Pentax MX

[johnha]

Many Pentaxians prefer the KX - mainly due to the 'match needle' metering display and the ergonomics (the shutter speed dial is easier to turn with the camera at the eye). If you wear glasses you may struggle to see all of the MX finder. The KX feels better built (very similar to a Leica M4).

K1000s are often more expensive (thanks to hipsters) but usually much younger cameras as they started production towards the end of KM, K2 & KX production and continued for 30 years (out living that of the MX too).

 

[Huss]

Oh.....OK.
I thought it was something that assisted with the hard to turn shutter speed dial.
I see it is a camera grip. Nicely made, i am kind of surprised they did not offer them for More/Other cameras.

I was amazed when i switched from a Canon AE1 to the Canon AE1-P. The P model added that rather small, grip at the battery door. It is incredible what a Big difference that Small piece made.

They offer them for lots of kameras. I just linked to the Pentax MX as this is a Pentax MX thread.

https://www.cameradactyl.com/buttergrip

I also have one for my Voigtlander Bessa L, and would get one for my F2 if it didn't already have a much more expensive ($85) metal grip that I bought years ago. Which is much less pleasant to use..

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...

What is that nice compact lens you have?

 

[CMoore]

They offer them for lots of kameras. I just linked to the Pentax MX as this is a Pentax MX thread.

https://www.cameradactyl.com/buttergrip

I also have one for my Voigtlander Bessa L, and would get one for my F2 if it didn't already have a much more expensive ($85) metal grip that I bought years ago. Which is much less pleasant to use..

Oh... OK (again)
Yeah, they seem like a good idea.
I am surprised i have never seen one before.
My Oly OM1n would probably benefit from one of those.
Thanks for the Info/Post.!

 

[Prest_400]

I got a Pentax MX with a 40mm 2.8 pancake, adopted from another forum where a member gave it away. Also, has the common non working meter issue. If you google there's one proposed solution that involves bent contacts. I may have to try it but as I didn't have the battery I just went into sunny 16 use, or the incident meter I have. Built in metering is very convenient so I should look into it.
The 40mm 2.8 makes it a coat pocketable camera. My current style leans towards medium format, so for 35mm I am carrying convenient P&S mostly and I am not using the MX that much. However that lens seems well suited for sunny 16 and hyperfocal focus. I had an OM1 and good luck with the 40mm pancake prices/availability but that was a lovely system as well.

I have one with a meter that isn't working. I've been told it's a common issue with the MX. Have been using it without the meter. So small and light with a 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm prime that I use with a wrist strap.

I love mine, but I do have a few caveats. The large viewfinder is nice, but sometimes I think it is a little too large.

It is an issue for glasses users, as I am. But also happened to be with an OM1 and GW690... The eyepoint and added distance from glasses makes it hard to see the whole VF. Infact, I liked a lowly Nikon F80 for the smaller VF and diopter adjustment, which made it possible to use without glasses.

 

[cuthbert]

I understand that the MX was the pro level body until the release of the LX. Never owned a MX, did consider it when I was thinking about trading in my F2 for an LX and a MX as a second body. I liked the size and wt of both, but a deal on the F3 and the cost of replacing my Nikon lens set kept me with Nikon.

I had never known of the DMD before.....very nice camera.
Nikon, sort of, beat everybody to the punch to become THE "Professional SLR"
But you can see how all these major Japanese camera companies had the ability to be "Number One"

The Nikon beat everybody in the marketing department, in my experience it's definitely not the number one, the LX is a much better camera than a F2 at half the size....regarding the K2DMD it's hard to find because back in time it was much more expensive than a Nikon F2 but yes, it's amazing and definitely an underrated camera ahead of its time, it also has the famous "infinitive" lightmeter for long exposures that was later popularised by the LX.

Regarding the cost of "replacing the Nikon lenses", Pentax glass is so cheap that it's no brainer, even the excellent K50mm f1.2 costs half the price of a Nikkor 50mm f1.2 and it's definitely a better lens.

 

[Huss]

What is that nice compact lens you have?

That is the 40mm 2.8. I've read some less than flattering things about it but mine is really really nice. So I'm wondering if that is the case of one person not being happy with his copy, and being the internet people w/o actual experience then parrot that observation!

Shot on Fuji C200:

 

[Huss]

Possible meter fix:

http://no-exif.com/2011/07/24/pentax-mx-meter-fix/

 

[CMoore]

I do not know if that fixes the problem, but it sure is a lot of info and nice pictures. I really admire people that put this much effort into helping others.

 

[CMoore]

The Nikon beat everybody in the marketing department, in my experience it's definitely not the number one, the LX is a much better camera than a F2 at half the size....regarding the K2DMD it's hard to find because back in time it was much more expensive than a Nikon F2 but yes, it's amazing and definitely an underrated camera ahead of its time, it also has the famous "infinitive" lightmeter for long exposures that was later popularised by the LX.

Regarding the cost of "replacing the Nikon lenses", Pentax glass is so cheap that it's no brainer, even the excellent K50mm f1.2 costs half the price of a Nikkor 50mm f1.2 and it's definitely a better lens.

I do not know a lot about gear, but i thought the LX would have been more comparable to the F3.....didn't they release at a similar time.?

 

[Chan Tran]

I had never known of the DMD before.....very nice camera.
Nikon, sort of, beat everybody to the punch to become THE "Professional SLR"
But you can see how all these major Japanese camera companies had the ability to be "Number One"

It was the DMD that proved Nikon superiority during that time. The DMD was 2 fps while the F2 was 5 fps.

 

[cuthbert]

It was the DMD that proved Nikon superiority during that time. The DMD was 2 fps while the F2 was 5 fps.

Superiority of... motordrive speed? Besides the fact I never found the firing rate of that motordrive I can say in what a K2DMD is superior to a F2:

1) Brighter and bigger viewfinder
2) Vastly superior lightmeter, especially in low light
3) Aperture priority without mostruosities used by the F2
4) More compact camera
5) Argually better lenses
6) Exposure compensation
7) Better building quality IMO.

Nobody cares about the K2DMD motordrive as it's unbelievably rare and basically impossible to find with its battery pack....for all the rest the K2DMD looks more like a competitor for the F3 and not the F2. Here you can see in aperture priority automatic mode, in low light the camera can keep the shutter open for hours...how long it takes for the shot.

I do not know a lot about gear, but i thought the LX would have been more comparable to the F3.....didn't they release at a similar time.?

Yes you are right but I never wasted my money on the F3 owning a K2DMD, a LX, one Canon F-1n and two F-1N. All these cameras are better than the F3 and argually of my F2A and F2AS as well.

 

[MFstooges]

Superiority of... motordrive speed? Besides the fact I never found the firing rate of that motordrive I can say in what a K2DMD is superior to a F2:

1) Brighter and bigger viewfinder
2) Vastly superior lightmeter, especially in low light
3) Aperture priority without mostruosities used by the F2
4) More compact camera
5) Argually better lenses
6) Exposure compensation
7) Better building quality IMO.

Nobody cares about the K2DMD motordrive as it's unbelievably rare and basically impossible to find with its battery pack....for all the rest the K2DMD looks more like a competitor for the F3 and not the F2. Here you can see in aperture priority automatic mode, in low light the camera can keep the shutter open for hours...how long it takes for the shot. View attachment 227682



Yes you are right but I never wasted my money on the F3 owning a K2DMD, a LX, one Canon F-1n and two F-1N. All these cameras are better than the F3 and argually of my F2A and F2AS as well.

Other than K2DMD what other cameras have the ability to do such long exposure with AE? I think LX does? nikon F3?
Do they compensate with film reciprocal failure?

 

[cuthbert]

Other than K2DMD what other cameras have the ability to do such long exposure with AE? I think LX does? nikon F3?
Do they compensate with film reciprocal failure?

As far as I am aware just the K2DMD and the LX, I don't have a F3, but the LX also reacts to light during the exposure. Another camera good for long exposures is the Praktica B which stops after 45 seconds...all my Canons get as max 30 seconds, Les Sarile is famous for taking exposures of hours and it appears film reciprocal failure is not an issue.

...however this is the MX thread, and perhaps somebody might be interested in seeing this old advert...guess the camera behind the Pentax.

Another old ad:

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Although the F, F2, F3, etc., were certainly good professional cameras, what really elevated Nikon was NPS - Nikon Professional Services. With NPS, a pro on assignment almost anywhere in the world could get repairs, loaner cameras, various lenses, special lenses and other accessories - basically anything needed to make the job be successful.

 

[markbau]

Other than K2DMD what other cameras have the ability to do such long exposure with AE? I think LX does? nikon F3?
Do they compensate with film reciprocal failure?

I've never heard of a camera that compensates for reciprocity failure, that's something you have to figure out using the film data sheet. Typically I bracket for long exposures that I'm unsure about, 5sec, 10 sec, 20sec, 40sec, 80sec although lately I've been doing 2 stop brackets (5 sec, 20sec, 80sec,etc)

 

[MattKing]

The Olympus OM 20, OM 2 and 2s and 2n and and OM 4 and 4T all use off the film metering to enable automatic long exposures of varying lengths where the meter responds to changes in the light during those exposures.
From my collection of pdf'ed Olympus camera manuals:
The OM 20 has probably the most limited offering shortest limitation - a maximum limitation of 2 seconds.
The OM 2s has a maximum limitation of one minute.
The OM 2 has a maximum limitation of two minutes.
The OM 4T has a maximum limitation of four minutes.
I don't have a 2n specific manual.
The metering systems may actually function with lower light levels, but Olympus did not represent them as being accurate.

 

[cuthbert]

On the matter of reciprocity failure here there are some thread on the Pentax forum with night pictures taken but better photographers than me with the LX:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...reciprocity-failure-schwarzschild-effect.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/8-pentax-film-slr-discussion/92105-pentax-lx-night-camera.html

Although the F, F2, F3, etc., were certainly good professional cameras, what really elevated Nikon was NPS - Nikon Professional Services. With NPS, a pro on assignment almost anywhere in the world could get repairs, loaner cameras, various lenses, special lenses and other accessories - basically anything needed to make the job be successful.

On this we might agree, but the issue that I see is that on this board the Nikon F series has become a sort of totem, in another thread a guy clearly mentioned you have to be nuts to trade a F2 for a Canon F-1n, a camera that I have and that I consider superior to the standard F2 in everything. Pentax is not even on the radar while both companies made cameras that were equal or better than Nikon back in time.

 

[CMoore]

On the matter of reciprocity failure here there are some thread on the Pentax forum with night pictures taken but better photographers than me with the LX:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...reciprocity-failure-schwarzschild-effect.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/8-pentax-film-slr-discussion/92105-pentax-lx-night-camera.html



On this we might agree, but the issue that I see is that on this board the Nikon F series has become a sort of totem, in another thread a guy clearly mentioned you have to be nuts to trade a F2 for a Canon F-1n, a camera that I have and that I consider superior to the standard F2 in everything. Pentax is not even on the radar while both companies made cameras that were equal or better than Nikon back in time.

I am speaking just for myself... not making any definitive claims.
Circa 1978, at my high school, i was presented with Nikon and Canon as "The Best" cameras. I could not afford a F2 or F-1...so i bought an AE-1.
When i got back into photography...right before i joined this Forum, i was still under that impression.
I "wasted" money on several A-Series Canon again.
I could have bought some nice Pentax instead. I DID discover Minolta, but i missed out on Pentax.
I would not have take any "Better" pictures, but i would have taken them with a better camera.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The good thing about the present day is that the older good stuff is now affordable.

That's the legendary 8-element 50/1.4 on the H3v.

 

[runswithsizzers]

As far as I am aware just the K2DMD and the LX, I don't have a F3, but the LX also reacts to light during the exposure. Another camera good for long exposures is the Praktica B which stops after 45 seconds...all my Canons get as max 30 seconds, Les Sarile is famous for taking exposures of hours and it appears film reciprocal failure is not an issue.

...however this is the MX thread, and perhaps somebody might be interested in seeing this old advert...guess the camera behind the Pentax.

Another old ad:

As a bicyclist, canoeist, and hiker, it was the "small and light" factor that attracted me to the Pentax MX. Sadly, Ricoh/Pentax are no longer in a position to brag about any model in their current line of APS-C dSLR cameras as being competitive in size or weight.

Yet another old add:

 

[cuthbert]

I am speaking just for myself... not making any definitive claims.
Circa 1978, at my high school, i was presented with Nikon and Canon as "The Best" cameras. I could not afford a F2 or F-1...so i bought an AE-1.
When i got back into photography...right before i joined this Forum, i was still under that impression.
I "wasted" money on several A-Series Canon again.
I could have bought some nice Pentax instead. I DID discover Minolta, but i missed out on Pentax.
I would not have take any "Better" pictures, but i would have taken them with a better camera.

I don't have the AE-1 but I understand it's a good camera, I have an A-1 and to be honest I don't like it much, however the FTBn is a very good camera IMO.

I also bought out of curiosity a T80, everybody said it couldn't be used but I found a very very fun camera to use. Then I have a T90, that's excellent but too much automation for my shooting style...as I don't have any AF camera besides the T80 I fancy an early EOS like the 620 or 630, nothing too big because street photography with a F-1, a F2 or any other pro cameras besides the LX is self punitive.
Right now all these cameras are extremely cheap (I think I spent £30 for the T80 with lens) and you can get any of them, perhaps it's time to get a Pentax, like a Spotmatic SPF, a KX or a MX if you need something small. LXs are still quite expensive and of course servicing is not cheap as well as it's a very sophisticated camera.

As a bicyclist, canoeist, and hiker, it was the "small and light" factor that attracted me to the Pentax MX. Sadly, Ricoh/Pentax are no longer in a position to brag about any model in their current line of APS-C dSLR cameras as being competitive in size or weight.

Then the MX is the right camera for you, the second choice would be the LX, third might be a Praktica BX20 (poor man's LX) and fourth a Nikon FM. Canon never made small mechanical cameras as far as I know.