Originally posted by frank Hi All,
I've played quite some film cameras since I went back to film last year, including a couple of MX cameras. I know quite some people love MX, but after comparing it against some other manual cameras like ME/ME Super or SuperA/SuperProgram, I feel those cameras are much easier to use. MX does have bigger and brighter viewfinder (not much bigger than ME/ME Super's), but its film forward winding just doesn't feel as well as ME Super or SuperA, not to say LX, and its speed dial isn't easy to reach or turn. It's a full manual camera, most time I'm too busy turning both aperture ring and speed dial to get proper exposure, plus manual focusing, sometimes I just lost the fun of taking photos.
It's a beautiful camera, very solid and well built. But its body seems to be too short to feel comfortable. SuperA/SuperProgram feels much better in this regard. After playing it for a while, I just don't know what's the fuzz about it. I feel ME Super and SuperA/Super Program are better cameras (easier to use, better handling ...)
Care to share your thoughts on this?
Oh btw, I still love the camera, probably would keep it long, for collection purpose mostly I guess.
I'll steer this a bit toward the orginal topic...
I got my first MX on January 11, 1983. The receipt is still in the manual. I still have, and use, the camera along with the M 50/1.4 that came with it. Camera and lens have both been overhauled and repaired several times- they've seen some pretty hard use.
I bought the camera as a replacement for a couple of K-mount bodies that I had used as a newspaper photographer, which were getting pretty tired.
The attraction at the time was that the MX was a superbly built mechanical body with a sophisticated metering system. I was living in northern Canada and needed cold-weather capabilities, so the ability to function without batteries was a key.
In terms of ergonomics, like many I find the body a bit small in the hand. I also find the LED meter display too dim to be really useful in bright light. Match needle displays are better. On the other hand, if the light is bright enough to obscure the LED you don't need a meter anyhow.
Interestingly, from my point of view the camera really comes into its own as a serious tool for fast-moving low-light work (by the standards of its day, of course). If you add the winder, the camera becomes easy to hold quite steady at slow shutter speeds. In dim light the LED becomes very visible; combined with the excellent sensitivity of the meter, working in low light is enormously easier than with match-needle systems. It seems to me that this low-light capability was a major factor in the desigh of the camera, particularly if you think of serious photographers as people who work with existing light in a broad range of conditions.
Over the years I've seen a lot of discussions of the mirror lock-up hack for the MX.
If I remember correctly, one design feature was a mirror damping mechanism that in Pentax's view made MLU unnecessary.
Why the continuing popularity of the MX? It's a little jewel that continues to be capable of making good pictures. It has the essential character of a fine mechanical instrument, which means that there is pleasure in using it. I have mine in a kit with a KX, (another mechanical beauty) and several prime lenses. The MX is loaded with HP5 and used hand-held (with winder). The KX is loaded with FP4 and is used mainly on a tripod, usually with its very convenient MLU.
I get a lot of pleasure from using the old beasts. (Super Programs were my most used cameras for 15 years. They work well, but just don't have the character of the MX.)
Cheers
John