[taksharp]

Thanks all for your input. You're generally confirming what I thought was the case, but I was secretly hoping that someone would chime in here about how they took their trusty MXes to Afghanistan and shot epic photos of the Mujahideen ambushing Soviet patrols, with one of the cameras saving their lives when it stopped a shell fragment. Instead, I suspect that pro usage of these bodies was probably limited to the more casual use cases described by some posters, and maybe some consumer-facing work, wedding photographers and the like.

None of this changes the fact that it's an excellent camera, and probably the best buy today for someone looking for a light-weight, compact, fully mechanical SLR.

[monochrome]

A case can be made that unless the company offered Professional Services (support, exchange, fast repairs, etc.) a camera wasn’t truly professional. I don’t think Pentax ever qualified. I don’t think they explicitly competed with Nikon for reportage, and they didn’t catch on to sports/action the way Canon did. I think Pentax has been an optics company, primarily a professional studio (6x7, 645) and field camera (KX, MX, LX) company since roughly 1970, with a volume focus on enthusiast bodies to pay the bills. I’d say K2DMD was an exce[ption that was orphaned by the change to M bodies.

Another potential qualifier is the number of fitting accessories offered - which would allow classification as a professional camera system. Nikon, Canon, Contax maintained basic body dimensions and compatibility long enough to develop a system. Pentax never quite stayed there after the K bodies though LX was quite complete.

[stevebrot]

Instead, I suspect that pro usage of these bodies was probably limited to the more casual use cases described by some posters, and maybe some consumer-facing work, wedding photographers and the like.

Either that or that of the very similar Olympus OM-1 (wildlife and hard-core nature/adventure photographers needing a light weight and compact field kit). At the time of the MX release, it was the only challenger in that market segment. Whether there was significant market penetration is hard to gauge, particularly considering things like cost to migrate to a new lens system, but intent was fairly obvious and was noted by camera reviewers at the time. The system offerings in 1977 were essentially equivalent for both cameras.

The main reason I mention this again was that I lived in Port Angeles, Washington in the early 1980s. At the time the region was a mecca of sorts for aspiring wildlife and nature photographers whose kit would have fit into the photographers backpack and where having an assistant was often a luxury. The camera of choice was the OM-1. I was good friends with a couple of pros who shot that system and their choice was based in part on the example of others. There was a recession going on and nobody was jumping from system to system. My friends eventually moved to Nikon as their sales increased (I believe they wore out the OMs) with the allure being glass and very robust bodies. By way of interest, IIRC Art Wolfe was also in the area before he became famous and was an OM-1 shooter. He moved from there to Nikon and from Nikon to Canon, his current patron. Sadly, I did not know any Pentax pros during my time there.


Steve

[Kombivan]

Ok I did the 1998 Gromfest with a SFX and a 120-600mm lens. A number of weddings with The MZ-5 and a Tokina 17-35mm and a 28-200mm sigma, I won 3 Awards with the Pentax MZ-5 and got second place in the Professional section, Got Published In Australian Cameras and a letter of achievement and Tracks Surfing magazine even got a double page spread in Tracks. So the Little Cameras could do it it was descrimination that kept them out its that simple. Seriously if your a good photographer what more do you need than camera lens aperture and shutter and iso. I also did a Iron-man Trithalon 97' Thought about the track picked my spot for the best photo's of the day and the next year there were about 20 photographers in my spot so I gave it a miss Hadn't planned on that.

[gofour3]

but I was secretly hoping that someone would chime in here about how they took their trusty MXes to Afghanistan and shot epic photos of the Mujahideen ambushing Soviet patrols,

The Pentax "war" camera would be the Spotmatic, lots saw action in Vietnam.

Phil.

[ChrisPlatt]

With their rather thin metal top and bottom covers the MX is easily dinged, dented and chipped.
As a result many used MX bodies look like they've already been through a war!

Chris

[nocturnal]

With their rather thin metal top and bottom covers the MX is easily dinged, dented and chipped.
As a result many used MX bodies look like they've already been through a war!

Chris

True but the important thing is that they still work. There is something nice about dents and dings but still work perfectly as it means they can take mishandling or a lot of usage... I.e. the MX I got for free must have a purple heart. 😎

Nothing as bad as a cosmetically perfect camera which doesn't work... A nice looking brick! 😁

[tuco]

In Australia fron 1976 to 1985 in Australia in the costal country area where I lived there were no camera shops at the time so people here were using their Praktia's with sun zoom lens Carl Zesis lens etc and the only new cameras were purchased from the chemist as the chemist handled the film etc in those days and they mostly supported Kodak yes the box brownie was a profesional camera too, they sold mostly hanimex, kodak and instamatic cameras a lot of which were plastic so I guess like all good things in those days you would have needed to mail order a camera from a magazine and Nikon 's advertising + 007 they would have been mostly ordered it would depend on what was proven, and how good the adds were as to which camera was ordered along with word of mouth. Japanese cameras cars etc were like chinese stuff today but better quality I would have expected better quality from china as they are basicly the same race as the Japanese it was china that conqurered Japan long ago.back to my point which I don't really have, It's like dirt bikes as well they were simply ordered through the magazines, now there is no real reason why 35mm couldn't be used professionally but those of you who saw the era know the Medium and large format cameras won the day 35mm really just didn't cut it as you didn't have the larger negative to start cropping with it was only when the 35mm got sopfisticated with quality zoom lenses that they were accepted. Even in the late 90's first question was do you have a medium format camera it was the versilitality of the zoom lenses that really opened the doors and the flood of newcomers like myself that forced the 35mm onto the publishers as we didn't want to use the medium format because to get a good shot with a medium format you would spend ages setting up your shot but the 35mm you could already get 20 shots off in the same time. The reason for this was any imperfections on medium format would show up big time but 35mm could escape a lot of the scrunity the 35mm was also the birth of the action shot, no more posing of football teams etc it could all be caught on the field etc and if you missed the shot with a medium size camera the shot was gone but the 35mm slr you could go after it for a second chance. Most old photo's in cold wet countries would have been taken with old manual cameras the k1000 was from what I was hearing a very popular camera in these enviroments as they never let the user down as with the SP The sp was a very clever move by pentax as it enabled the use of all the preexisting m42 lenses then when the K1000 came people were hooked on the Pentax features and then had to start buying k-mount lenses or m42 pk adapters and the k-mount lens is why your all here today you have your lenses and you don't want to be forced to buy new lenses by a change in lens mount. We are also here because we are nice people and I myself wouldn't want a Nikon because of the nature of people that buy Nikon. Except one guy my tafe teacher he was cool he never taught me anything wasn't his fault I already knew what he was teaching but he is a dam nice person.

I really don't agree with some of your assessment of medium format film. I've been shooting MF for years and have posted countless images here in that format. I can reach for a manual, small format camera but I pass right over it and take one of my MF out instead. Sure, it is not as fast and quick as a fully automagic small format camera. But if you can take the picture with a K1000, you can pretty much take it with a MF camera.

And we're talking about the elusive online forum pro's wants, needs and uses I suspect. But I'm reminded what it says on my Fuji GSW690III every time I use it, "Professional", because it has no light meter or any help taking the pictures at all were, presumably, only a "pro" could take a successful picture with it, I guess.

[stevebrot]

But we're talking about the elusive online forum pro's wants, needs and uses I suspect. But I'm reminded what it says on my Fuji GSW690III every time use it, "Professional", because it has no light meter or any help taking the pictures at all were, presumably, only a "pro" could take a successful picture with it, I guess.

I chuckled a little here. Earlier this morning I saw a post by Colton (@Swift1) where he mentioned use of his 1955 Rolleiflex. The Rolleiflex is one tool that I believe has never had its professional credentials questioned. Why this would be the case, I am not sure, though it might have something to do with suitability to task, quality of implementation, and general performance excellence. It also does not hurt that it was favored by giants such as Imogen Cunningham.

Steve

(...seriously intrigued by your Fuji...)

[Lord Lucan]

The Rolleiflex is one tool that I believe has never had its professional credentials questioned. Why this would be the case, I am not sure

I believe the Rollei was widely used as a press camera before 35mm took over, and also for weddings and studio portraits. My father had one 1950s-60s (he did some weddings with it) and I remember the viewfinder hood had a small hole (with a lens?) in the back and you could hinge down a square aperture in the front to make a crude eye-level "frame finder"; I don't think it made a good action camera though.

[stevebrot]

I remember the viewfinder hood had a small hole (with a lens?) in the back and you could hinge down a square aperture in the front to make a crude eye-level "frame finder"; I don't think it made a good action camera though.

That feature was referred to as a sport finder and is common to many TLRs as well as the waist-level finders on some SLRs. It works sort of like the wire frame finders common to press cameras. That style finder works surprisingly well and is the best way to shoot while panning (The L-R reversed reflex finder is not recommended) and when precise framing is not critical. Amazingly, Rollei even made an add-on rangefinder for use with the sport finder.


Steve