[Nesster]

I am easily distracted, so I've found that I don't like seeing anything in the viewfinder beside the meter and the image. For that reason, I like the centering needle over the match needle system—I don't want to see the speeds, and I would rather look at a single needle.

These were my thoughts precisely when I went for a walk in the post snowstorm sun, with a meterless Fed 3, where true sunny-16 and sunny-11 worked like a charm. Next, I like the stop down metering of most screw mount cameras -- I get to choose when I meter, and ignore it otherwise. Then, personally I don't discriminate between needle-in-slot and needle-on-tab, manual metering is OK, only since the meter is always on one may get tempted to make (dumb) adjustments constantly. Auto exposure is the worst, as even after 30 years of it, I still haven't trained myself to reliably apply exposure comp.

[Canada_Rockies]

even after 30 years of it, I still haven't trained myself to reliably apply exposure comp.

You are not alone, Nesster -- I've never used it. If I have to compensate exposure, it's M and scale for me. Hard exposure times? Spot meter bright and add two stops, Spot meter dark and subtract two stops. Works for me.

[johnha]

I've shot a few rolls through an S1a with a handheld meter. It's definitely less distracting to decide on your settings before framing the shot and not having anything in the finder to distract you in the process. Now I understand why my P6x7 metering finder has the meter separate from the frame.

I do think we're being a bit pedantic about things though due to having so many options available to us,..

[builttospill]

I do think we're being a bit pedantic about things though due to having so many options available to us,..

Well said; one of the many reasons I enjoy shooting film so much. When out in the middle of nowhere, it's just me and my camera, whether it's a K1000 or my MX I take my time to look through the large, beautiful viewfinder and do it the way I want.

Some here have mentioned they're not fans of the LED meter on the MX. That's one of the things I like so much about it. While I prefer the needle on the K1000 the most, I smile when the MX LEDs light up because that must have been pretty advanced when that camera was released. There is no other Pentax with a similar meter.

Off-topic wish: Instead of releasing the mythical FF digital, why won't Pentax just make an APS-C with a FF-sized viewfinder, reminiscent of the MX?

[8540tomg]

I'm pretty late to the debate but for what its worth here's my opinion. I've owned and used a Pentax MX for 30 years now. I've also used a K1000 (not often) and have owned a K2 for about 25 years. Never liked the K1000 much. It just never "felt" right to me. Don't ask me why but the K2 felt great. Feel is pretty subjective so go figure. It was probably the K2 shutter I liked so much. In any case the K1000 was also just too basic for my taste. I know simplicity is the beauty of this camera (K1000) for many but I wanted more features. I also wanted many of the accessories: winder, focusing screens, databack etc which just were not available for the K1000. The original poster asked if it was fair to compare the two cameras. Well, you can try, but it for my money the MX is a far better camera on just about every level save size. It is just too small until you add the MX winder. With the winder in place I found it a perfect fit. Both cameras have their supporters, both can deliver excellent results, but I'll take the MX over a K1000 any day.

[stevebrot]

I smile when the MX LEDs light up because that must have been pretty advanced when that camera was released.

LEDs were quite the rage at the time. I had a LED digital watch in 1977 and most calculators in the mid-1970s had LED displays. The MX's LED meter display would have been easier to make than the traditional needle with the trade-off of higher power consumption.


Steve

[keyofnight]

I'll be darned!

Yes! That's quite the beauty. The person who posted that said they got their camera enamel painted at a camera shop in upstate NY, but they don't say where or how much it cost.

These were my thoughts precisely when I went for a walk in the post snowstorm sun, with a meterless Fed 3, where true sunny-16 and sunny-11 worked like a charm. Next, I like the stop down metering of most screw mount cameras -- I get to choose when I meter, and ignore it otherwise. Then, personally I don't discriminate between needle-in-slot and needle-on-tab, manual metering is OK, only since the meter is always on one may get tempted to make (dumb) adjustments constantly. Auto exposure is the worst, as even after 30 years of it, I still haven't trained myself to reliably apply exposure comp.

That's how I feel with my Rolleicord and my Zorki 4. Love the Fed 3 too!

Also, auto exposure is definitely a pain. Not only do I have to predict how the computer will try to expose the scene, I have to give it instructions that correct how it's going to expose the scene? I just find it easier to meter and set exposure myself. I'm not very quick at it, but I think it's important to take the time to think about what look I want to achieve with the exposure.

I'm pretty late to the debate but for what its worth here's my opinion. I've owned and used a Pentax MX for 30 years now. I've also used a K1000 (not often) and have owned a K2 for about 25 years. Never liked the K1000 much. It just never "felt" right to me. Don't ask me why but the K2 felt great. Feel is pretty subjective so go figure. It was probably the K2 shutter I liked so much. In any case the K1000 was also just too basic for my taste. I know simplicity is the beauty of this camera (K1000) for many but I wanted more features. I also wanted many of the accessories: winder, focusing screens, databack etc which just were not available for the K1000. The original poster asked if it was fair to compare the two cameras. Well, you can try, but it for my money the MX is a far better camera on just about every level save size.

Yeah! That sounds right: I wouldn't buy a K1000 expecting accessories, features, etc. Honestly, I bought the MX so that I could have those features available to me. If that's what you need, the MX is definitely a great fit.

---

Last edited by keyofnight; 01-08-2014 at 01:46 AM.

[bsamcash]

I never owned a K1000, but my friend has the SE, and I have a KX. I also have never had an MX but I own of have owned many of the other M bodies. The K series are beasts. They are huge and rock solid. They make even the steal ME Super feel like a toy. So if you need a tank of a camera you can drive nails with, get a K. But if you need the portability and accessories, the MX is among the best of fully mechanical SLRs you can get.

Personally, I don't need a tank, and the MX cameras cost more than they're worth, so my most used film SLR is my ZX-5N.

[filmamigo]

I'm late to the conversation, but I think the OP is right on. I REALLY want to love my MX but stumble on three things -- it's a bit too small in my hands -- the shutter speed dial is too stiff -- and the LED light meter isn't my favourite. The meter issue may be down to my colour blindness; I am basically relying on the *position* of the light, not it's colour. Which means I have to pay close attention to the meter.

My preferences are probably formed by having grown up with a Spotmatic F. The Spottie just feels like the perfect size -- an "ur-camera" or archetypal camera if you will. I had hoped the MX would be my K-mount equivalent to the Spottie, bringing reliable modern metering and big bright viewfinder along with it.

I have since run across a KX, and purchased it. (I find the K bodies hard to find, except for the K1000 which is often overpriced.) The KX turns out to be perfect for me. The same size and handling as the Spotmatic, with a REALLY useful needle metering arrangement.

Of course it's difficult to part with any of these beautiful cameras. So I will likely keep the KX and the MX (and the LX...) long after everything else is sold or gone.

[jakeblues]

Speaking of the pocket cameras, I use the DA 40 XS on my Super Program for a small, lightweight combo. The *ist film body with the 40 XS also makes a compact camera I love to carry in my pocket.

I sold my DA 40 XS, but wish I hadn't for this exact reason. My sister still has hers, and I'm trying to convince her to snag a Super Program.

[ChrisPlatt]

The Pentax K series cameras are compact and lightweight compared to most SLRs made before and most SLRs/DSLRs made since.
For some of us the Pentax M series and Olympus OM bodies border on being too small, sacrificing handling for miniaturization.

Chris

[arnold]

The Pentax K series cameras are compact and lightweight compared to most SLRs made before and most SLRs/DSLRs made since.

Yes, and the Praktica IV and V must be the heavy weight champions. Minolta SRT also heavier. The pre-Spotmatic SV is smaller than the Spotmatic / K series, and fits in between the MX and KX. Clip on a light meter and you are set. I love the SV for it's quality feel.

[keyofnight]

For some of us the Pentax M series and Olympus OM bodies border on being too small, sacrificing handling for miniaturization.

Yes. When I use my partner's OM-1n, I always feel like there are so many features for such a small package—and that's just the kind of thing I'd want to get away from.

I envy her though: that was her first film body, and it was used by two of her sisters for a long time before it came back to her. The camera has personal history to it, and it's also a great camera, so why switch? I wouldn't: personal history is more important to me than my camera preferences.

For me, I guess I have to make the decision myself, and I have to impart my own personal history on it, and so I figure choosing a camera is pretty important to starting that history. I suppose the K1000 embodies the kind of person I want to be and the kind of style I'd like to have. The K1000 is simple, unassuming, and relatively featureless—and somehow it still spurs debate about it's merits (or lack thereof). That's the sort of personality I think I want, the kind of photography I want to do, and—dare I say—the life I want to lead.

I'm rambling at this point, though…

[LesDMess]

When it comes to a big bright uncluttered viewfinder, Pentax got it right from the start . . .



And that 55mm f2.2 preset is no slouch either!

[Canada_Rockies]

When it comes to a big bright uncluttered viewfinder, Pentax got it right from the start . . .
And that 55mm f2.2 preset is no slouch either!

It sure wasn't. I have way too many Kodachromes taken with that rig or maybe its predecessor - I cannot read the shutter speeds on the screen - mine had the original shutter sequence 1, 1/2, 1/5, 1/10, 1/25, T on the front dial, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, B on the top dial. For those of you not familiar with that lovely beauty, there were two shutter dials; low speed on the front, high speed on the top, 1/25 was the common speed to work correctly.

I think the most beautiful portrait I have ever taken was with that camera, the Takumar 135/3.5 preset, in Stanley Park, of a lovely young woman reading. The book acted like a reflector.

That camera, bought in a pawn shop in 1961, lasted me until 1978, when the cloth shutters finally pinholed.