[vow20]

I've been reading about the pentax film cameras lately and I'm planning to get one soon. My options are MX, LX or PZ-1P. I love the small and compact design of the MX. The metering and the construction of the LX look very appealing. And the PZ-1P has AF, 4Fps, 1/8000th. Anyway, I think I would be happy with any of the three. I'd just like to know what could be a fair price for each of the bodies in good condition. Thanks everyone for your replies.

[mnovikov]

Is is a joke? Three camears are as different as you can imagine. MX is all manual, supposedly very nice, good for learning and as a collector item. LX is arguably the best manual focus ever, much more advanced. Both are professional grade quality. I would also consider ME Super, less fancy than LX, but very convenient, smaller and cheaper. PZ-1P I don't like that much, too bulky and less advanced than the next "pro" model, MZ-S. I would take MZ-S instead, very nice camera, small, quiet, very soft shutter, very quick and powerful AF, I just love it! Of all the cameras mentioned here it's the most convenient and versatile. The only drawback, it only has one wheel, so if you want aperture priority, you have to change aperture on the lens - but if you're considering manual cameras, obviously, you can live with it.

[geauxpez]

You forgot to throw a screwmount body into the mix. Buy them all...keep the one you like best.

[Spock]

Having owned an MX and a PZ1 I would warn against getting an MX if you are unused to manual cameras. It takes time to set up speed and aperture and focus. It is a lovely camera but it's really only good for unrushed shots.

The PZ1 on the other hand, and to a slightly lesser extent the LX, are easy to take snapshots with and yet can do any other kind of photography you could ever want.

[Jerry Thirsty]

Well the LX is going to be the most expensive of the three, and there's a good chance it will need an expensive overhaul before it will really live up to its' full potential. The MX and PZ1P cost about the same, so it just comes down to small manual vs. large electronic. Check KEH and eBay completed auctions for prices; KEH will usually be about 15-20% higher than eBay, but sometimes you're better off paying the extra than buying from some guy who "doesn't know anything about cameras, but this one appears to work".

[felixkh]

Get the PZ-1/PZ-1P or the MZ-S

[Jimfear]

Having owned an MX and a PZ1 I would warn against getting an MX if you are unused to manual cameras. It takes time to set up speed and aperture and focus. It is a lovely camera but it's really only good for unrushed shots.

The PZ1 on the other hand, and to a slightly lesser extent the LX, are easy to take snapshots with and yet can do any other kind of photography you could ever want.

In contradiction to what Spock said I would say that you will manage well with a fully manual camera, even in rushed shots. The problem with the MX though is that it only shows +- 1EV in the viewfinder, which means that outside that you have no idea what the right speed/aperture settings are. The LX shows all speeds in the viewfinder at all time making it easy to quickly get the correct settings because you instantly see "about" where it should be. Don't know how the PZ-1 metering works so I can't compare.

You quite quickly learn to get the right settings and so do not have a problem with missing shots. A plus with using manual is that you meter the light where you want to meter it and not dead centre when the shot is taken.

If you want a cheap alternative to the MX with only slight difference in features the KX is a very, very nice camera (I know many forum members will agree). It is larger, and heavier, but that doesn't bother me. Put a fast prime on it and you're in business.

[k100d]

maybe you should try out film w/ a cheap camera to make sure you really actually want to shoot film

[SquintyEyes]

...The problem with the MX though is that it only shows +- 1EV in the viewfinder, which means that outside that you have no idea what the right speed/aperture settings are.

I think you might have mixed it up with another camera. MX shows aperature (through little window) and shutter speed on the right side, next to the LEDs. Just checked Dimitrov's to confirmed the information.

I think MX is slower in operation than most AF + AE bodies, but that's the nature of the beast. In many ways I think it's very educational to slow down for the shots, makes one think about exposure and whether the shot is really worth taking. To put things in perspective, MX is considered "fast" compared to taking spot/incident light reading on a light meter for MF. It really depends on your need. For situations that I need many fast snapshots why not carry a digital camera on the side?

[CSoars]

I think you might have mixed it up with another camera. MX shows aperature (through little window) and shutter speed on the right side, next to the LEDs. Just checked Dimitrov's to confirmed the information.

He didn't mean it only shows +1/-1 EV, he means the meter display in the viewfinder dictates that you blindly 'ballpark' the inital exposure, and if over or underexposed you have no idea by how many stops until you get within 1 EV. (Compared to a match needle or LED that runs up and down all available shutter speeds). I shoot with an MX and it does get you into using sunny 16 derivatives and mental math for your light conditions, something I've come to value now that I'm shooting medium format without a meter (for now).

[edl]

...
If you want a cheap alternative to the MX with only slight difference in features the KX is a very, very nice camera (I know many forum members will agree). It is larger, and heavier, but that doesn't bother me. Put a fast prime on it and you're in business.

Actually, the KX is every bit as good as the MX if not better. I have both and find the MX is almost too small for my hands - the KX is just right.

In the US, the KX generally sells for the same price as the MX, when you can find one.

[Jimfear]

Actually, the KX is every bit as good as the MX if not better. I have both and find the MX is almost too small for my hands - the KX is just right.

My opinion exactly. I like the KX better too. Therefore phrased "with only slight difference in features" instead of "with only slightly less features". I'm only lacking interchangeable screens on the KX while the MX leaves you wanting in a couple of regards.

CSoars answered SquintyEyes's question capably.

[K-9]

Is is a joke? Three camears are as different as you can imagine. MX is all manual, supposedly very nice, good for learning and as a collector item. LX is arguably the best manual focus ever, much more advanced. Both are professional grade quality. I would also consider ME Super, less fancy than LX, but very convenient, smaller and cheaper. PZ-1P I don't like that much, too bulky and less advanced than the next "pro" model, MZ-S. I would take MZ-S instead, very nice camera, small, quiet, very soft shutter, very quick and powerful AF, I just love it! Of all the cameras mentioned here it's the most convenient and versatile. The only drawback, it only has one wheel, so if you want aperture priority, you have to change aperture on the lens - but if you're considering manual cameras, obviously, you can live with it.

Is this a joke?

The PZ-1p has a higher flash sync speed, top shutter speed, fps, exp. compensation, and built-in flash GN than the MZ-S. It also has panorama capability and flash exp. compensation, neither of which you'll find on the MZ-S.

[ChrisPlatt]

If you really want to learn film I'd recommend a Pentax KM, K1000, or Spotmatic F (in that order).

Chris

[monochrome]

Ditto all the KX replies (Chris - you left it off!).

Check my avatar <|;>)