I still have my MX that I bought in 1977. This was my first SLR camera that I bought with my hard earned money. I used it extensively in my skiing and mountaineering adventures over 25 years and it never, ever failed me. I have the 50mm/2, the 135/3.5 and the fabulous 40mm pancake lens(this was always on my camera). Overall, it took great pictures and I could put film in it tomorrow and it will function properly. A fully mechanical camera is a joy to behold.
I got an MX from a family member and just finished my first rolls of film with it. This video is exceptionally helpful in learning a few of the features (the depth of field preview primarily). Thank you for posting!
One thing that is little known is that that camera design was pushed because of the release of the small Olympus OM-1. They used the KX as base, but in order to make it smaller they had to sacrifice the mirror lock up function, or better, just a way to trigger it. The function is still there, you have to tap the shutter button "as if it is hot", and you will be able to trigger the mirror but not the shutter, that will work as normal with the next press. It's tricky to do at first, but easy to master, quite useful to reduce mirror shake when on tripod.
You will not be disappointed. However: seeing as these are knocking on 45-50 years old, make sure you get a recently serviced one with new light seals as the original seals will have turned into tar by now.
I bought my MX in 1980 or 81. Still have it. Mine is silver. Only have the 50mm lenses left, f1.4, 1.7, and a couple of F2. The f17 is the best all round lens, but the 1.4 is softer wide open, but sharper at f8 and f11. I also had an MG, and two ME Super. While my MX has never given any significant mechanical problems and I have loved my MX, reliability problems with those M series cameras has never filled me with confidence. I have had film transport mechanism failures on both my ME Super cameras. I do not like the lack of hand grip, found the lens selection relatively uninspiring, and the very primitive slow flash sync speed made Pentax not the best for professional use. Of the M series, I like the MX much more than any of the others. I switched to Nikon when the FA came out, and I regard that camera as the best manual focus film SLR that I ever used, and I do love Nikkor F mount glass. But it was going from flash sync of 1/60th to 1/250th that was the revolutionary thing. Plus the Nikon matrix metering was, and still is brilliant. That, plus zero mechanical issues in 40 years with three FA bodies and a couple of FG bodies. Pentax M series is like a sexy slim woman, who is attractive, but is too flaky for a long term relationship, while 1980's Nikons were not as sexy and cost a lot to be around, but were good solid marriage material that were very practical, and once you used matrix metering and 1/250th flash sync. you couldn't go back. I got into Pentax because a friend had a Spotmatic. He loved it. I had an old Exakta at the time, and his Spotmatic seemed very advanced in comparison. Gawd I hated that Exakta. I also used the Pentax 110 Auto around that time. But even in 110 format I replaced the Pentax with the Minolta 110 Zoom SLR, which is a much better camera. I know there are people who adore Pentax, but my experience was that they made good-idea cameras, but with built in flaws because they were trying to be too clever, like making parts too thin in the attempt to be the smallest. Or not allowing any manual controls like that 110 Auto. While I am realistic about the limitations of my Pentax MX, I still have a soft spot for that old camera. It was sexy, and we had many memorable dates together. But don't tell my FA cameras. I don't want them to get jealous.
Enjoyable video! My MX also had the eternal light meter issue. It's a very simple repair, I am sure you could do it in a couple minutes. The contact is also a flat spring, so all you need to do is push/pull it up a little bit. It may take some trial and error to get the right balance. Just make sure you use some JIS cross point screwdrivers and not philips for the bottom plate. I can understand the common criticism of the shutter speed dial being too stiff, but it hasn't been an issue for me. Maybe because my fingers are long enough to curl around it and push it more from between the pentaprism and dial?
Yeah. This is one of the all-time great manual-focus SLRs. As one commenter noted, it couldn't really hack it as a pro camera at the time due to the slow flash-synch speed and not being as ruggedly built - particularly compared to the Nikons. But for an amateur, it's pure joy. I shot with one continually from '94 to 2004 and have continued using it alongside other cameras ever since. I didn't notice the shutterspeed dial issue until it was pointed out, but I'll admit it isn't ideal. The Olympuses have the advantage there for sure. The enormous viewfinder is just fantastic though. And the whole feel of the camera. I've learned to grip it in a curled hand very securely and was quite bewildered for a long time when people talked about cameras with bad grips. Since I'd learned to use this tiny camera with no grip, I just didn't see the advantage of a full grip for a long time. I still have a preference for small cameras without grips. I also still have a preference for shooting in pure manual mode. That's not a flex. It's just that once you master it (you're forced to master it on the MX with no other options) it's just always simpler to know exactly what you shutterspeed and aperture are doing at all times and consciously control the relationship between the two.
The Batteries in the MX should last about a year (more if you use a 3v Lithium battery). This is the first MX I've seen without data back contacts. The screw in the slot on the hinge line allows the back to be removed, and replaced with either the data back, or a 250 exposure bulk back (even more rare). The winder MX was capable of 2fps, and the motor drive MX was capable of 5 - these had a different footprint from the ME winder, used by all winder capable M- and A- series SLRs (the Super A and Program A being developed from the ME-Super, itself a modified ME).
It’s a goodun the MX - I couldn’t get along with how small it is though, just not that functional to actually hold and shoot. Great video, production top notch ❤
I don t particularly like this camera. It s very compact but the previous lenses in m42 where really exquisite and I am not sure the reduction doesn’t have an impact. If I wanted a compact body an om1 or an om3 (with its rather unique spot system) or a Nikon FE. Yes it s not full mechanic but they seem to work a long time even for an electronic model and aperture priority is very interesting to use also.
There is an inexpensive adapter ring you can use to keep using the M42 lenses on k-mount bodies. The flange distance of the M42 is a little bit longer than the k-Mount, so you still get infinity focus.
Equivalent Pentax would be the ME, introduced just after the MX. Auto only, but soon superceded by the ME super with manual override. I sold hundreds of them.
Without release what? The only trick is quickly tap the shutter button as if it's hot (of course when it's wound, but other than that nothing particular is needed with the winding lever)
I bought an MX brand new back then, and while Nikon was regarded as the only really professional SLR camera, the MX was marketed as a pro journalists camera. The marketing was all about competing with Nikon as the camera to take on safari in Africa for National Geographic assignments. I remember the sales pitch well. They got my money, so it worked. It was smaller than a Nikon, and the lenses were smaller making it easier to take gear into remote locations. The made a big deal out of the fact that the camera still operated when the battery died. This was sold as an advantage when on assignment in third world countries where batteries might be hard to get. I was more local news back then, but photo-journalists were definitely their target customers. The ME Super was the mid range camera aimed at enthusiasts, and MG was the amateur SLR. The K2 was around, and it is probably the camera I should have bought, considering it had a flash sync of 1/125th vs 1/60th on the MX, but I was upgrading from my Exakta Varex VX and the Pentax MX was a big step up from that horrible Exakta. The K2 may well have been the top of the range, but Pentax was pushing the M cameras very heavily in their marketing at the time, and they were making a big deal out of the 250 shot and motorized backs at the time for pro fashion, and the MX for pro journalism. I remember well the marketing strategies of all the brands at the time. Olympus was oriented mostly toward travel, and women. Canon was more toward young men and travel/sports action with shutter priority. Leica had vanished from shelves and was associated with the past. Pentax aimed at people who dreamed of working for National Geographic, and Nikon marketed the heck out of the fact that people who used Nikon actually did work for National Geographic. Ultimately I jumped from the MX to the Nikon FA when that launched, and I consider that the best camera decision I ever made due to matrix metering and the 1/250th flash sync. I never did go on a safari for National Geographic :)
I still have my MX that I bought in 1977. This was my first SLR camera that I bought with my hard earned money. I used it extensively in my skiing and mountaineering adventures over 25 years and it never, ever failed me. I have the 50mm/2, the 135/3.5 and the fabulous 40mm pancake lens(this was always on my camera). Overall, it took great pictures and I could put film in it tomorrow and it will function properly. A fully mechanical camera is a joy to behold.
I had two! A black body and a chrome. I gave them both away decades ago and still regret it.
I got an MX from a family member and just finished my first rolls of film with it. This video is exceptionally helpful in learning a few of the features (the depth of field preview primarily). Thank you for posting!
One thing that is little known is that that camera design was pushed because of the release of the small Olympus OM-1. They used the KX as base, but in order to make it smaller they had to sacrifice the mirror lock up function, or better, just a way to trigger it. The function is still there, you have to tap the shutter button "as if it is hot", and you will be able to trigger the mirror but not the shutter, that will work as normal with the next press. It's tricky to do at first, but easy to master, quite useful to reduce mirror shake when on tripod.
Thanks!!!
This video is absolutely great quality work. Love your style and how clean your shots are. Keep up the great work Dundee!
My favorite film camera! The viewfinder is awesome.
I currently have a ME Super and a K-7. I have another ME Super and a MX on the way, and am looking forward to getting to know the MX.
MX is next on my list
You will not be disappointed.
However: seeing as these are knocking on 45-50 years old, make sure you get a recently serviced one with new light seals as the original seals will have turned into tar by now.
Thanks for this review
I bought my MX in 1980 or 81. Still have it. Mine is silver. Only have the 50mm lenses left, f1.4, 1.7, and a couple of F2. The f17 is the best all round lens, but the 1.4 is softer wide open, but sharper at f8 and f11.
I also had an MG, and two ME Super. While my MX has never given any significant mechanical problems and I have loved my MX, reliability problems with those M series cameras has never filled me with confidence. I have had film transport mechanism failures on both my ME Super cameras. I do not like the lack of hand grip, found the lens selection relatively uninspiring, and the very primitive slow flash sync speed made Pentax not the best for professional use. Of the M series, I like the MX much more than any of the others.
I switched to Nikon when the FA came out, and I regard that camera as the best manual focus film SLR that I ever used, and I do love Nikkor F mount glass. But it was going from flash sync of 1/60th to 1/250th that was the revolutionary thing. Plus the Nikon matrix metering was, and still is brilliant. That, plus zero mechanical issues in 40 years with three FA bodies and a couple of FG bodies.
Pentax M series is like a sexy slim woman, who is attractive, but is too flaky for a long term relationship, while 1980's Nikons were not as sexy and cost a lot to be around, but were good solid marriage material that were very practical, and once you used matrix metering and 1/250th flash sync. you couldn't go back.
I got into Pentax because a friend had a Spotmatic. He loved it. I had an old Exakta at the time, and his Spotmatic seemed very advanced in comparison. Gawd I hated that Exakta. I also used the Pentax 110 Auto around that time. But even in 110 format I replaced the Pentax with the Minolta 110 Zoom SLR, which is a much better camera. I know there are people who adore Pentax, but my experience was that they made good-idea cameras, but with built in flaws because they were trying to be too clever, like making parts too thin in the attempt to be the smallest. Or not allowing any manual controls like that 110 Auto.
While I am realistic about the limitations of my Pentax MX, I still have a soft spot for that old camera. It was sexy, and we had many memorable dates together.
But don't tell my FA cameras. I don't want them to get jealous.
Enjoyable video!
My MX also had the eternal light meter issue. It's a very simple repair, I am sure you could do it in a couple minutes.
The contact is also a flat spring, so all you need to do is push/pull it up a little bit. It may take some trial and error to get the right balance.
Just make sure you use some JIS cross point screwdrivers and not philips for the bottom plate.
I can understand the common criticism of the shutter speed dial being too stiff, but it hasn't been an issue for me. Maybe because my fingers are long enough to curl around it and push it more from between the pentaprism and dial?
Yeah. This is one of the all-time great manual-focus SLRs. As one commenter noted, it couldn't really hack it as a pro camera at the time due to the slow flash-synch speed and not being as ruggedly built - particularly compared to the Nikons. But for an amateur, it's pure joy. I shot with one continually from '94 to 2004 and have continued using it alongside other cameras ever since.
I didn't notice the shutterspeed dial issue until it was pointed out, but I'll admit it isn't ideal. The Olympuses have the advantage there for sure. The enormous viewfinder is just fantastic though. And the whole feel of the camera. I've learned to grip it in a curled hand very securely and was quite bewildered for a long time when people talked about cameras with bad grips. Since I'd learned to use this tiny camera with no grip, I just didn't see the advantage of a full grip for a long time. I still have a preference for small cameras without grips.
I also still have a preference for shooting in pure manual mode. That's not a flex. It's just that once you master it (you're forced to master it on the MX with no other options) it's just always simpler to know exactly what you shutterspeed and aperture are doing at all times and consciously control the relationship between the two.
I really like your review style! Would love to see one on the minolta x700 personally
Great video! What strap do you use? I love it!
The Batteries in the MX should last about a year (more if you use a 3v Lithium battery).
This is the first MX I've seen without data back contacts. The screw in the slot on the hinge line allows the back to be removed, and replaced with either the data back, or a 250 exposure bulk back (even more rare).
The winder MX was capable of 2fps, and the motor drive MX was capable of 5 - these had a different footprint from the ME winder, used by all winder capable M- and A- series SLRs (the Super A and Program A being developed from the ME-Super, itself a modified ME).
This is the only proper (not phone) camera I shoot anymore. Now looking to replace the light seals.
It’s a goodun the MX - I couldn’t get along with how small it is though, just not that functional to actually hold and shoot.
Great video, production top notch ❤
I still have my MX and the subsequent ME.
I don t particularly like this camera. It s very compact but the previous lenses in m42 where really exquisite and I am not sure the reduction doesn’t have an impact. If I wanted a compact body an om1 or an om3 (with its rather unique spot system) or a Nikon FE. Yes it s not full mechanic but they seem to work a long time even for an electronic model and aperture priority is very interesting to use also.
There is an inexpensive adapter ring you can use to keep using the M42 lenses on k-mount bodies. The flange distance of the M42 is a little bit longer than the k-Mount, so you still get infinity focus.
@@noahvonhatten You are right but the m42 should seem a little big on these compact cameras :)
Would like to see the MX compared to my Nikon EM, also a very small SLR.
Equivalent Pentax would be the ME, introduced just after the MX. Auto only, but soon superceded by the ME super with manual override. I sold hundreds of them.
It’s giving Wes Anderson.
Olympus PEN-F
Do you know it has secret mirror lockup?
Just wind it and tap gently the shutter button without releasing it - takes little practice
Without release what? The only trick is quickly tap the shutter button as if it's hot (of course when it's wound, but other than that nothing particular is needed with the winding lever)
One correction. Pro flagships in K-Mount were K2, quickly replaced by K2 DMD and then LX. MX was a M series flagship, but not camera aimed at pros.
I bought an MX brand new back then, and while Nikon was regarded as the only really professional SLR camera, the MX was marketed as a pro journalists camera. The marketing was all about competing with Nikon as the camera to take on safari in Africa for National Geographic assignments. I remember the sales pitch well. They got my money, so it worked.
It was smaller than a Nikon, and the lenses were smaller making it easier to take gear into remote locations. The made a big deal out of the fact that the camera still operated when the battery died. This was sold as an advantage when on assignment in third world countries where batteries might be hard to get. I was more local news back then, but photo-journalists were definitely their target customers. The ME Super was the mid range camera aimed at enthusiasts, and MG was the amateur SLR.
The K2 was around, and it is probably the camera I should have bought, considering it had a flash sync of 1/125th vs 1/60th on the MX, but I was upgrading from my Exakta Varex VX and the Pentax MX was a big step up from that horrible Exakta. The K2 may well have been the top of the range, but Pentax was pushing the M cameras very heavily in their marketing at the time, and they were making a big deal out of the 250 shot and motorized backs at the time for pro fashion, and the MX for pro journalism.
I remember well the marketing strategies of all the brands at the time. Olympus was oriented mostly toward travel, and women. Canon was more toward young men and travel/sports action with shutter priority. Leica had vanished from shelves and was associated with the past. Pentax aimed at people who dreamed of working for National Geographic, and Nikon marketed the heck out of the fact that people who used Nikon actually did work for National Geographic.
Ultimately I jumped from the MX to the Nikon FA when that launched, and I consider that the best camera decision I ever made due to matrix metering and the 1/250th flash sync.
I never did go on a safari for National Geographic :)
Great camera. Small. Very small. And rugged. Love mine.
Are you sure? What about the Pentax 110?
That was made for the 110 format. The MX is the smallest SLR made for the standard 36mm x 24mm format.
@@noahvonhatten Actually the ME is slightly smaller than the MX!!
Nice video suggested to me with 130 views 😂