MD12 motor winder (if you care for one) is much much cheaper and easier to find than the MX winder, and it is also better built.
Apparently the MX has interchangeable screens, but this is through the lens mount which is not very convenient. Nothing like a camera that has a removable prism.

The MX is cooler because it is more unique, but frankly the FM is easier to use, it's size makes it better to hold onto, and for me with the ISO range, better specs.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Where are you finding these cheap Pentax lenses? Every time I look for K-mount lenses (the original K-series and M-series ones are what I'm interested in), the prices are very similar to Nikon AI/AI-S lenses? Nikon made the AI/AI-S lenses for a lot longer than Pentax made K- and M-series glass, and I think there is a lot more Nikon glass out there, so even if the prices are the same, the Nikon lenses are easier to find.

Pentax screw mount lenses are another story. I've found them much cheaper than Nikon glass and they are easily as good.

 

[Chan Tran]

I like them both but if I have to make a choice it would be the FM. There are more Nikkor lenses available used than Pentax K mount.

 

[mehguy]

Where are you finding these cheap Pentax lenses? Every time I look for K-mount lenses (the original K-series and M-series ones are what I'm interested in), the prices are very similar to Nikon AI/AI-S lenses? Nikon made the AI/AI-S lenses for a lot longer than Pentax made K- and M-series glass, and I think there is a lot more Nikon glass out there, so even if the prices are the same, the Nikon lenses are easier to find.

Pentax screw mount lenses are another story. I've found them much cheaper than Nikon glass and they are easily as good.

A quick peak at ebay sold listings it seems like you can pick up something like a Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 for under 50 usd, while if you wanted to get a 50mm Nikkor you're at least going to spend 75-100 USD. Even the Series E, which is considered "budget" is not cheaper. The Pentax lenses seem more inline with the prices of the non-ai Nikon lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

You also have a wide selection of K mount lens from Chinon, Cosina, Ricoh, I have lens from each and all perform quite well, just need to be careful as the differnt brands made changes to the basic K which are not compatible with the basic K mount.

 

[flavio81]

The Pentax MX is more affordable (upfront cost for the body seems to be the same as the Nikon FM but the lenses are a lot cheaper) but from what it seems, the FM seems to have the edge over the MX and just pentaxes in general as the more reliable and all around better built camera.

The edge by which measure? The MX is a far superior camera by almost every measure. It is better built, better finished, and it has a mirror and shutter action which is FAR smoother than the one on the FM/FE. And it has a better reliability record. Ah, also the viewfinder --- much better in every sense.

I really like my FE, which is similar to the FM on many counts. But my MX cameras? they are on a higher tier. The MX was marketed as the top of the line Pentax until the LX came. The FM was just an amateur Nikon.

As for pentax lenses, they have little to envy to Nikon lenses, and I own a lot of Nikkors as well. But my 50/1.4 Pentax-A is a better lens than any of the 50/1.4 Nikkors and Canons i've had. And the A 28/2.8 is faultless. The 40/2.8 is unique and a very good lens, so i can't complain. And I can use any M42 lens as well.

 

[flavio81]

I've used both and like them both. I suppose if I were to choose one it would be the FM due to more numerous "interesting" lenses available for it. For example, try finding a 35/2 by Pentax vs Nikkor or a fast tele like 180/2.8, etc.

Well Nikon has very few 35/2 lenses:

The Nikkor-O lens [1965] formula was used all through their 60s and 70s and 80s... the mount was updated, the lens multicoated, but basically it stayed the same lens.

And then you have the inferior 35/2 AF. So in total: Two designs [2].

With Pentax you have:
35/2 super takumar [mid 60s]
35/2 super takumar, second version (smaller filter diameter), late 60s, a completely different design, carried over to K mount
35/2 Pentax-M, completely different design
and then the FA limited 31 and 43mm lenses, both f1.9

 

[flavio81]

I like them both but if I have to make a choice it would be the FM. There are more Nikkor lenses available used than Pentax K mount.

As i mentioned before, maybe more exotic lenses in Nikon mount, but if you want the traditional, useful lenses, Pentax got you covered. Plus you can use M42 lenses, something that Nikon cameras can't do (unless putting an adapter that causes optical degradation). So the gamut of lenses is:

M42 takumars
Pentax K series
Pentax M series
Pentax A series
modern series like the "FA limited", really good lenses.

I have always liked Pentax lenses. Even though I'm a big Canon and Nikon fan, sometimes I feel Nikkor MF lenses were designed for photojournalists, aiming for max central resolution and contrast wideopen, and to hell with the rest. Canon FD lenses? designed to beat Nikkors on lens tests. But neither were intentionally designed to give nice rendering. Things like bokeh weren't important for them. I feel Pentax lenses were in general created to render nice images. And I surely got great results from my small array of Pentax lenses, i can't complain at all.

 

[narsuitus]

In the late 1960s, the Nikkor 35mm f/2 lens was the first lens I purchased for my Nikon F. I later had it AI'd by Nikon. It was my favorite lens for decades until it was replaced by the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4.

I also have the Asahi Pentax 35mm f/3.5 Super Takumar. Also an excellent lens.

I have been very pleased with the Nikon and Pentax lenses that I own and use.

 

[mehguy]

The edge by which measure? The MX is a far superior camera by almost every measure. It is better built, better finished, and it has a mirror and shutter action which is FAR smoother than the one on the FM/FE. And it has a better reliability record. Ah, also the viewfinder --- much better in every sense.

I really like my FE, which is similar to the FM on many counts. But my MX cameras? they are on a higher tier. The MX was marketed as the top of the line Pentax until the LX came. The FM was just an amateur Nikon.

As for pentax lenses, they have little to envy to Nikon lenses, and I own a lot of Nikkors as well. But my 50/1.4 Pentax-A is a better lens than any of the 50/1.4 Nikkors and Canons i've had. And the A 28/2.8 is faultless. The 40/2.8 is unique and a very good lens, so i can't complain. And I can use any M42 lens as well.

It is very much is anecdotal but from my research it seems like the Nikon FM is pretty much bullet proof while the MX has some issues (incorrect frame spacing etc). Is the MX really a higher tier though? The FM is using the titanium vertically traveling shutter. If we compare it to Nikon's higher tier, the F2, the F2 uses a titanium shutter while the mx uses the older style cloth shutter, it has higher flash sync and 1/2000th shutter speeds.

Was the FM really an amateur camera? Many professionals used it as a backup. Definitely not on the level of the flagship F series but certainly not on the level of the amateur EM, FG etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nikon has a much larger lens selection. I personally now use a Nikon FM2n, and mostly use only a single lens, the classic 85/1.4 Ai. But my first camera was the early Pentax H1, a great performer, and the less contrasty rendering of the Takumar lens was a plus back in those Kodachrome days. As far as the MX goes, I gave one of these to my nephew for his climbing expeditions to the arctic, Himalayas, Patagonia, etc. Needed something simple, mechanical, and petite. It didn't need any winterization and proved entirely reliable; but the metering battery could obviously get cold and read incorrectly in those sub-zero conditions.

 

[mehguy]

As i mentioned before, maybe more exotic lenses in Nikon mount, but if you want the traditional, useful lenses, Pentax got you covered. Plus you can use M42 lenses, something that Nikon cameras can't do (unless putting an adapter that causes optical degradation). So the gamut of lenses is:

M42 takumars
Pentax K series
Pentax M series
Pentax A series
modern series like the "FA limited", really good lenses.

I have always liked Pentax lenses. Even though I'm a big Canon and Nikon fan, sometimes I feel Nikkor MF lenses were designed for photojournalists, aiming for max central resolution and contrast wideopen, and to hell with the rest. Canon FD lenses? designed to beat Nikkors on lens tests. But neither were intentionally designed to give nice rendering. Things like bokeh weren't important for them. I feel Pentax lenses were in general created to render nice images. And I surely got great results from my small array of Pentax lenses, i can't complain at all.

Which pentax lenses are you using? Are the "kit" ones like the 50mm f2 still good?

 

[BobD]

Well Nikon has very few 35/2 lenses:

The Nikkor-O lens [1965] formula was used all through their 60s and 70s and 80s... the mount was updated, the lens multicoated, but basically it stayed the same lens.

And then you have the inferior 35/2 AF. So in total: Two designs [2].

With Pentax you have:
35/2 super takumar [mid 60s]
35/2 super takumar, second version (smaller filter diameter), late 60s, a completely different design, carried over to K mount
35/2 Pentax-M, completely different design
and then the FA limited 31 and 43mm lenses, both f1.9

The point is how easy or difficult they are to find, not how many different versions they made.

It's the number of lenses out there. Nikon wins there over Pentax.

 

[Les Sarile]

It is very much is anecdotal but from my research it seems like the Nikon FM is pretty much bullet proof while the MX has some issues (incorrect frame spacing etc). Is the MX really a higher tier though? The FM is using the titanium vertically traveling shutter. If we compare it to Nikon's higher tier, the F2, the F2 uses a titanium shutter while the mx uses the older style cloth shutter, it has higher flash sync and 1/2000th shutter speeds.

Was the FM really an amateur camera? Many professionals used it as a backup. Definitely not on the level of the flagship F series but certainly not on the level of the amateur EM, FG etc.

The MX was at one point Pentax's pro camera with interchangeable screens, backs and motor options . . .

The Nikon FM shutter is by Copal and not by Nikon and it isn;t titanium. Nikon itself didn't trust vertical shutters on their 1980 release F3 camera and stayed with horizontal shutters albeit titanium.
The horizontal travel rubberized shutter curtain on the MX is a tried and true reliable design that is even used on the Leica rangefinders as late as the M7 as they are more quiet then the vertical shutter.

 

[flavio81]

It is very much is anecdotal but from my research it seems like the Nikon FM is pretty much bullet proof.

No it is not, and i have found way too many FM and Fe bodies with issues on the secondhand market.

As per the shutter, please read Les Sarile's reply.

 

[flavio81]

Which pentax lenses are you using? Are the "kit" ones like the 50mm f2 still good?

The 50/2 is pretty good once stopped down, and has nice bokeh. Moreover it is the 50 that best balances with the MX.

I have:
M 20/4
A 28/2.8
M 40/2.8
A 50/1.4
M 50/1.7
K 105/2.8

Then i have some M42 lenses including some famed stuff like the Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4, a very nice lens

 

[flavio81]

The point is how easy or difficult they are to find, not how many different versions they made.

It's the number of lenses out there. Nikon wins there over Pentax.

I don't understand your reasoning. Pentax sold more cameras than Nikon and Canon combined. Surely there should be as many Pentax lenses out there.
And then the MX can use M42 lenses too, which are over a thousand in variety.

 

[Craig75]

I have both and both are very good cameras.

i got mx with a 28 50 and 200 smc for £80 so it makes good cheap high quality set up. Getting it serviced was cheap too.

I have fm2/t which is lighter than mx but i use that for shift lenses as the more "exotic" lenses (ultrawides, super teles, shifts) are far rarer and more expensive or just dont exist in k mount.

I only have pentax 43mm in leica mount but thats a really beautiful lens in terms of imaging and build quality and just really nice to use so you can get some really baller lenses in k mount. Nikon has the better system though if you want to add to it over time.

 

[Huss]

I find the meter read outs in the KX far superior than the MX. Much easier to see in pretty much all lighting conditions.
Wait, we're not talking about the KX? Oh, the FM's meter readings are also much easier to see then the dim LEDs in the MX.

Choosing between the FM and the MX? Get the one that looks nicer to you. They are both very sweet cameras.

 

[George Mann]

sometimes I feel Nikkor MF lenses were designed for photojournalists, aiming for max central resolution and contrast wideopen, and to hell with the rest.

Nikkor lenses perform their best when stopped down. I personally prefer the multi-coated 50mm F2, and 105mm f2.5 over all other available lenses in their focal range.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

The MX was at one point Pentax's pro camera with interchangeable screens, backs and motor options . . .

The Nikon FM shutter is by Copal and not by Nikon and it isn;t titanium. Nikon itself didn't trust vertical shutters on their 1980 release F3 camera and stayed with horizontal shutters albeit titanium.
The horizontal travel rubberized shutter curtain on the MX is a tried and true reliable design that is even used on the Leica rangefinders as late as the M7 as they are more quiet then the vertical shutter.

Is that a custom finish on this MX? Looks awesome!

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I have always liked Pentax lenses. Even though I'm a big Canon and Nikon fan, sometimes I feel Nikkor MF lenses were designed for photojournalists, aiming for max central resolution and contrast wideopen, and to hell with the rest. Canon FD lenses? designed to beat Nikkors on lens tests. But neither were intentionally designed to give nice rendering. Things like bokeh weren't important for them. I feel Pentax lenses were in general created to render nice images. And I surely got great results from my small array of Pentax lenses, i can't complain at all.

This is a very interesting statement. I find the images I get out of my Pentax lenses very pleasant to my eye. I'm curious if there are any interviews with engineers at any of these companies discussing their design philosophies.

 

[BobD]

I don't understand your reasoning. Pentax sold more cameras than Nikon and Canon combined. Surely there should be as many Pentax lenses out there.
And then the MX can use M42 lenses too, which are over a thousand in variety.

I am going by 20+ years of buying & selling on eBay and at local camera shows. There are simply more used MF Nikon lenses available than K-mount Pentax, at least those with less common specs such as faster wide angles and teles.

Look for yourself. Search eBay for 24/2 or 35/2 MF Nikkors vs K-mount SMC Pentax.

 

[Paul Howell]

I would agree that if OP wants to shoot fast glass or say a 180 or a PC lens then Nikon lens are more common.

 

[flavio81]

I am going by 20+ years of buying & selling on eBay and at local camera shows. There are simply more used MF Nikon lenses available than K-mount Pentax, at least those with less common specs such as faster wide angles and teles.

Look for yourself. Search eBay for 24/2 or 35/2 MF Nikkors vs K-mount SMC Pentax.

I routinely buy canon FD, nikkors, and Pentax lenses on eBay and i have no problem getting Pentax lenses. 35/2 is not a rare lens. Pentax 24/2 FA* is a rare lens, but currently there are 8 samples for sale on eBay.

Yes of course there will be more listings for nikkor lenses, I agree. But the difference isn't a show stopper.