[TomB_tx]

The ME / MX brought me back to Pentax when they first came out. I had been shooting a Leicaflex SL (a solid tank), but lenses were too expensive. I loved the size of the M series bodies and lenses. I bought an LX body when it had been out for a year or so. Great meter for low light, but in most shooting MX was as accurate, and MX meter easier to read in some lighting conditions. LX is at its best when shutter is on automatic. Overall I prefer the MX, but I’m shooting a roll in my LX now to give it another chance. My LX went unused for many years due to mirror rest being sticky and focus off as a result. On my 3rd MX now, while the old Leicaflex SL just keeps going...
I use lenses from all of these on an A7 now for digital use.

[womble]

As you can see from the above, everyone has a slightly different take on your question. For me, I would go for the LX first, then the MX and the Super A last, although I like them all.

LX. Mine had a CLA not long after I got it, and apart from one user-induced problem that required repair (I dropped it on a rock), it has worked flawlessly since. I've always said that if in some bizarro alternate reality I could only keep one 35mm camera, the LX would be it.

MX. My second-ever 35mm camera. Got stolen in France. Since had several more and have kept one "silver" one and one black one. They both work flawlessly although the silver one had to have a repair for the common battery-drain problem, which of course, only affects the light meter. When I went on a (probably) once-in-a-lifetime trip around the world, I took the LX and MX with me. The black one, despite a CLA, occasionally has a 'slip' and one gets an over-lapping frame or two. Hasn't happened for a while though.

Super A. I have one which I had CLAed and use occasionally. I like the little thumb grip, and the greater choice of auto-modes (although I nearly always use Av, even on my digital cameras). It feels more "plastic-y" than the LX/MX and if I was to go on a trip, it wouldn't be the camera I took with me.

Just my tuppence worth.

K.

[johnha]

Whilst the Super-A is a favourite of mine and back in the day Tv, TTL flash and the Motordrive-A were really useful in fast moving situations, I now shoot many in manual or auto with exposure lock. Digital is much more convenient for anything involving action or high ISO, many of the features of the Super-A are not really needed when I want to shoot film. Using it in Manual is awkward (my glasses no longer give me a clear view of the finder LCDs) and the lack of an exposure lock is annoying. I now prefer the P50 (despite it's reliance on DX coding) because it offers a meter lock.

The LX is fabulous camera, I bought mine back in the day (prices were much higher than today) and had the sticky mirrors repaired because I wanted to fix my cameras. They're still really good cameras (my preference) but you may need to factor in a repair. If you want to invest in the best Pentax manual focus SLR, this is the one. They're not cheap but if you have the budget, they are the nicest to use. The only snag is that it's a system in itself and there's always some other accessory you think you need...

As for the mechanical options (basically MX, KX, K1000) - the short answer is that the functional differences are minimal (user preferences vary) and that condition is more important. The MX and KX seem to be around the same ballpark prices, the K1000 has become trendy and prices can be significantly higher. K1000s are likely to be the most recent given they were built for so long - but the most desirable MIJ ones are as old as the KX/MX. The KM is another option but they seem much harder to find than the KX.

[Lord Lucan]

.... the lack of an exposure lock [on the Super A] is annoying.

The LX lacks one too. I have a copy of an old Amateur Photographer review of the LX. It was nearly all glowing praise, except that they were baffled by the lack of an exposure lock in such a camera. They concluded it must have been an oversight.

As for the mechanical options (basically MX, KX, K1000) - the short answer is that the functional differences are minimal (user preferences vary)

A major omission on the K1000 is a self-timer, unlike (AFAIK) every other Pentax K-mount camera ever made. Inexperienced buyers can be unaware of this - a guy I worked with bought one new and was disappointed afterwards for that reason. In fact a K1000 is a KM without the self-timer (and the DoF preview which used the same lever). Even if you are not interested in taking selfies, a self-timer is usful for tripod or "bean-bag" shots if you don't have or can't find a release cable. I take about 25% of my pictures using the self-timer (but not for selfies ).

[Autonerd]

This may be an absurd conversation to start but assuming you had the option of either the MX, LX or Super Program, each in solidly working condition, which would you choose as the best intersection of practicality, ergonomic enjoyment, end result and why? For example, I love the LX but part of me thinks it's impractical due to expense and seemingly inevitable and eternal failure, but am I wrong? State your case and help me choose.

Of those three, LX. I own an MX and am not a big fan (don't love the meter and the shutter dial is hard to manipulate), plus I like the convenience of an auto mode. I can rule out Super Program -- I have an ME Super and love it, but it's really a pain to shoot manually (between the push-buttons and the meter display), and I think the Super Program uses the same setup. I do love the small size of the Ms, though.

That said I haven't bought an LX because they're so darn expensive.

The camera I'd pick as the closest to the ideal is the K2. Has the match-needle display I prefer and an auto mode, even if it lacks the light weight of the M cameras. I'm biased, my first SLR was a KX and it's still my favorite. Don't need an automatic mode because I know it so well.

Aaron

[Jonathan Mac]

They both work flawlessly although the silver one had to have a repair for the common battery-drain problem, which of course, only affects the light meter.

I don't think I've ever heard of this problem. Does it just make the battery drain much faster than it should?

[johnha]

I don't think I've ever heard of this problem. Does it just make the battery drain much faster than it should?

I've had a couple of situations with my MX where the batteries fine in one outing don't work next time I get it out. I carry the camera un-protected in a variety of random bags a lot and sometimes the shutter lock has moved - I think my problems have been down to slight pressure on the shutter release draining the battery whilst in the bag.

[Ray-uk]

This can happen when the switch contacts are slightly too close, even with the shutter lock on the slighest pressure on the button is enough to activate the switch and cause battery drain.

[climbmountainway]

The LX lacks one too. I have a copy of an old Amateur Photographer review of the LX. It was nearly all glowing praise, except that they were baffled by the lack of an exposure lock in such a camera. They concluded it must have been an oversight.

A major omission on the K1000 is a self-timer, unlike (AFAIK) every other Pentax K-mount camera ever made. Inexperienced buyers can be unaware of this - a guy I worked with bought one new and was disappointed afterwards for that reason. In fact a K1000 is a KM without the self-timer (and the DoF preview which used the same lever). Even if you are not interested in taking selfies, a self-timer is usful for tripod or "bean-bag" shots if you don't have or can't find a release cable. I take about 25% of my pictures using the self-timer (but not for selfies ).

The LX intentionally omitted exposure lock, as justified by the setting in Autoexposure equipping the meter reading directly off the film itself right up until the shutter closed. O course, when manually metering whatever one set was locked for camera and/or lens orchestration.

[Lord Lucan]

The LX intentionally omitted exposure lock, as justified by the setting in Autoexposure equipping the meter reading directly off the film itself right up until the shutter closed.

I don't follow that reasoning. The main use for an exposure lock is to enable the user to lock on to the auto exposure obtained while aiming at a point which is different from that when the picture itself is taken. The most common use is to aim at a lower angle and lock the exposure before talking a picture with a higher aim when there is to be a lot of sky in the picture, because the bright sky tends to depress the auto exposure time and hence under-expose the object of interest. Measuring and setting exposure while aiming at a lower angle when shooting outdoors was advice often given in photographic text books before the days of DSLRs with "intelligent" metering.

This behaviour is the same with or without OTF metering. The LX's contemporary rival, the Nikon F3, was functionally very similar (including OTF metering) and did have an exposure lock and the LX tended to draw unfavourable comparisons because of it.

Having said all that, I was not much bothered by the absence of the lock on my LX. I could aim lower (for example), note the shutter speed being proposed, re-compose for the actual shot and note how much the shutter speed had changed. I could then use the exposure compensation dial to bring it back to the original speed. TBH, I would probably just put it in manual anyway.

[Eyewanders]

I don't follow that reasoning. The main use for an exposure lock is to enable the user to lock on to the auto exposure obtained while aiming at a point which is different from that when the picture itself is taken. The most common use is to aim at a lower angle and lock the exposure before talking a picture with a higher aim when there is to be a lot of sky in the picture, because the bright sky tends to depress the auto exposure time and hence under-expose the object of interest. Measuring and setting exposure while aiming at a lower angle when shooting outdoors was advice often given in photographic text books before the days of DSLRs with "intelligent" metering.

This behaviour is the same with or without OTF metering. The LX's contemporary rival, the Nikon F3, was functionally very similar (including OTF metering) and did have an exposure lock and the LX tended to draw unfavourable comparisons because of it.

Having said all that, I was not much bothered by the absence of the lock on my LX. I could aim lower (for example), note the shutter speed being proposed, re-compose for the actual shot and note how much the shutter speed had changed. I could then use the exposure compensation dial to bring it back to the original speed. TBH, I would probably just put it in manual anyway.

Despite my love of the LX's handling, this is actually one of my only pet-peeves about the camera, and has a lot to do with why I often shoot my T4 the most these days. It's certainly not a complicated thing to work around it but a lock function, particularly the type that tie it to the shutter half-press, is a far quicker affair.

[womble]

I don't think I've ever heard of this problem. Does it just make the battery drain much faster than it should?

Yes, the battery goes flat in a couple of days. K.

[Huss]

I have all three:

MX - shutter speed dial is too tight, film wind on is too long. Huge viewfinder's minus is if you wear glasses you cannot see the edges. Metering diodes very hard to see in daylight/bright light. Size is delightful, nice that it is fully mechanical.

LX - feels wonderful in hand, small but very dense. All the controls are perfectly weighted, Excellent having the option of using the camera strap from only the left side of the body as it improves the handling on the right side. Nothing gets in your way. Really dumb that there is no exposure lock. OTF metering is not an excuse for it, as that has nothing to do with locking exposure. But overall a gorgeous camera.

SuperA - excellent size, nice VF readouts that can be illuminated so always easy to see. Because they are on the bottom of the display, really easy to make a DIY split diopter if you are long sighted so you can clearly see that as well as focus. Film wind on is nice and short - much better than MX. Program mode has excellent shutter speed/aperture bias. Manual shutter speed buttons are goofy but you get used to them. Super value for money camera.

and...

P30T - really nice short film advance throw - much better than the MX. Really easy to use battery cap - stays attached to the body! Killer feature - it has AE lock! I use this all the time. Camera fits nicely in hand, it's a composite (plastic) but feels dense and high quality. Meter readouts easier to read than the MX and the LX.

ME - just a delightful jewel like little camera. No manual override but the upside is no annoying little push buttons! Also cleaner design as w/o them. Use ISO settings or compensation for manual exposure. Nice and short film wind throw - again much better than the MX. Easy to read VF. Feels great in hand with metal(?)/metallic finish. Easy to load with magic needle system (like LX and SuperA).

K2 - really a sleeper of a camera. Fantastic film wind feel that is much shorter than the MX and KX. Bigger but feels hefty in a good way. Very easy to read needle exposure system. Really finicky to adjust film speed (but if you read the manual, it makes it much easier). Best manual focus screen out of all these cameras, including the LX. The image really pops into focus in the VF. This is the most under-rated Pentax film slr.

Out of all of them, favourite is the LX ( praying it stays reliable), the K2 and SuperA tied, then the rest. Right now I am shooting the LX with a Zenit Zenitar 50 f2 lens (because why not?!) and TMAX p3200 rated at 1000. The handling is great with this combo and I'm curious to see how the lens will perform. I bought this lens attached to a Zenit 212K which was cheaper than buying it by itself!

[Lord Lucan]

MX - shutter speed dial is too tight, film wind on is too long.

You seem to attach an awful lot of weight to the film wind on length. I've had/used quite a few film cameras and I've never noticed what the film wind length was - with one exception, an ancient 35mm of my fathers that required two strokes of the lever to wind it on (and they were stiff)! Otherwise I simply shove the lever until it stops.

WRT the MX, my one's shutter dial moved nicely; it must be your example.

[Huss]

You seem to attach an awful lot of weight to the film wind on length. I've had/used quite a few film cameras and I've never noticed what the film wind length was - with one exception, an ancient 35mm of my fathers that required two strokes of the lever to wind it on (and they were stiff)! Otherwise I simply shove the lever until it stops.

WRT the MX, my one's shutter dial moved nicely; it must be your example.

I notice. The MX's throw is 162 (per manual) while the K2 is 130 degrees. It makes a huge difference in feel and operation. And I find it strange this it is so in the MX, as the SuperA and ME are the same size (the K2 is bigger) but still have a much shorter throw.
Every MX I have tried has a stiff shutter speed dial, and it is a common observation. A quick google search will demonstrate that. Not a deal breaker by any means, but a shame nonetheless.