The Pentax MX

[CMur12]

A bit OT (and not Leica), but a well known bit of Pentax folklore is that the original Super-Takumar 50/f1.4 '8 element' was an all-in, sold-at-a-loss effort to outperform the Zeiss 50mm Planar. My understanding is that they were successful, before quietly switching to a cheaper 7 element design.

My understanding is that the 7-element 50mm lens that succeeded the 8-element version was made with special (radioactive; thorium?) glass, which Pentax probably felt offered the same performance with one less element. I'm pretty sure the radioactive glass cost more than the more common glass. I don't see it as Pentax lowering their standards.


- Murray

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

My understanding is that the 7-element 50mm lens that succeeded the 8-element version was made with special (radioactive; thorium?) glass, which Pentax probably felt offered the same performance with one less element. I'm pretty sure the radioactive glass cost more than the more common glass. I don't see it as Pentax lowering their standards.


- Murray

I'm far from an expert on this (hopefully others will offer their take...) but my reading is that the cost associated with the 8 element wasn't just that it had one more piece of glass, but rather than it had a cememted triplet that was very expensive to manufacture. Every bit of info I've come across agrees that the 7 element was more affordable to produce*.

I don't know the relative cost of thorium vs regular glass, but given that Pentax also used thorium in their cheaper 'kit lens' 55/f1.8, I can't imagine the difference is significant.

*Having said all that, none of the comparisons I've seen between the Super-Tak 7 and 8 elements suggest a notable difference in image quality.

 

[Huss]

I had both Pentax MX and Olympus OM-1/OM-2 cameras. The MX is very slightly smaller; the Olympus felt better in my hands. Both were excellent cameras.

But honestly, in this camera class, I prefer the Nikon FM2n. And my current small mechanical SLR, the Leica R6.2, is not much larger than the FX if at all, and has the best lenses.

G

I have the FM2n and, well, yes it is 'better' than my MX. But it is also bigger, and to be honest I always wanted to try an MX and Shawn happened to be selling one!
I am delighted with both of these cameras, but really surprised by the quality of the Pentax K SMC lenses.
I think my R-Es are the same size as the R6.2? These cameras feel built to an entirely different level than the MX, and quite frankly the FM2. My R7 is a bit bigger (taller) than the R6/R-E. Of course the R8/9 are huge in comparison.

But still, the MX is such a joy to use. And adding the ButterGrip handle makes it even nicer.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Nice! Can you show a top view of the MX so I can see how big the 50 1.2 is on it?

Here's a comparison with the K50/f1.2 and MX 'standard' M50/f1.4. The 'M' is pretty tiny for a f1.4.

 

[NickTrop]

I noticed a couple shooting film cameras in Rittenhouse Square in Philly this past Sunday. Young couple. The woman was shooting a Leica M5 (big!) with a pre-ASP Cron and the guy was shooting this, a Minolta MX. He said he loved it.

I also noticed a couple others shooting film cameras. In fact, there were more film SLRs there than DSLRs (which is what I was shooting) amidst the cell phones.

 

[Huss]

Here's a comparison with the K50/f1.2 and MX 'standard' M50/f1.4. The 'M' is pretty tiny for a f1.4.

Thanks for posting this! My Minolta 58 1.2 and Nikkor 50/55 1.2s seem to be huge in comparison.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

...the guy was shooting this, a Minolta MX. He said he loved it.

Ahem, I suspect it was a Pentax MX 😉


Or perhaps a Minolta X-700/570?

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Kuala Lumpur

MX, SMC-M 28/f2 and Tmax400

 

[Uncle Bill]

Pentax MX, SMC Pentax M 50 f1.7 lens.
Film: Kodak Portra 400

Shot along Highway 35 in the Haliburtons, 2.5 hours northeast of Toronto On.

Reflected Pines by Bill Smith, on Flickr

Reflected Haliburton by Bill Smith, on Flickr

Reflected Haliburton Two by Bill Smith, on Flickr

 

[Uncle Bill]

Shot in the Kawarthas northeast of Toronto a few years back

Pentax MX, SMC Pentax K 50 f1.7 lens.
Kodak Portra 400

Old Snow Blower II by Bill Smith, on Flickr

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Pentax MX (black paint), SMC-K 85/f1.8 and Tmax100



Kettering



Southern Highlands

 

[Huss]

Lovely T-MAX images.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Lovely T-MAX images.

Thanks Huss, I really like Tmax100.

 

[Doug]

Pentax MX, 2.8/24mm SMCP, Fuji HQ Super 200

 

[Doug]

Pentax MX, 1.4/50mm SMCP, Kodak BW400CN

 

[Huss]

Nice pics Doug. I especially like the pop in the BW400 one. I like that film - forces you into looking at things from a B&W perspective, but pretty much any place can develop it as it is C41. (my local shop has to send out 'real' B&W to their main shop)

 

[Doug]

Thanks, Huss, it does seem to have good tonal contrasts... And unlike the Ilford (and Fuji) chromogenics, this Kodak has the usual C41 salmon-color film base.

 

[twvancamp]

Pentax MX; 45/2.8



Pentax MX by twvancamp, on Flickr

 

[GarageBoy]

How reliable are these? I've heard stories about the meters dying irreparably?

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

How reliable are these? I've heard stories about the meters dying irreparably?

I've had three and they've all been very reliable. At the end of the day it's a relatively simple mechanical SLR with a cloth focal plane shutter. Not a lot to go wrong...

I haven't had meter issues, but obviously these meters are potentially 40 years old, so I would expect them to die at some point. Of course, the MX is fully mechanical, so it will continue to function perfectly with a dead meter.

Mechanically, I haven't had any issues.

Cosmetically, the metal shell is thinner on the MX than on the earlier 'K' series Pentax's, and you often see them with dented prism housings.