Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-05-2017, 12:51 PM   #1
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,872
ME - MG Differences?

What differences are there between the ME and the MG? I have never had either, just curious because Pentax seemed to go full circle with the M-series.

The M-series started with the ME and MX in 1976. Considering the ME, the more amateur model, it was entirely automatic, aperture priority, but it did show the shutter speed in the viewfinder and you could fit the Winder-ME.

Then around 1980 the ME was replaced by two new cameras : The ME-Super (I had one) which was an ME with added manual control by a pair of shutter speed buttons, and the MV which remained entirely automatic and removed the ME's shutter speed indication, replacing it with "traffic light" indicators in which green meant it was OK to shoot. The MV also removed the self-timer and the ability to fit a winder, and exposure compensation was made clunky compared with the ME or ME-Super for reasons which are a mystery.

According to Danilo Cecchi's book, the MV was poorly received and sold, so to salvage the concept Pentax abruptly replaced it by the MV-1* which restored the self-timer and allowed the Winder-ME to be fitted. Those features can never have been far away and one suspects they had been removed from the MV for the sake of increasing the market spread rather than significant cost saving in the factory - reminiscent of the KM and K1000 relationship. Cecchi seems to regard the MV as the low point of Pentax SLR evolution.

Apparently, the MV-1 was still not enough to rescue the "traffic light" concept in sales**, and it was soon replaced, in 1982, by the MG, which restored the ME style of shutter speed indication, and of course accepted the winder. All through this time the successful ME-Super and MX soldiered on.

So it seems to me that the evolution from the ME went full circle. The MG was the ME again, except it had added a "Flash Ready" contact in the hot shoe (as had the MVs). Cecchi says the MG was simplified compared with the ME, but I don't see how, in what other ways were they different? Does anyone know?

* Selling poorly, they remained alongside each other in retail for some time.

** Cecchi blamed the poor sales of the MV on the lack of a winder, but that does not explain why the MV-1 did not recover the sales. Most camera users I knew in the UK in the 1980's did not use or want winders.

12-05-2017, 01:26 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 51,558
I think the MG has a lighter build quality (and no Asahi logo), with the camera lock function removed. Also, the exposure compensation interface piggybacks on the ISO setting rather than having its own dial. If you lift up the film rewind knob a bit, info on which way to turn in shown.

Comparing the pics and reading user reviews gives you a good idea of the differences:

Pentax ME - Pentax Manual Focus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications
Pentax MG - Pentax Manual Focus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:
12-05-2017, 01:27 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
According to the forum's own gallery of camera profiles, the MG could only expose down to 1 second in auto mode; the ME was good for eight. I have tried this on my ME, albeit with no film in the camera, and it will do it. The problem with this is that you have a high chance of running into reciprocity failure issues with the film.

(The ME Super could touch 1/2000 at the high end but was supposedly only good for four seconds at the slow end - give a little, take a little. Also, the mechanical flash sync speed had gone up to 1/125.)

The ME and ME Super are almost perfect, but they just, JUST too primitive to be able to use aperture-ringless lenses. A shame, because the DA 40/2.8 (or better still the XS) would otherwise be the perfect fit for the ME's smallness.
12-05-2017, 01:36 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,872
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
the exposure compensation interface [of the MG] piggybacks on the ISO setting rather than having its own dial. If you lift up the film rewind knob a bit, info on which way to turn in shown.
So it sounds like the MG used the same exposure compensation system as the MVs did. I notice criticism of that system in the MV user reviews.

12-05-2017, 06:49 PM - 1 Like   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 444
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
According to the forum's own gallery of camera profiles, the MG could only expose down to 1 second in auto mode; the ME was good for eight. I have tried this on my ME, albeit with no film in the camera, and it will do it. The problem with this is that you have a high chance of running into reciprocity failure issues with the film.

(The ME Super could touch 1/2000 at the high end but was supposedly only good for four seconds at the slow end - give a little, take a little. Also, the mechanical flash sync speed had gone up to 1/125.)

The ME and ME Super are almost perfect, but they just, JUST too primitive to be able to use aperture-ringless lenses. A shame, because the DA 40/2.8 (or better still the XS) would otherwise be the perfect fit for the ME's smallness.
Sounds like what you want then is the Super Program/Super A. I have both, as well as the ME and two ME Supers. The front grip can be removed from the Super Program and the film back can be replaced with one from an ME or ME Super and the Super Program then feels exactly like an ME or ME Super and pretty much IS the same, with the addition of aperture control (and the associated Program and Shutter Priority modes).
12-05-2017, 08:23 PM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
twilhelm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,369
I had to check, as I have more than one copy of both the MG and ME. While there are a couple of differences, I've always thought the ME was a more robust camera. And according to my scale, the MG weighs in at 15.2 oz and the ME at 1lb 1.7 oz. My MGs have failed in the mirror box, and now sit dormant on a shelf (not worth the cost of the repair, if he can get the parts). My ME cameras still work any day I ask them too.

These were two of my favorite cameras to grab when I would head out to work. Stick an M50 1.7 on it and they are still very small.
12-06-2017, 05:16 AM   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by ctrout Quote
Sounds like what you want then is the Super Program/Super A.
LOLOL look at my signature line.

The Super Program is substantially bulkier. Not that much bigger all round, but just enough that shoving it in my travel-vest pocket becomes difficult. I can live with the ME's limitations for the size advantage. The other downside is the LCD screen; I know they did it in order to present the most information with the greatest flexibility, the fewest intrusions in the viewfinder and the least demands on battery power (doing it the way the DSLRs do would have eaten through button batteries like nobody's business), but it's still somewhat offputting, and it probably accounts for why, after an initial burst of enthusiasm, my Super Program has become a shelf queen.

The thing the ME really needed - the thing which would have made it infinitely more flexible - is an exposure-lock button. Had to wait till the P3 for that, and then we lost ISO override and exposure comp (the latter of which we got back with the P5/50, but it's just not the same any more - and yes, I did once own one and know it well).

12-06-2017, 06:39 AM   #8
Forum Member
Robin CB's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Sussex
Posts: 92
My first SLR was an MV - I am surprised to see it identified as a replacement for the MX.

I bought mine in late 79 (IIRC) and it was cheaper than the ME Super then.

It might have been the lowpoint of development, but mine saw many years of service, including a year backpacking round Australia. It was very solid, almost idiot proof and capable of producing pretty good results with its std 50mm F2 kit lens.

I will admit it sits in its box now, and I use a ME Super for most of my film work, but it gets an occasional outing for old time's sake.

---------- Post added 12-06-17 at 06:44 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
.......

The ME and ME Super are almost perfect, but they just, JUST too primitive to be able to use aperture-ringless lenses. A shame, because the DA 40/2.8 (or better still the XS) would otherwise be the perfect fit for the ME's smallness.
Get yourself an original 40mm pancake. It suits the ME-Super to a T! Almost pocket sized (well - coat pocket)

:-)
12-06-2017, 08:55 AM - 1 Like   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by Robin CB Quote
Get yourself an original 40mm pancake.
Again, look at my signature line. Been there, done that, love it. It would have been my only camera and lens for my 2016 trip to Australia except that I'd just bought a bunch of DA limited primes and I wanted to try them out, so the K-5 had to come too. (Hell, if I took the Super Program I could even put my DA40/2.8 Limited on it; it would be program or shutter-priority only, but it would still work.)
12-07-2017, 04:44 PM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,288
QuoteOriginally posted by twilhelm Quote
I had to check, as I have more than one copy of both the MG and ME. While there are a couple of differences, I've always thought the ME was a more robust camera. And according to my scale, the MG weighs in at 15.2 oz and the ME at 1lb 1.7 oz. My MGs have failed in the mirror box, and now sit dormant on a shelf (not worth the cost of the repair, if he can get the parts). My ME cameras still work any day I ask them too.

These were two of my favorite cameras to grab when I would head out to work. Stick an M50 1.7 on it and they are still very small.
The models that followed the original ME, seem to me to have made quality compromises. The ME Super has had winding issues with too thin parts bending, and when I look into my MG it seems very "tinny." For my tastes, the original ME is to be preferred over the Super other than being able to lock the exposure speed. It feels more solid and I trust it more than my ME Super, which occasionally doesn't cock the shutter with film advance - a known issue.
The MV to MG are built more to a price than a standard. The MX has the best quality in this group. All my opinion of course.
12-07-2017, 05:14 PM - 1 Like   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
Our own K David reports on his YouTube channel an MX he bought in which he literally had to wrench the lens off the camera - it had practically rusted on - but it still kept on kicking and took decent photos. So I'll believe the reputation for quality-as-toughness.

If the ME could only lock the exposure, it would be my God camera and I would probably use it for everything film. The compactness of it is just awesome.
12-08-2017, 01:58 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,872
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Robin CB Quote
My first SLR was an MV - I am surprised to see it identified as a replacement for the MX.
I don't think anyone has said that. The MV replaced the ME. The MX was quite a different pedigree line, aimed at the professional and serious enthusiast market, and was made alongside the ME, MV, MV1 and MG, its production outlasting all of them.
12-12-2017, 09:48 PM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
A shame, because the DA 40/2.8 (or better still the XS) would otherwise be the perfect fit for the ME's smallness.
The 50mm f/1.2 is more versatile though.





In all seriousness, if you have one the FA77's compact size suits the ME super, and paired with a fine grained film you can comfortably print up to 16X20 @ f/8 - not many 35mm lenses can handle that kind of scrutiny. ME super and MG both are known for developing shutter issues, thankfully they are relatively easy to repair.
12-13-2017, 11:50 AM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
The 50mm f/1.2 is more versatile though.
That is a given. However, I only have one f/1.2 lens (a 55mm Rikenon-P), and I protect it and guard it jealously. It would not be something I took outdoors in Canadian winter weather, nor as a rough-and-tumble travel lens around the world (I may pick up a 50mm/1.4 M series for that if I can find one while abroad).

I had considered the FA77, but I already have the DA70 (I bought it when the K-1 was still a prototype with projected costs in the $2.5K US zone, too much for me) and I don't even use that enough to justify a second lens in the same focal length for film and K-1 work. In retrospect I am possibly rueing that decision, but my children's continued involvement in concerts, dance, etc. has meant that my next lens will almost certainly be the D-FA*70-200. Oh my aching budget.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
evolution, me mv mg winder, me-super, mg, mine, mv, pentax, pocket, sales, shutter, time, winder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two separate Pentax ME Super/ Pentax MG questions Pentaxis Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 08-10-2017 03:23 PM
I love my ME. I hate the take up spool. MV/MG the same? Bootleg Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 37 03-10-2014 07:54 PM
MV vs. MG - differences? 6BQ5 Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 6 02-27-2014 09:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: ME/ME Super/MG case ChrisPlatt Sold Items 4 07-22-2009 05:32 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax ME w/50mm f2, Pentax MG Jimfear Sold Items 4 02-17-2009 07:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top