Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,961   Online: 1088
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    263
    The MX, in my opinion, is the last in the line of the Spotmatics (it feels more "classic" than the K1000)

  2. #12
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,950
    Images
    60
    I'm working from memory here, so I may be wrong.

    As I recall it, the ME was introduced to great fanfare as a response to the success of the Olympus OM line. The MX followed the ME because of a small but relatively vocal group of customers and potential customers who wanted a manual exposure only model. The MX never sold in the numbers that the ME and ME Super achieved, but was always a useful alternative for a retailer to have on their shelves.

    I would expect that there were many, many more people who bought an ME for snapshots and vacation pictures - and that it is the cameras acquired by those people who stock the relatively abundant sources of used cameras available today.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #13
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    I would expect that there were many, many more people who bought an ME for snapshots and vacation pictures - and that it is the cameras acquired by those people who stock the relatively abundant sources of used cameras available today.
    Wonder if this means if the electronics held up the ME's would be in better shooting condition due to less hard professional use.

  4. #14
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    The ME was marketed as an "entry level" SLR. Its features were much like the Nikon EM -- auto exposure only, no manual mode. Price was low end. There were some other similar models such as the MV, MG, etc.

    The MX was marketed as a manual-mode SLR for pros and had pro-oriented accessories such as a bulk film back, better meter, optional focusing screens, etc. The "X" in its designation was meant to position it with the LX, Pentax's flagship pro 35mm SLR at that time.

  5. #15
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Not so, BobD. The MX came out in 1976; the LX came out in 1980. Between those years the MX was marketed as a pro-level camera, similar to Olympus with their OM-1, and was called in some advertising "The Little Professional".
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  6. #16
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by BobD View Post
    The ME was marketed as an "entry level" SLR. Its features were much like the Nikon EM -- auto exposure only, no manual mode. Price was low end. There were some other similar models such as the MV, MG, etc.

    The MX was marketed as a manual-mode SLR for pros and had pro-oriented accessories such as a bulk film back, better meter, optional focusing screens, etc. The "X" in its designation was meant to position it with the LX, Pentax's flagship pro 35mm SLR at that time.
    I wouldn't even bother with the ME. The ME Super is a mush better camera. And the Super Program better still (though a bit bigger and the VF a fraction smaller.

    You get the MX because it's better than the K1000 and is mechanical. But if you want the meter and the battery then the options above are better IMNSHO.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    You get the MX because it's better than the K1000 and is mechanical. But if you want the meter and the battery then the options above are better IMNSHO.
    Just to clarify but the MX uses modern silver oxide battery only to power the GPD meter which is better then the K1000's CDS meter.

  8. #18
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    Wonder if this means if the electronics held up the ME's would be in better shooting condition due to less hard professional use.

    I would say that most MX's did not see professional use. Nikon was the top 35mm pro camera, with Canon catching much of the rest. Minolta had their pro level interchangeable finder machine also.
    I would say Olympus took a lot of the compact pro camera market. The OM-1 and MX sold mostly to the amateur market, despite being pro-spec. and having their own systems. They cost the same or less than the Nikkormat and FM series, putting them into the amateur price range. Olympus' system was more extensive, and excellent though Pentax was, they didn't make the same run at Nikon's and Canon's extensive lens lineup that Olympus did.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    I would say that most MX's did not see professional use.
    I am sure you know this is a gross oversimplification. There are many reasons to get other then a pro body such as weight, sync speed and certainly cost.

    Also "pro" use does not mean abuse. I have bought a few pro bodies that literally look unused as the cameras were only used in the studio. One was an EOS3 used for product shots and the other an F3 used only for copy work. Another benefit to buying pro equipment is that they typically have already written these off so I picked these up at considerable cost savings.

    Here is a good price reference -> March 1978 Adorama ad

  10. #20
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    The MX came out in 1976; the LX came out in 1980.
    Oops -- you are correct. The MX came first. The "X" in both model names was meant to position both cameras as "pro" models.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin