The Pentax MX

johannielscom said:
Even though the MX is pretty small, the smallest SLR is the Fujica ST605 and ST605n.
And also a Petri model that I forgot the model number of, that's equally small.
Click to expand...

EA4BL said:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=108269&d=1551394562


No, actually the Fujica st605n is quite larger than the MX.
Click to expand...

I can't find the photos I took of the ME and Fuji ST 901. But they seemed the same size to me. AFIK, the ST605 were the same size as the other ST series, but I only have the 901 and the 801. The difference I saw was in weight. I thought the 901 was heavier than the ME.

I had an MX briefly, and didn't like it as well as the ME. But there wasn't anything really bad about the MX imho, but for some reason I liked the ME better.

Still, I prefer the ST 901. It was my 2nd 35mm SLR, and it just fit my hand and photo style best. If I couldn't keep the Fuji cameras I have, I would be happy with the ME and a set of 4 or 5 lenses.

Just my 2 cents..
 
tsiklonaut said:
attachment.php

The lighter one is this one (3-rows of knobs on focusing ring), 49mm filter ring.

Is it correct?

PS: out of curiosity, any idea why the f8 is marked with red on the bigger version? Is it some "magic-spot" f-number or it's the only f where the lens actually works? :D
Click to expand...


I have the small f2.8 version and it's very compact, and has decent image quality. The orange marking of f8 is so cool, the focus ring is also marked in orange at the appropriate distance for f8 hyperfocal shooting. It's like Pentax wanted you to use it as a hyperfocal street lens.
 
Archiver said:
I have the small f2.8 version and it's very compact, and has decent image quality. The orange marking of f8 is so cool, the focus ring is also marked in orange at the appropriate distance for f8 hyperfocal shooting. It's like Pentax wanted you to use it as a hyperfocal street lens.
Click to expand...

I have two 28mm Pentax lenses. Both have the f 8.0 street photography setting. It works great: mine are the Super-Takumar f3.5 28mm and the, I think 'A' 28mm f 2.8. My 28mm f 2.8 is one of my sharpest lenses. I used it for years to do stage play promo photos. Those are very difficult: low light, moving target, and nutty directors. I used a K-01 so AF was a help. It is certainly more than 'decent.'

Blow this up on Flickr:

K-01 Pentax K-01 by John Carter, on Flickr
 
Archiver said:
I have the small f2.8 version and it's very compact, and has decent image quality. The orange marking of f8 is so cool, the focus ring is also marked in orange at the appropriate distance for f8 hyperfocal shooting. It's like Pentax wanted you to use it as a hyperfocal street lens.
Click to expand...


My 35mm f3.5 Super Takumar has this feature, too.


- Murray
 
Archiver said:
The orange marking of f8 is so cool, the focus ring is also marked in orange at the appropriate distance for f8 hyperfocal shooting. It's like Pentax wanted you to use it as a hyperfocal street lens.
Click to expand...

Huh, you learn something every day. I've noticed the red 8 before, but never really thought about what it was for (I just assumed it was a designer's folly).

Looking through my collection, all my M42 and K wides have the red 8 and correlating red distance on the focus scale (S-M-C 20/f4.5, S-T 28/f3.5, S-T 35/f2, SMC 28/f2 and SMC-M 28/f2).

None of my 50mm's or longer have it.
 
tsiklonaut said:
Thanks Abbazz & Ricoh!

Just what I suspected as well. f1.4 lens seem to have one additional element so I thought maybe it's potentially slightly superior considering it's also faster for more correcting glass, but the sharpness tests I've found don't show that much superiority if any. I'd prefer the lighter lens in that case so I'll probably stick to f1.7 then!

I'm surprised the 40mm f2.8 pancake (which is also quite an expensive lens) is not optically as good as the 50mm f1.4/1.7 versions near that focal length. A high price for only for being compact I guess(?)

Now got to find that prime wide. 28mm f3.5 looks like a good choice indeed.

Thanks,
Margus
Click to expand...

Hi Marcus,

I had the 40f/2.8 and it was good enough for me. Past 5.6 it is as good as any other lens. Below 5.6 I felt that my Pentax 35 f/2.8 was a better lens. I sold it and kept the 35 not because it was better but because I liked the slighter wider view.

Also, I never felt that the 50 f/1.7 was in any way inferior to its 1.4 sibling. I always sold on the 1.4 and kept the 1.7 as the faster 1.4 fetches better money online.

IMG_8772.JPG
 
The red (orange) marking is not new. These old 28mm and 35mm Super Takumars have the markings.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • smc.jpg
    smc.jpg
    37.2 KB · Views: 0
I agree, the 50/1.7 stands well in any company. Here is a shot with this lens and a Pentax MX, on Pan F+ developed in Pyrocat HD.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Tree Pentax MX copy.jpg
    Tree Pentax MX copy.jpg
    71.1 KB · Views: 0
I had a major equipment purge a about year ago. Nikon and Leica are my main 35mm cameras but I kept my black MX along with one Spotmatic and my favorite screw mount lenses. I took the MX out today for the first time in a long while. It makes a nice bicycle camera and the finder is better for my Helios 44M (58mm f2) than the Spotmatic is.

Someone mentioned a page or two ago about the thin metal body work and I agree with that. For me that worked out well though. This body was sitting in a box of junk with a dented bottom cover and the shutter jammed. Luckily the shutter was jammed open rather than closed because it had decades of crud laying in there. I took it home wiped the crud off of the pressure plate, pounded out the dented bottom cover and it has worked fine ever since.

The MX and ME have been very reliable cameras for me over the years. I don't recall ever having a problem (other than mentioned above). I used the ME Supers for a number of years for some volume, flash only, jobs I shot. They were cheap enough to buy multiples, and reliable, but I preferred the MX for personal use.
 
GarageBoy said:
How's everyone's meter on their MX? Heard they can go out
Click to expand...

No dramas on my current body, and my last one worked perfectly when I sold it**

**Having said that, any MX body is now ~40 years old. Personally, I’m yet to come across a contemporary model that doesn’t have reported meter issues. Eg. good luck finding a Nikon Photomic head that isn’t cooked...

Point being, in my experience the MX meter is about as reliable as you can expect, but I wouldn’t expect any meter from this era to work for ever...
 
The meter on my F2AS had to be repaired, as well as on my F2Photomic.

I've seen more bad meters in F2 cameras than in MX.
 
Thanks. I always liked the coat pocket sized Pentax M bodies

The CDS meters on Nikons always went out, but never had an issue on my SPD based models
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom