[battle_hymns]

Hi Everyone,

I've been frequenting this site and this forum for quite a while now, but have only just recently used my login. The question I had (to which I can't seem to nail an answer down on the boards) is as follows;

My beloved K1000 has been getting used less and less over the last couple of months because its just a little too big to be a comfortable take everywhere camera.

I'm in the market for something a little smaller and lighter and was wondering if anyone could recommend what would be essentially a more compact K1000. That is to say, very rugged and reliable (mine is a Japanese made beauty) and simple too (fully manual with a light meter) but smaller/lighter.

A little read around would suggest the the MX is probably what I am looking for, but was hoping that a couple of the more experienced members might be able to shed some light on how the MX compares in terms of simplicity in use and build quality/reliability to the K1000.

I'm happy to get the MX serviced regularly if required, already have contacts at a couple of Pentax specialist repair places here in the UK.

Thanks in advance for your time and your help,
Ryan.

[LesDMess]

The MX was a pro camera at the time of it's release. It is almost as spartan as the K1000 adding only stop down, timer, and interchangeable screens. What I found best about it is the gloriously large finder view that is second to none in the world of SLRs. I understand this can be a pro or a con depending if you wear glasses or not.

[Medium FormatPro]

The Pentax MX would be an above average choice. If you are able to find one a Ricoh (film body) would be a truly excellent choice; as most of them are constructed to about the quality as a Pentax LX.

[LesDMess]

Comparing anything to the LX is high praise indeed! BTW, which specific Ricoh model(s) would you recommend for one that is completely manual and another that is manual with aperture priority?

[Simian Summit]

Ryan,

I would agree that the MX is a good replacement for the K1000. That's why I use mine. I bought mine, because I heard that it was nice to use, now I found that I now longer my K1000, the MX just feels too nice in my hand. As for maintenance, I wouldn't worry about it. Just get it CLA'ed and I'm sure that will be good for another 30 years.

Elliot

[ElKay23]

I still love my MX, bought in 1976. Very simple to use, feels comfortable in my hands (I am female, so this might be an issue with larger hands). My friend had a K1000 at the same time and my MX was just more streamlined, easy to carry and shoot with. My LED light meter has quit working (twice, had it fixed once).

[Unclejim]

I bought a K-1000, then an ME, then an ME-super. But when they came out with the MX, I was well and truly fixed up for YEARS! I used it WELL into the digital era. Finally, I decided to go Digital. Bought a Sony DSC-F-828. Nice camera, but it had a purple outline in bright areas, IE, highlights. I decided I needed to get back to my roots and purchased a K-200. I haven't looked back.
I posted on another string that I sure would like to see Pentax produce a Digital version of the K-1000. A K-1000D, if you will. But in an MX size. Totally manual. I guess I would like to see it be able to use auto focus lenses, and Depth of field preview, if possible, but with manual shutter speed, WITH BULB, and manual F stop settings. With a meter kind'a like the MX. LED's instead of an analog meter (no springs). I miss my star trails, sometimes. I miss a lot of things, though. That happens when you get old! HAHAHA
LTA, Uncle Jim

---

Last edited by Unclejim; 05-24-2012 at 11:32 AM. Reason: Spelling...

[battle_hymns]

Brilliant replies all of you. Thank you very much indeed. Over the last 5 years I've tried just about everything from a 1929 Kodak brownie to Pentax K100 DSLR and the only camera I've LOVED using and produced my favourite photos is the K1000. The MX sounds like the ideal replacement based on my requirements.

Thanks again for your help,
Ryan.

[Simian Summit]

this might be an issue with larger hands

Nah, I don't think that's true, I have big shovel hands and I still like the feel of the MX...I even like the feel of my Olympus RC and that's even smaller. The MX is the perfect size!

[Blue]

If you want small, get an SV and go m42.

[Tom in Delaware]

I have several Ricoh cameras but I would not say the K-mount models are constructed to the same standard as a Pentax LX or MX. The plastic used on these bodies is prone to cracking.

[stevebrot]

The plastic used on these bodies is prone to cracking.

I have two earlier XR body Ricohs (XR-2s and XR7 from early 1980s) and the carbonate on both is in great shape. I think it depends a lot on the year the bodies were made. The late 1980s forward were sort of bad years for consumer SLR cameras. Yes, Ricoh is a consumer SLR. Most are very nice, full-featured, and well-made, but pro-grade, they are not. Ditto for most Pentax product of the same vintage (e.g. my Pentax Super Program). There is nothing in the Ricoh line that is in the same league as either the MX or LX.

That being said, if you find an XR7 or the Sears equivalent KS-2 in good shape at a good price, it is probably worth buying. They are compact, tough, feature-rich, and have a great viewfinder.


Steve

(...prefers both the XR-2s and the XR7 over the Super Program for general shooting...nice cameras...)

[stevebrot]

If you want small, get an SV and go m42.

Mine just got back from Eric today...what a nice handling camera. The only thing that would make it better is if I could get something like the Zhou case I have for my Canon P with nicely placed finger nubs. (See it here)


Steve

[LesDMess]

That is a nice case Steve.

[womble]

I'll add my voice to the throng on this one. I have four MXes (although I'll be selling a couple of them when I get back to the UK).

K.