Pentax KX versus MX

I am thinking a purchasing a fully manual Pentax to offset my Ricoh XR 10 in

PK mount. What are the advantages versus disadvantages between the KX and MX.

I've heard the KX viewfinder is dim, I have a Minolta SRT 202 which I have no

problem focusing, is there that much of a difference. I like the idea of the

moving needle rather than LCD's. Any opionion or information would be greatly

appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Vince.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Pentax_MX.jpg"></img>

 

The Pentax MX was a 35 mm single-lens reflex camera produced by Asahi Optical Co, later Pentax of Japan between 1976 and 1985. It was Pentax's flagship professional SLR until the introduction of the Pentax LX. Internally, the MX is essentially a smaller, lighter version of the Pentax KX, and otherwise has little in common with the rest of the Pentax M-series. However, the MX was designed as the mechanical twin sister of the remarkably successful entry-level Pentax ME.

 

The MX was solidly built, and featured a fully mechanical construction, including a mechanical shutter of the horizontal cloth type. Only the light metering system was dependent on batteries. The MX is all manual: it does not feature autofocus or autoexposure modes such as aperture-priority, shutter-speed priority, or full program.

Thanks Tom,

 

I am aware of the Wiki information but I'm actually interested in opinions from those who used both camera's.

 

Vince

Sebastiano,

 

There are a few major differences, the MX is tiny, has several screen options, motor drive options, interchangeable backs

 

The KX has mirror lockup (MX doesn't I think). One minor difference, they have different view finders so the KX can use right angle finders that fits K1000, K2, Spotmatics and even Canon FD cameras (I believe). The MX uses the same size smaller viewer used in more modern Pentax cameras.

 

I have personally only ever owned a MX, but after handleing the KX I almost like it better, I llike the size of the camera.

Check Bojidar Dimitrov's website. The K series models have extremely good VFs. The MX VF has outstanding magnification and the body is smaller. But there is no mirror lockup. Depends on what is important to you. I shot with an ME Super for many years. It has an amazing VF for magnification. All the shutter speeds are shown in the VF, and an indicator shows when you go under or over exposure. I think the MX uses a simple needle, but not sure. I know the K2 does.

You also might try downloading some of the manuals from pentaximaging.com or pentax-manuals.com and compare the viewfinder information, etc.

The MX uses lights like the ME Super for exposure and it DOES have mirror lockup (sort of)

 

http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/mxmlu.htm

 

I find myself reaching for my ME Super most of the time, but I have 2 MX's that see daylight once in a while.<div></div>

If you like a needle for exposure and a larger camera, then the spotmatic may be an option. It has a screw mount but with an adapter (genuine pentax) it can use K mount lenses. Don't forget to get it CLA'd by Eric.

 

www.pentaxs.com

I bought a KX when they came out. It was nice, but the needle metering became inaccurate after a while. I then bought the MX and I really liked that camera. I liked the lights for metering, but most of all I liked its size. I had a 40mm pancake lens on it most of the time and it would fit well in a jacket or vest pocket. After years of use the advance mechanism started slipping on it and i eventually switched to Nikon FM and then to a D200. I still miss the MX's size though.

The original K mount Pentax cameras were the KX, KM and K2. They were very poor sellers. By 1975, when they were introduced, they did not have any features which other cameras didn't have many years earlier and they were much larger and heavier than the Olympus OM-1 of 1972. I have a K1000 and several other non-Pentax K mount cameras. The main criticism of the K1000 was that it lacked a depth of field preview lever/button. If my memory is right, the KX did have this feature.

 

The ME and MX models were a lot smaller but still did not sell very well at least in the US. For me the MX would be more interesting because of the interchangeable focusing screens. If you don't do macro work or shoot with slow zoom or telephoto lenses then the KX might be more to your liking. It is heavier and at least feels better made. I also find that Minolta SRT cameras are easy to focus. The X-700 has a brighter viewfinder but the SRT 201 and 101 bodies I use are still easier for me to focus. If I could find a -1 diopter for the X-700 I think that would help.

Can someone point me to Eric's website? Thanks.

I've owned an MX and now have a KX. They're both fine cameras. If you wear glasses,you might find the high magnification of the MX viewfinder a problem. I did. I also never cared for the MX shutter sound/slap. I really like the KX. It's basic by today's standards, but very well made and has the features that matter like MLU, DOF preview, and an "aperture-reader window.". Have it serviced by someone like http://pentaxs.com/index.html and you'll appreciate the tactile pleasure of operating a quality machine. I've owned dozens of SLR's over the years. I find I'm getting a higher percentage of really sharp photos with the KX than any other. I think this results from a combination of sufficient mass, a smooth shutter release, and a very good viewfinder. Camera fit tends to be personal. I find the KX a great fit. Downsides? Definitely not pocketable. Top shutter speed of 1/1000 sec. can be limiting.

The MX is my absolute favorite 35mm camera and near-ideal in it's size, viewfinder and handling. Against the KX it offers 1. A coarser and therefore much easier to use microprism focusing aid a la Olympus OM1 (the microprism in the KX, K1000 and earlier models is too fine, requiring real scrutiny); 2. A combined shutter speed and 0.5-stop exposure readout that in my view is an unsurpassed genius design, providing an inititive visual aid for controlling the shutter speed dial on the top plate and allowing instant precise 0.5-stop exposure adjustment (just the thing for quickly obtaining saturated colors in transparency film). The LEDs are also much more rugged that a moving needle galvanometer mechanism; 3. A brighter viewscreen due to the silver-coated prism; 4. A choice of most compact body or, with the 2fps Winder MX added, the most comfortable in hand by far of the two and ready for steady consecutive shooting. 5. User-interchangeable viewscreens (interchangeable with those for the LX). The KX does have a mirror-lock switch, omitted on the MX, but like all mechanical Pentaxs (and even the old Pentax 6x7) the MX mirror can be locked up using a tap on the shutter release when the shutter is cocked. Less convenient if using a cable, so, in my view that is the single positive for the KX. The KX models are reputed to have metering issues with age.

I had both. In my experience, I found the KX to be, basically, a K1000 with mirror lock up. The MX reminded me a lot of the ME Super, just a bit more rugged and mechanical.

 

I bought an LX and used the MX as a backup body but later sold it when the prices for MX went through the roof. I can't highly recommend the LX enough if you're looking at the KX and the MX.

Hi all,

 

I have owned and used a KX, a MX, a ME and two ME Supers since they came out, and have

handled loads of MX and ME-series in their heyday back when I was a camera salesman. I

am surprised at some of the posts here so I'll chip in.

 

Christopher's is plainly wrong; no S-mount camera can use a K-mount lens without losing

the capacity to focus to infinity. Forget Spotmatics then, but the opposite is of course true

: I have been routinely using S-lenses (50mm Macro and 17 Fish-eye) on all my K and

digital bodies.

 

The KX is anything but a K1000 with a mirror lock-up, unless you stick to the mechanical

aspects of a camera. It uses what was hailed at the time as a very sophisticated and fast

silicon-based metering, shows both speed and aperture in the viewfinder and has a

depth-of-field check lever that doubles as a mirror lock-up. Those were the main selling

points that set it apart from the K1000 (and up to a certain point little brother KM). So in

my experience the metering is vastly superior and easier to use than that in the old CDS-

based K1000.

 

Now on to the MX/KX comparison. It has been my experience, and that of most of my

Pentax-toting photographer friends, that the KX is far more rugged than the MX. Mine has

never failed me in 30-plus years of careless handling. I am tough on equipment, and this

baby is built like a tank. Through these years, I have worn out 3 ME Supers, 1 MX (which

quit altogether after 2 or 3 years) and an original ME, but the KX never let me down. It still

shoots flawlessly after 33 tears even though virtually no black paint remains to be seen on

it. It even survived a complete dunk in Quebec half-melted snow seasoned with melting

salt! ;-)

 

As a camera salesman, I also saw far more MXs coming back for warranty work than KXs.

A defective KX was a pretty rare thing sight, which was not the case with MXs, which we

saw coming back far more than the unsung ME.

 

I have also been more confortable working with needles than LEDs, so I liked it better than

the MX for that very reason. Your own opinion might differ on that so try to get your

hands on both models first.

 

Tha's it, have a nice day everyone!

I have used (and still own them) two MXs over the years. I always had one going with my LX, to reduce lens swapping. The only thing that every broke was the film counter on one of the MX bodies, though it still works flawlessly in all other respects. I like the light weight and robustness of the MXs. I also use different matte screens and the motor drive (with the added benefit, that the MX and LX motor drives use the same battery packs). The viewfinder is big and easy to use (even with my glasses, which I wear all the time). The only thing is, that the exposure LEDs are a bit too dim, when shooting in bright sun light. They can hardly be seen then. On the other hand the exposure meter of both my MX bodies is very accurate and did not show the sightest degradation over the years. In one word: apart from the LX it is my favourite Pentax film camera.

Everyone,

 

thanks for all the great information on the KX. I had a MX 30 years ago and felt it needed the balance of the winder whenever I used a zoom. I'm leaning to the KX but I have been offered a Ricoh XR 1 with a 50MM Ricoh F2 for $45. I know it has CDS metering but does anyone have any experience with this ? It's a toss up between the KX and the Ricoh right now,

 

Vince

Hi Sebastino,

 

Those are very different machines, quality-wise and feature-wise. Someone in my family

has one of those Ricohs and they definitely cannot be put in the same league. I'd say go

for the KX, no contest, if you can afford it. There's a reason why the Ricoh is worth all of

45 $. The lens mount is the only feature they share. If you cannot afford the KX or MX,

then the Ricoh remains what it has always been - a low-cost, lower-grade Pentax-lens-

toting substitute.

 

I thought you were interested in a KX/MX feature comparison... don't get lost looking for

cheap options. ;-)

 

Just a few words on the LX : this is, clearly, a very superior pro machine. But it suffered

early on from a very bad reliability record, which is what (mainly) refrained pro

photographers from picking it up back then. A pro friend of mine purchased 3 samples,

which he loved working with. All 3 broke down on him after very short lifespans. It

seemed to me he always had one in the shop. So as much as I love using one (I have, on

numerous occasions), I'm staying clear of LXs.

 

As for the winder providing balance to the small-bodied Pentaxes, I agree with you. I

never got used to the smallness of these great cameras (try balancing a 500mm Tamron

on one of those) and found I preferred to use them with the winder or motor drive.. This is

one reason why I love the KX so much... ;-)

 

Maybe some of my full-bodied-K infatuation can be traced back to my SP '60s days... but

hey, I've been shooting Pentax for 40-some years, so...

 

Peace to all,

 

K10D (with the battery grip!) and K100d-using Pierre

Vince, I recall that the Ricoh XR1 received strong praise for the robustness of its shutter and wind gears in the Popular Photography stripdown report done by their camera technician. I can't comment otherwise on the handling of the camera.

 

As for Pierre's comments on the reliability of the MX, I, too, saw some early units with faulty LED displays that showed up as warranty issues (one of mine had a faulty diode in the circuit, not the LED itself). But that simply wouldn't be an issue for 30 year-old cameras now. I've continued using two of them as my only 35mm camera since their release in early 1977 because they are so responsive to use and the metering is still accurate. Eventually (15 years later), the X-sync failed in one and the stand-off spring in the wind lever broke in the other, but these are components used by the KX also and were easily fixed. I did interview the local Pentax service manager for a magazine article and questioned him closely on the MX; he stated that the MX had a very rigid cast body and its traditional shutter mechanism rarely presented any problems and could be adjusted to give a very accurate set of shutter speeds. Of course, the KX and MX are almost identical in this regard. In my view, the focusing and metering, plus the add-on winder put the MX in front.

The Ricoh XR series had some excellent cameras like the XR-2 and XR-7, they are good quality cameras fully the equal of a Pentax. I consider the XR-7 to be one of the finest K mount cameras ever made. Regarding Pentax, I'd prefer the MX to the KX because of its more compact size and because of the LED metering which is superior to a needle.

Just to clarify my comment above: neither the wind lever nor its mechanism broke. Just the stand-off spring, which causes the wind lever to stay put after you pull it out from its stowed position against the body.

Pierre, I'm with you, minus maybe a year or two. I started with a Spotmatic and when it was stolen, replaced it with an ME2. I just never got used to the ME2, which was why I never moved to an MX.

Inow have two KX bodies. The K-mount 55mm f/1.8 is a perfect complement to the KX.

Pierre - You are absoutely right - I got it backwards. I apologize for the bad information. I don't know what I was thinking. My 105/2.8 screw mount lives on one of my MX's.

Jeff - I still have a mint, never-used motor drive and handgrip for a Spotmatic in case

nostalgia hits hard. Maybe one of you KX or K2 owners might be interested after all. ;-)

 

Chris - I'm happy to see you have not succeeded in stuffing this big K-mount into the small

S-body. :PD

I am a longtime user of Pentax K cameras and lenses.

I have owned Pentax KM, KX, K2, K2DMD, MX, ME and LX models, as well as Ricoh XR-1s/Sears KS1000 and Ricoh XR-2s/Sears KS auto cameras.

 

Though the Ricoh-made models have some nice features, they are not quite as well-made as a Pentax, nor as smooth in operation, and they just do not hold up as well.

 

Eric Hendrickson can be contacted through his website, Pentaxs.com

 

Christopher Platt