Gear P0rn - post it if you got it.

fishbones · 07-07-2021, 01:25 PM - **9 Likes**

I do love using the MX

Attached Images

**richard0170** · 07-07-2021, 02:43 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by fishbones

I do love using the MX

I am experiencing a particularly warm glow today, as I got one of mine back from the camera doctors (it had a sticky mirror). Definitely one of my favourite film bodies.

Lord Lucan · 07-07-2021, 02:44 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by LesDMess

Although the F3 technically has a "clean" viewfinder, it is just too ugly to include it in the lineup with the others

Eh?! I like the look of the Nikon F3. The only thing that spoils it is those rabbit-ears that earlier Nikon lenses have, looking like they have been pop-riveted in place by an amateur. From a practical point of view, those pointy hot-shoe-less prism housings are more vulnerable to brassing on the point than the flatter hot-shoe ones.

How do you like the look of the Canon F1n? Their metering hot-shoe prism housings are positively towering, and flat-topped too.

womble · 07-07-2021, 02:44 PM - **4 Likes**

Pentax Zoom 105 Super par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

This is a camera of its time. It is pretty ugly, but has a myriad of features including close-up settings and so on. I managed to use about 2/3rds of a roll before it stopped playing ball. It still sort of works (enough for the photo) but I wouldn't use another roll in it. Some of the pictures and sharp, some are terrible. I don't think the autofocus is very good.

Despite the current fad for using film compact cameras, in general I find them very disappointing and would rather use an SLR. The MX with the 40mm pancake lens is no bigger than this ugly beast.

LesDMess · 07-07-2021, 04:09 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Huss

I love the way the F3 looks!
Those two others too...

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I think the F3 is a fine looking camera. It doesn't have the aesthetics of the "golden age" of manual camera design but it's not too far off and doesn't have any of the ugliness of so many 1980s cameras.

Originally posted by Mbaez

Those Nikons look awesome!

Originally posted by Lord Lucan

Eh?! I like the look of the Nikon F3. The only thing that spoils it is those rabbit-ears that earlier Nikon lenses have, looking like they have been pop-riveted in place by an amateur. From a practical point of view, those pointy hot-shoe-less prism housings are more vulnerable to brassing on the point than the flatter hot-shoe ones.

How do you like the look of the Canon F1n? Their metering hot-shoe prism housings are positively towering, and flat-topped too.

Compared to the metered F and F2, the F3 was definitely better looking . . .

I got the F, F2 and F3 early on in my immersion. I really like the F3 because it was gadgety and accessories were readily available I didn't have the plain prisms for the F and F2 initially so the F3 looked better then . . . but not after . . .

Canon was probably the least interested in following Olympus smaller body initiative with the OM series release. They had some "innovative" finders for sure!

---------- Post added 07-07-21 at 06:16 PM ----------

Originally posted by womble

Pentax Zoom 105 Super par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

This is a camera of its time. It is pretty ugly, but has a myriad of features including close-up settings and so on. I managed to use about 2/3rds of a roll before it stopped playing ball. It still sort of works (enough for the photo) but I wouldn't use another roll in it. Some of the pictures and sharp, some are terrible. I don't think the autofocus is very good.

Despite the current fad for using film compact cameras, in general I find them very disappointing and would rather use an SLR. The MX with the 40mm pancake lens is no bigger than this ugly beast.

The 105R was my first "serious" camera as it was a huge step up from the plastic 110 instamatic I was using! It provided great service for a number of years

andrewd · 07-07-2021, 11:38 PM

It is all personal preference but I think the F3 looks stunning, in my opinion the nicest looking camera of the pro F series.
I prefer it with the DE2 (non HP) finder. It looks cleaner and there is still loads of eye relief.

I also like the looks of the New F1, especially with the standard (non AE) finder. These are fantastic cameras to shoot with.

In my opinion the ugly cameras were made a decade later with the plastic AF bodies that started with the Minolta 7000. The Canon EOS bodies are hideous (except for the 1 series).

**richard0170** · 07-08-2021, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by andrewd

In my opinion the ugly cameras were made a decade later with the plastic AF bodies that started with the Minolta 7000. The Canon EOS bodies are hideous (except for the 1 series).

Yes, though the writing was on the wall with the Minolta X700 and revised XG range. Simple styling was being abandoned for fashionable excess. Thankfully the trend did not last too long.

Jonathan Mac · 07-08-2021, 03:08 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by womble

Pentax Zoom 105 Super par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

This is a camera of its time. It is pretty ugly, but has a myriad of features including close-up settings and so on. I managed to use about 2/3rds of a roll before it stopped playing ball. It still sort of works (enough for the photo) but I wouldn't use another roll in it. Some of the pictures and sharp, some are terrible. I don't think the autofocus is very good.

Despite the current fad for using film compact cameras, in general I find them very disappointing and would rather use an SLR. The MX with the 40mm pancake lens is no bigger than this ugly beast.

Film compact prices have gone absolutely crazy in the last year or so. Many go for at least ten times what I'd be willing to pay for them.

I feel the same way about compacts versus SLRs - I don't have the M 40/2.8 but the 43mm is not much bigger and neither is the 50/1.7. For a small increase in bulk (though a considerable increase in weight) I get full control over the photo.

womble · 07-08-2021, 04:00 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

Film compact prices have gone absolutely crazy in the last year or so. Many go for at least ten times what I'd be willing to pay for them.

I feel the same way about compacts versus SLRs - I don't have the M 40/2.8 but the 43mm is not much bigger and neither is the 50/1.7. For a small increase in bulk (though a considerable increase in weight) I get full control over the photo.

I agree. I was happy to have a punt on the odd £5 charity shop purchase but I'm not prepared to pay the frankly silly prices they go for now. Nearly all of the charity-shop compacts I tried either didn't work at all, or died very soon after. The results were generally dire. If I could find an Olympus Trip for a sane price I would get one of those, but otherwise I pass on by.

LennyBloke · 07-08-2021, 12:55 PM - **7 Likes**

A few close-ups of the petite beautiful model from Pentax of the 1970's and 1980's - the timeless beauty that is the Pentax MX....

bjolester · 07-08-2021, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by LennyBloke

A few close-ups of the petite beautiful model from Pentax of the 1970's and 1980's - the timeless beauty that is the Pentax MX....

Very nice close-ups of the mighty MX

**Mbaez** · 07-08-2021, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by LennyBloke

A few close-ups of the petite beautiful model from Pentax of the 1970's and 1980's - the timeless beauty that is the Pentax MX....

OMG, it really looks cool!

Huss · 07-08-2021, 02:03 PM

All this MX love... I'm gonna put mine up for sale..

LesDMess · 07-08-2021, 09:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by andrewd

It is all personal preference but I think the F3 looks stunning, in my opinion the nicest looking camera of the pro F series.
I prefer it with the DE2 (non HP) finder. It looks cleaner and there is still loads of eye relief.

I also like the looks of the New F1, especially with the standard (non AE) finder. These are fantastic cameras to shoot with.

In my opinion the ugly cameras were made a decade later with the plastic AF bodies that started with the Minolta 7000. The Canon EOS bodies are hideous (except for the 1 series).

I agree that all of these aethetics are a personal preference.

Interesting that Nikon saw fit to release the standard eye level finder (DE-2) then the high eyepoint finder (DE-3) with very minimal differences in size and magnification of 0.8X and 0.75X.

andrewd · 07-08-2021, 11:42 PM

I find the extra 5% magnification of the DE2 makes a noticeable difference to the ability to focus.
A magnification of 0.8 to 0.85 is the goldilocks zone for me (I wear glasses). It is only possible to increase magnification at the expense of eye relief and cameras with higher magnification finders have poor eye relief which makes it impossible to see the whole frame and the exposure information without scanning your eye around the frame. The problem is compounded in some cameras by scattering the exposure information around many sides of the frame (eg Nikon FM2).

07-08-2021, 12:55 PM - 7 Likes	#7900
LennyBloke Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Worcestershire, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 677	The Black Beauty A few close-ups of the petite beautiful model from Pentax of the 1970's and 1980's - the timeless beauty that is the Pentax MX....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The "Keeper" Lens Club -- You'll regret it if you sell it.	vandamro	Lens Clubs	114	04-06-2023 10:37 PM
Is it safe to share my personal collection of K-01 lens p0rn?	elpolodiablo	Pentax K-01	41	03-01-2013 11:16 AM
If you aren't using it, zip it up!	The Jannie	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	09-16-2011 04:35 PM
You've got to love technology and it's mindlessness	mtansley	General Talk	6	07-24-2011 05:43 PM
Cityscape Got one I'd like to see what you can do with it	photolady95	Photo Critique	9	06-25-2011 01:27 PM

07-07-2021, 01:25 PM - 9 Likes	#7891
fishbones New Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Cornwall Photos: Gallery Posts: 21	I do love using the MX Attached Images

07-07-2021, 02:43 PM - 1 Like	#7892
richard0170 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,034	Originally posted by fishbones I do love using the MX I am experiencing a particularly warm glow today, as I got one of mine back from the camera doctors (it had a sticky mirror). Definitely one of my favourite film bodies.

07-07-2021, 02:44 PM - 1 Like	#7893
Lord Lucan Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: South Wales Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,977	Originally posted by LesDMess Although the F3 technically has a "clean" viewfinder, it is just too ugly to include it in the lineup with the others Eh?! I like the look of the Nikon F3. The only thing that spoils it is those rabbit-ears that earlier Nikon lenses have, looking like they have been pop-riveted in place by an amateur. From a practical point of view, those pointy hot-shoe-less prism housings are more vulnerable to brassing on the point than the flatter hot-shoe ones. How do you like the look of the Canon F1n? Their metering hot-shoe prism housings are positively towering, and flat-topped too.

07-07-2021, 02:44 PM - 4 Likes	#7894
womble Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Hertfordshire Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,324	Pentax Zoom 105 Super par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity This is a camera of its time. It is pretty ugly, but has a myriad of features including close-up settings and so on. I managed to use about 2/3rds of a roll before it stopped playing ball. It still sort of works (enough for the photo) but I wouldn't use another roll in it. Some of the pictures and sharp, some are terrible. I don't think the autofocus is very good. Despite the current fad for using film compact cameras, in general I find them very disappointing and would rather use an SLR. The MX with the 40mm pancake lens is no bigger than this ugly beast.

07-07-2021, 04:09 PM - 2 Likes	#7895
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by Huss I love the way the F3 looks! Those two others too... Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I think the F3 is a fine looking camera. It doesn't have the aesthetics of the "golden age" of manual camera design but it's not too far off and doesn't have any of the ugliness of so many 1980s cameras. Originally posted by Mbaez Those Nikons look awesome! Originally posted by Lord Lucan Eh?! I like the look of the Nikon F3. The only thing that spoils it is those rabbit-ears that earlier Nikon lenses have, looking like they have been pop-riveted in place by an amateur. From a practical point of view, those pointy hot-shoe-less prism housings are more vulnerable to brassing on the point than the flatter hot-shoe ones. How do you like the look of the Canon F1n? Their metering hot-shoe prism housings are positively towering, and flat-topped too. Compared to the metered F and F2, the F3 was definitely better looking . . . I got the F, F2 and F3 early on in my immersion. I really like the F3 because it was gadgety and accessories were readily available I didn't have the plain prisms for the F and F2 initially so the F3 looked better then . . . but not after . . . Canon was probably the least interested in following Olympus smaller body initiative with the OM series release. They had some "innovative" finders for sure! ---------- Post added 07-07-21 at 06:16 PM ---------- Originally posted by womble Pentax Zoom 105 Super par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity This is a camera of its time. It is pretty ugly, but has a myriad of features including close-up settings and so on. I managed to use about 2/3rds of a roll before it stopped playing ball. It still sort of works (enough for the photo) but I wouldn't use another roll in it. Some of the pictures and sharp, some are terrible. I don't think the autofocus is very good. Despite the current fad for using film compact cameras, in general I find them very disappointing and would rather use an SLR. The MX with the 40mm pancake lens is no bigger than this ugly beast. The 105R was my first "serious" camera as it was a huge step up from the plastic 110 instamatic I was using! It provided great service for a number of years

07-07-2021, 11:38 PM	#7896
andrewd Senior Member Join Date: May 2021 Posts: 238	It is all personal preference but I think the F3 looks stunning, in my opinion the nicest looking camera of the pro F series. I prefer it with the DE2 (non HP) finder. It looks cleaner and there is still loads of eye relief. I also like the looks of the New F1, especially with the standard (non AE) finder. These are fantastic cameras to shoot with. In my opinion the ugly cameras were made a decade later with the plastic AF bodies that started with the Minolta 7000. The Canon EOS bodies are hideous (except for the 1 series).

07-08-2021, 12:12 AM	#7897
richard0170 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,034	Originally posted by andrewd In my opinion the ugly cameras were made a decade later with the plastic AF bodies that started with the Minolta 7000. The Canon EOS bodies are hideous (except for the 1 series). Yes, though the writing was on the wall with the Minolta X700 and revised XG range. Simple styling was being abandoned for fashionable excess. Thankfully the trend did not last too long.

07-08-2021, 03:08 AM - 1 Like	#7898
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,911	Originally posted by womble Pentax Zoom 105 Super par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity This is a camera of its time. It is pretty ugly, but has a myriad of features including close-up settings and so on. I managed to use about 2/3rds of a roll before it stopped playing ball. It still sort of works (enough for the photo) but I wouldn't use another roll in it. Some of the pictures and sharp, some are terrible. I don't think the autofocus is very good. Despite the current fad for using film compact cameras, in general I find them very disappointing and would rather use an SLR. The MX with the 40mm pancake lens is no bigger than this ugly beast. Film compact prices have gone absolutely crazy in the last year or so. Many go for at least ten times what I'd be willing to pay for them. I feel the same way about compacts versus SLRs - I don't have the M 40/2.8 but the 43mm is not much bigger and neither is the 50/1.7. For a small increase in bulk (though a considerable increase in weight) I get full control over the photo.

07-08-2021, 04:00 AM - 1 Like	#7899
womble Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Hertfordshire Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,324	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac Film compact prices have gone absolutely crazy in the last year or so. Many go for at least ten times what I'd be willing to pay for them. I feel the same way about compacts versus SLRs - I don't have the M 40/2.8 but the 43mm is not much bigger and neither is the 50/1.7. For a small increase in bulk (though a considerable increase in weight) I get full control over the photo. I agree. I was happy to have a punt on the odd £5 charity shop purchase but I'm not prepared to pay the frankly silly prices they go for now. Nearly all of the charity-shop compacts I tried either didn't work at all, or died very soon after. The results were generally dire. If I could find an Olympus Trip for a sane price I would get one of those, but otherwise I pass on by.

07-08-2021, 01:32 PM	#7901
bjolester Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 211	Originally posted by LennyBloke A few close-ups of the petite beautiful model from Pentax of the 1970's and 1980's - the timeless beauty that is the Pentax MX.... Very nice close-ups of the mighty MX

07-08-2021, 01:39 PM	#7902
Mbaez Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: NY Photos: Albums Posts: 3,774	Originally posted by LennyBloke A few close-ups of the petite beautiful model from Pentax of the 1970's and 1980's - the timeless beauty that is the Pentax MX.... OMG, it really looks cool!

07-08-2021, 02:03 PM	#7903
Huss Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2020 Posts: 629	All this MX love... I'm gonna put mine up for sale..

07-08-2021, 09:19 PM - 1 Like	#7904
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by andrewd It is all personal preference but I think the F3 looks stunning, in my opinion the nicest looking camera of the pro F series. I prefer it with the DE2 (non HP) finder. It looks cleaner and there is still loads of eye relief. I also like the looks of the New F1, especially with the standard (non AE) finder. These are fantastic cameras to shoot with. In my opinion the ugly cameras were made a decade later with the plastic AF bodies that started with the Minolta 7000. The Canon EOS bodies are hideous (except for the 1 series). I agree that all of these aethetics are a personal preference. Interesting that Nikon saw fit to release the standard eye level finder (DE-2) then the high eyepoint finder (DE-3) with very minimal differences in size and magnification of 0.8X and 0.75X.

07-08-2021, 11:42 PM	#7905
andrewd Senior Member Join Date: May 2021 Posts: 238	I find the extra 5% magnification of the DE2 makes a noticeable difference to the ability to focus. A magnification of 0.8 to 0.85 is the goldilocks zone for me (I wear glasses). It is only possible to increase magnification at the expense of eye relief and cameras with higher magnification finders have poor eye relief which makes it impossible to see the whole frame and the exposure information without scanning your eye around the frame. The problem is compounded in some cameras by scattering the exposure information around many sides of the frame (eg Nikon FM2).