Pentax ME and Pentax MX

[Someonenameddavid]

The MX, in my opinion, is the last in the line of the Spotmatics (it feels more "classic" than the K1000)

[MattKing]

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.

[brucemuir]

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.

[BobD]

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.

[lxdude]

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".

[Aristophanes]

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.

[Les Sarile]

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.

[lxdude]

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.

[Les Sarile]

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

[BobD]

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.