[gutter rock]

I have bought quite a few old Pentax bodies in the last year (ME, ME super, MX, KX, LX, PZ1-P, SF1N, MG). The MX is the only one that had to have service because it looked to have been through hell and back. I listened to a film photography podcast recently where one of the hosts said he loves Pentax but had never found an ME Super that worked. This made me start thinking... what is the most unreliable Pentax film cameras? I think for the most part that Pentax made reliable high quality cameras that just don't die but there are exceptions. My vote would be the ZX
Series (I guess MZ series outside the USA), that mirror gear failure is an epidemic.

[IgorZ]

Probably, my MZ-7 died...

[35mmfilmfan]

I asked at a local dealer about a second-hand ME Super recently, and he advised against it unless I was just getting it for the lens. He said in his experience, the film advance was the least reliable of any Pentax he had ever known. I had already bought a couple of MZ5n cameras from him, so I believe he knows what he is talking about.

[D1N0]

my MZ-7 died...

Mine too.

[edmundrt]

The ME/ME super and P series film advance can be pretty dodgy. The 6x7 film advance can go pretty out of whack too. The MZ/ZX mirror gears are also pretty rough (although out of 4 MZ cameras I've owned, only one has had the problem). Now, of course, any pre-Spotmatic series camera is likely to have some issues simply because of their age. Spotmatic meters and and shutters are starting to get pretty rough without CLA too.

[Xmas]

The ME/ME super and P series film advance can be pretty dodgy. The 6x7 film advance can go pretty out of whack too. The MZ/ZX mirror gears are also pretty rough (although out of 4 MZ cameras I've owned, only one has had the problem). Now, of course, any pre-Spotmatic series camera is likely to have some issues simply because of their age. Spotmatic meters and and shutters are starting to get pretty rough without CLA too.

I've got three SPs chrome rust seems to be generic but they are all ok!

[ChristianRock]

The MZ/ZX series, at least the non flagship models, have a fragile plastic film advance mechanism that always breaks. The A3000 seems to have the same issues.

[Ontarian50]

It all depends on your context, I guess.

I would agree that the MZ/ZX cameras were prone to early failure. The wind mechanisms would jam up, and many users decided they weren't worth the cost of repair (the digital stuff was starting to look shiny by that time).

However, there's an awful lot more ME-Supers out there than MZ/ZX cameras. And, yes, a large percentage of them have failed due to worn out shutter/cocking systems. But, but, they're about 15-20 years older than those plastic AF models.

If you'd plunked down your money on a brand-new ME Super back in 1980, and the salesperson had told you that if you treated it well, you could use it for 20 years, you'd be happy. Any ME-Supers that met that standard could be considered to have lived up to their promise, as a reliable, amateur-grade camera.

Now, if yours failed and started skipping after just 8 years, you might be miffed (but you would still have been able to get it repaired in 1988), but I'll bet most continued on right into their teens and 20s before giving out, when parts are no longer officially available. Sure, most Nikon F3s from 1980 that weren't abused are likely still going strong - but they were much bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

I think the ME Supers served well, and were decently reliable, for the most part.

As for those plastic AF bodies, well, I think Pentax, faced with stiff competition at the entry-level segment from Canon and Nikon, did the same thing as Minolta, and drained a little too much water from the pool.

[Pentaxke]

You can't compare an F3 with a ME-super. That said, i read somewhere that Nikon F3 were not very reliable, not like the LX anyway (the most fragile part was the lightmeter/exposure.) I would think that Pentax has a good track in reliability. My MX only died because I didn't use it anymore (sticky mirror.)

[Ontarian50]

I compare the F3 with the ME-Super mainly because they were available at that same time (although the F3 was still available new some 20+ years later).

But you're right, it's not fair compare a pro level body designed to shoot 5 rolls of film a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year, with an ME-Super designed to shoot 12-20 rolls of film a year. Any amateur who shot much more than that usually owned a second or third body and spread the wear and tear out over the set.

Maybe some guys had trouble with their F3s, but I know many a newshound mistreated the darn things year in and year out, and still trusted them more than the AF bodies that came later.

[jeallen01]

Only problem I had with my MX-5N (= ZX-5N) a few years ago (before I sold it) was that the pop-up flash retention mechanism failed and so the flash stayed up - good local repairer fixed that quite cheaply.

[monochrome]

Eric and I have decided my OEM MESuper is a lost cause. It has suffered from a series of cascading failures to anything electronic.

Of course it was on a shelf in a basement during one of St. Louis's periodic floods - and though water didn't reach the camera I suspect metastasizing corrosion is the culprit.

Sticky K2 ASA ring is a regular complaint, but an inconvenience rather than fatal. The LED module on an MX went out last year -Eric fixed it. Aside from that I've never had a Pentax film camera actually break.

[rod_grant]

I've only had one Pentax film body (although I lusted after a Pentax from my school days in the 1960s).
It was MZ series and after very light use and a few years, the film advance became dodgy; an occasional image overlapped the previous one.


I could say from my experience that 100% of MZ's failed prematurely, but a sample of one probably isn't good statistics.

[gutter rock]

Oh I think Pentax quality is as good as any but they made a lot of models and some are more issue prone than others. My ME, MG, and ME Super all work perfectly. I think that is amazing for consumer grade cameras that was also the first primarily electronic Pentax models. I have owned 4 ZX series over the last 15 years or so. Two of them suffered the mirror gear death. That's too common for my comfort so I sold my last working one (ZX-5) before it bit the dust. My sister in law gave me a ZX-50 that she had bought new back in the day and maybe had run 10 rolls through. It had been sitting in a closet for years. First time I fired the shutter.... mirror gear death. So maybe age or lack of use is not great for them.

[Pentaxke]

I think Pentax track record is pretty impressive. Sure there is sticky mirror syndrome for MX and LX (which is not the same BTW) but comparing similar camera's I wouldn't be surprised Pentax coming on top. Before I switched to Olympus OM I had MX and Super A. The first one only died because of neglectance (I hadn't used it in years, and when I wanted to shoot a roll some time ago, sticky mirror was such that I declared it unusable. this is a known issue of all MX's which suffer more from not using than being used.) The Super A did fine until I switched systems (bought it second hand.) The Olympus'es are another story, with poor electronics at the basics. The OM-2SP and OM-4 had both the infamous battery eating syndrome, and the OM-4 eventually died on me (meter failing and exposure inconsistent.) The OM-2SP also had very sturdy film transport, which in my opinion was an indication that the camera also began to fail.
The Pentax'es from the same area had far more robust electronics and were mechanically second to none.

As such, I think the answer to the OP would be very basic camera's like MV or MZ-sth if one was to do the poll...