[Jonathan Mac]

I have three MXs and one Super Program. Two of the three MXs work well mechanically, and two of the three have working light meters (the other I may be able to fix). The Super Program has not worked since I got it due to an electronic fault. I've never had an LX but would love one one day.

80s electronics are dodgy, and that impacts the Super Program more than the other two. Plus factor in that by then Pentax had decreased their build quality so the mechanics are not the best either. Just look at the ME Super - the majority of those I come across are not working, with roughly a 50/50 split on those whose electronics are duff and those which suffer a mechanical fault.

I would say the MX is the most reliable, and I'd guess it's the easiest to have repaired, but when you're talking about cameras that haven't been in production for at least twenty years nothing's a certainty. Eventually all of them will break down in such a way that they can't be repaired.

The only work-around I've found so far is to buy more cameras. Lots more cameras. Working ones.

[UncleVanya]

My dad worked for Pentax when the LX was in its heyday. The principle advantage of that camera over the MX is the metering. The TTL off the film plane metering is superb. It can adapt in auto mode to changing light conditions and does a fine job with flash exposures. The meter being in the body was a direct response to Nikon and the F2 where only some heads had metering and people complained.

Overall I felt it was a fantastic body.

My dad's best friend worked for Nikon and later Pentax after dad had changed jobs to something with less travel. His best friend thought the MX was the pinnacle of Pentax manual focus film bodies. He also loved the F Nikon over the F2 for what it is worth.

If I were buying today the LX would be just too expensive for me over either of the other two given the lack of film shooting I do. But I always wanted one... To go with my F2.

But I have come to realize the differences between equipment are mostly convenience and fluff vs shot selection and thoughtful image making. Enjoy any of these I'm sure they will all work.

[TwoUptons]

I had a Super Program for years. Apart from a bent rewind knob, it never gave me any problems.
I loved its meter, and especially its TTL flash. It was a great balance between the automation of "the future" with the ergonomics of "the past".
My favorite Super Program trick was firing a Sunpak 544 "potato masher" flash with the pc socket while using a AF280 as TTL fill... I got TTL exposure (mostly) with a ton of reach.
I got rid of it when I got my PZ-20, which did all the same things only focused and wound film for me, so was better suited to the event stuff I was doing at the time.

While I had the Super Program I got an MX as a more advanced backup over my K1000. One of the smoothest cameras I've ever used. Wonderful ergonomics, huge viewfinder.
I got rid of it when I moved away from shooting on a regular basis.

I've always loved the LX, but I've never been able to justify one over a MX. I don't really care about the interchangeable finder, the film rewinding trick is really neat, but I can burn a lot of blank frames for the money I'd save swapping rolls with a LX.
The only thing I'm jealous of is the meter, but I'm far more likely to do that kind of wacky low-light stuff with digital now at ISO settings that would have been impossible with film.
So while I totally get the LX legend, It's not my thing.

When I started shooting more film again, I picked up some older bodies cheap. One was a MX (since serviced as it was a little flaky). I keep coming across Super Programs, and they are generally very inexpensive, but I've never bought one...
I'm not terribly worried about the reliability... I just have that functionality elsewhere, and if I want to shoot film, it's nearly always a manual camera...
Now if I came across one that I knew was my old one, I'd like it back just to have the same one that took so many of my favorite images, but unless KEH keeps better records than I think they do, that won't happen...

-Eric

[Lord Lucan]

I think that the Super A and Super Program are the same cameras, just different markets.

That is my understanding : "Super Program" was for the USA market and "Super A" was for elsewhere. According to Danilo Cecchi's book on Pentax cameras, the naming of the A Series got confusing, because Pentax introduced a cheaper version a year later which was called "Program Plus" in the USA and "Program A" elsewhere. They all looked similar too.

Based on the names, and the fact that it came out later, you might in the USA think the "Program Plus" was better than "Super Program". On the contrary, the Program Plus/Program A had a slower shutter (1/1000 instead of 1/2000) a slower sync speed (1/100 instead of 1/125), lacked a shutter proirity mode and lacked TTL flash capability. I'm mentioning these points as the OP might not realise there are two such similar models around. He might be happy with a Program A.

I never had an A-Series camera, but I had an ME Super and TBH I did not much like the push button method of changing shutter speed, a method which these A Series cameras continued. I have owned an LX and an MX.

The MX is a very good camera, but the LX and A-Series had the addition of auto mode(s) which is good to leave the camera set on in case you want to take a shot in a hurry. They also had old style TTL flash control which has never been bettered (DSLRs cannot do it). I also liked being able to change the LX viewfinder to a "waist level" as I do a fair amount of copying with the camera on a tripod on a table, and I don't want to have to use a stepladder to look in the viewfinder.

[gofour3]

I love all the dialogue and perspectives! Here's my pickle.

The LX is an old flame, a camera I loved but which I experienced problems with. She's all fixed now but the hiccups have made me nervous. Lovely to shoot though but I don't change the finders and don't do anything particularly special with my photography so I really just need a reliable and fast camera I can capture my family with. So that makes me wonder if I need the brute strength of the LX. I do shoot aperture priority most of the time but seeing as the Super Program can do that and I have one that was just completely and beautifully overhauled to be like new, I'm wondering if it's time to let go of my love affair with the LX.

I happened to score a deal on a beater of an MX recently. I'll need to fix her up a bit but I confess to love some of the automation available in the Super Program. I know the Super Program doesn't meter off the film like the LX does but if I shoot negs rather than positives, is that precision even necessary? I am starting to think that I should keep the Super Program AND the MX as a back up but that also seems like overkill when I consider how many other film cameras I have (rangefinders mostly).

I could also just admit and accept that I have a GAS problem and keep all three :P

I'd recommend a KX over the three bodies that you mentioned. I have all those bodies & the KX and even though the LX is a better camera, I'd get a KX as it's cheaper and in the end required less maintenance. It also does not have flaky electronics.

Phil.

[murrelet]

If we're talking "deserted island" camera, I'd go with the MX.

I've gone through just about all the K's and M's (have not handled an LX). The MX is my favorite, even though I don't use it as often. It's kind of the Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic of cameras, kind of boring, not many bells or whistles, but reliable, not too sexy but sexy enough.

I actually like the Program A as my everyday, always with me camera. The slightly better ergonomics than the Super Program/A and ME Super outweigh the additional functionality of the Super Program/A for me. If I need TTL flash then I'll pick up my AF camera. And I don't use shutter priority. Finding clean Program Pluses/As seem easier to finding clean Super Programs/As.

[LesDMess]

I've gone through just about all the K's and M's (have not handled an LX). The MX is my favorite, even though I don't use it as often. It's kind of the Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic of cameras, kind of boring, not many bells or whistles, but reliable, not too sexy but sexy enough.

Perhaps a little context . . .



There may have only been a handful of cameras at that time with these options.

No doubt the MX is relatively simple in functionality. However, there still is a lot of technology inside that is not so simple . . .



They are simple . . . until they're not . . .

[Lord Lucan]

I'll raise you with my LX Sorry, I've no bulk film back

Would the MX pistol grip be the same one as for the LX (and K2 DMD I believe)?

[LesDMess]

I'll raise you with my LX Sorry, I've no bulk film back

Would the MX pistol grip be the same one as for the LX (and K2 DMD I believe)?

I am on the hunt for a 250 frame back and don't have a pistol grip.
I wouldn't think the grips would be interchangeable with different models as they have different bases.

[Lord Lucan]

I wouldn't think the grips would be interchangeable with different models as they have different bases.

The top face of the motor drive (ie to the camera) would need to be different, but the interface between the underside of the drive and the pistol grip could be the same in all cases. I've found a picture of a K2 DMD with the pistol grip and all three grips look exactly the same to me. My LX one has a 4-pin connector for a remote control on the side, which you can also see in the K2 picture; in my case this has a plastic screw cap. I can't see if the MX one has this. Between the grip and the drive, my LX one has four small pins to connect the two electrically.

[LesDMess]

The top face of the motor drive (ie to the camera) would need to be different, but the interface between the underside of the drive and the pistol grip could be the same in all cases.

Makes perfectly good sense to me. You definitely have a better grip on this then I do . . .

---------- Post added 07-05-20 at 07:26 PM ----------

I am starting to think that I should keep the Super Program AND the MX as a back up but that also seems like overkill when I consider how many other film cameras I have (rangefinders mostly).

Obviously your rangefinders cannot serve as a backup to whichever Pentax body you decide to keep as they cannot accept Pentax glass. Or at least I am not aware of interchangeable lens rangefinders that would accept Pentax glass.

I believe Pentax was the only camera manufacturer of that era who did not make a rangefinder . . .

[climbmountainway]

I was the US moderator for the Pentax LX Guestbook Messenger forum for at least 7 years (the other two were from Canada and the UK). The LX was issued in two runs, the first one was unreliable, the second was (research serial numbers). Both runs developed sticky mirror syndrome when the mirror bounce foam failed in time, and often developed failure of the self timer/DOF lever due to its attached push button activation access eventually de-threading its mechanism attachment and thus its possible operation (difficult to get repaired BTW). Its shutter, averaging center weighted meter, build, and quiet operation were accurate, did not hold memory between shots, and spoke quality. It had an accurate and long lasting quilted horizontal metal shutter. A working body can use any K mount lens with an on lens manual aperture adjustment. It signaled aperture to the body's meter through a mechanical linkage. Its auto exposure was achieved by aperture priority mode. It offered interchangable viewfinders, winder, and motor drive (with accessories). It was truly a system Professional film camera.

Both had metal bodies, the MX was simpler, with no autoexposure, yet with indexed lights set against a visible bracket in the viewfinder that made it easy to bracket exposure. It had a cloth shutter which would underlast the LX by two thirds longevity. Its simple electronics were prone to dust working its way under its bonnet through its shutter speed/ meter sensitivity dial; the LX was not so disposed (as had water resistant seals similar to the Pentax DSLR). The MX offered half and full stop over and under indexed lights averaging center weighted manually adjustable metering indicators. ASA/ISO settings were adjustable in 1/3 exposure stop increments. The MX was very lightweight and somewhat weather resistant in use with an integrated noninterchangeable viewfinder, I carried it backpacking a half dozen years. Fuji Velvia transparency film was my bread and butter from my shooting slide keepers library sales. It was better built than its alike sized predecessor, the Olympus OM1.

The LX and MX had a very similar viewfinder brightness and view area scope. LX Standard FA-1 Interchangeable Eye-Level Pentaprism Finder featured silver-coating and shows 98% vertical, 95% horizontal of picture area plus full data viewfinder display; and offers a built-in diopter correction by adjustment screw. The MX required a slip over glass lens back viewfinder eyeframe diopter correction. The LX finder was removable by a release lever. 7 other Prisms were available. The fixed MX viewfinder and changeable LX viewfinder focusing screens, though not multicoated for the MX, and multicoated for the LX, were interchangeable with one another.

The ME Super and Super (Program) A slightly different cameras offered more automation of exposure, without half stop manual metering (and offering push button shutter speed adjustments, and automatic shutter speed metering, and the Super [Program] A offering both aperture or shutter speed autoexposure with A series lenses which can still be set to A aperture automation on Pentax DSLRs) but used the same metering cell as the MX, and ME -- so were accurate, and did not hold memory between shots (which was a big metering advance over the K series cameras). The ME Super had a metal body, the A series plastic bodies. The winders on the LX, ME super, and MX were 2 fps, with the LX and MX also offering motor drives up to 5 fps. The Super A up to 3.5 fps for its now hard to find motordrive. The ME winder II fit both the Super Program and ME Super bodies. Any of their viewfinders were good, with the earlier K series bodies, MX, LX, and ME Super having pentaprisms. Only one A series had this, the cheaper units used penta mirrors.

The seals on the backs and mirror up bounce will rot after many years in a humid climate. But, finding one in pristine shape, from someone who purchased it and lodged it hardly used in a closet and case, is still very much possible. Good hunting.

If you wish to purchase one, condition is everything. I picked up a functional and clean ME Super body with winder II for under $30. The advantages of any of these are the now inexpensive, yet excellent M series SMC lenses, often with a common 49mm filter size, as are readily found on ebay for peanuts. I literally wore out the aperture on a 35mm f2, but enjoyed its color and rendition detail daily for 5 years, along with a 100mm M tele, an M series 2 28MM , and a 20mm f4 M with a 49mm filter which I still use. Occasional bargain lenses which would work well with the LX, M, and A series benefits are the M and A telezooms. I still hold 5 M series optics, used mostly for Video on digital bodies (with manually available aperture adjustment). The remote screw on 4 pin wired release for the LX MD and winder is interchangeable with the ME Super Winder II. The MX winder has no remote, unlike its motor drive, which interchanges batteries and AC power resources including a remote connection on then available battery packs with the LX.

[Lord Lucan]

I was the US moderator for the Pentax LX Guestbook forum

Wow, I learned a few things there Perhaps you should contribute some knowledge to Wikipedia - I have done a bit myself.

It seems to me that the build quality of Pentax kit went somewhat downhill after the Super A and Program A (and even they had plastic bodies as I've just learned), and did not pick up again until the digital *ist digital series. That is reflected in the relative amount of interest and discussion on the different camera models on this forum. It is also reflected in Wikipedia where there are separate articles on the Spotmatics, most of the M-Series, the K1000 (of course), the LX, and the Super A, but then hardly any articles on the film cameras after that.

I have a lens from Pentax's "plastic" period and it feels, well, light, cheap, rattly and plasticky. It was very cheap on Ebay (but the optics are good). Maybe light weight was the fashion at the time and everything was sacrificed for it; these days weight seems to be no object.

[Benz3ne]

Though I can't attest for the LX or Super A, I do love my MX. Was very fortunate to have a working model for small money (around £35), which I changed the seals on recently for an additional tenner or thereabouts.
I'd love to pick up another just to have one with one set of film and another with another. It's mechanical simplicity is what I love most about it. Easy to use and, hopefully, will deliver good pictures (yet to get the one roll of film I've ashamedly shot with it developed).

[cjfeola]

I shot Pentax professionally from 1979 until the late 90s. My main rig in the 80s was a set of two matched LXs - one with the standard focusing screen and the 135/1.8A*, the other with a grid screen and the 20/4 - and an MX, all three with winders. I generally had hand-loaded Tri-X in the LXs, and Kodachrome and the 80-200 on the MX. All three were tanks. I once tripped on a street in Tokyo wearing all three on straps. The LX with the 20 bounced two feet off the pavement; I caught it and finished the shoot. Made a nice dent next to the wind lever, which never effected the operation.

I still have all three - plus the ME Super I started out on. The LXs both have their electronics shot, and I cannot justify the cost of repair. The MX works same as it ever did, and it's such a sweet machine that's what I take out if I feel like shooting 35mm. Though, to be fair, if I feel like shooting film these days it tends to be my Pentax 67.

I keep the LXs because I made a living with them. If I was buying a 35mm Pentax today I'd buy the MX. Or a K1000, frankly.

Hope that helps.

Cjf