MX vs ME-F

redlm · 2006-06-03T01:46:23+0100

I have a chance to buy an MX to supplement/replace my ME-F. I do like mechanical cameras, which is why I've started down the rangefinder road, but I still like using SLRs. Now, I've become suspicious of the ME-F's ability to expose accurately, as the AE function has let me down several times, to the point I worry about the electronic shutter in manual mode. So-is the MX "better" enough, or should I just continue to build a RF outfit? Opinions solicited for instruction and fun. Aaron

Pentax Film SLR CamerasPentax Film SLR Came...

Add Comment

Moderator

johnriley johnriley

24424 posts
24 years
Tyldesley,
Manchester

Posted 10/06/2006 - 17:35 Link

The major difference between your MX and the leica is that the leica has no "flipping mirror" so the only sound you hear is the shutter. This has always been cited as an advantage of rangefinders, but they have such dreadful viewfinders I can't get on with them at all.

Give me the SLR any day. (As long as it's not anearly 1900s half plate SLR.....)

Best regards, John

redlm redlm

93 posts
20 years

Posted 10/06/2006 - 20:25 Link

In the Leica's defense, it's quieter than the MX even when I do the MLU trick-and I'm using external finders tha are amazing.

Still, with an SLR, I can see what I'm really going to get!