Where doe's the MX sit ?

Just wondering if those of you who were into photography when the Pentax MX came out could suggest what sort of camera it would compare to in today's digital world.

Would it be the Nikon D3, D700 or D300 or maybe lower down in the range ? or perhaps there may be a Canon it could be better compared with ?

Jason

You are well taken by the MX - you really should buy yourself a second one as a back up!

LOL

Think I'd better take some pictures with this one first though.

Jason

You can't compare it with the DSLRs really, they are entirely different beasts. The lowest cost DSLR has more features and better performance in terms of accuracy of shutter speeds and the like than any camera of the MX period.

The MX is a modern equivalent of the Spotmatic. Its features are the same, but it has a better meter using GPD cells, a new compact shutter, a bigger and brighter viewfinder...

If you wanted to place it, then considering its vast range of specialist accessories and its build quality, it competes with the Nikon FM2 and similar manual cameras.

One book I have describes it as the "Little Professional" and of course the LX becomes the "Big professional".

I think the MX is the pinnacle of development of the Spotmatic.

I am not after a direct comparison in features between the MX and today's DSLR's but where about's it would sit from the bottom of the range to the top of the range.

So let's say at the time it was not the best SLR around but was far from the worst it might be a Nikon D300.

Like I say I'm not familar with the SLR's back then so it may be a nonsensical (sp) question. I imagine there are alot more models now than there were then anyway to make a comparison difficult.

Jason

"The range" was quite small in those days, so to answer your question it would be top of the range.

However, as top of the range means thousands of pounds in terms of the most expensive Canon and Nikon cameras, it's not really a very fair comparison.

If translated cost wise into modern cameras, I would guesss the MX might cost about £2000. But this isn't fair either, because camera manufacturing methods have changed and costs have fallen dramatically. The conventional manufacturing techniques of the MX (although in itself it contains lots of engineering plastic which was new) would mean it was more like Leica prices if done in the same way today.

Well, get practising.

I have a nice MX, 50mm f1.7 and 28mm f2.8 that I am about to sell and I'm not too far from you either so no P&P hassles!

I'd say Leica M8 (although as others have pointed out there's no real way of properly comparing).

The MX was directly comparable to the Nikon FM2 and the Olympus OM1. I can't speak for the Olympus as I never used one but friends who had the camera loved it. I did sometimes use an FM2 and found it cruder, heavier and less user friendly than the MX which was a lovely camera. I wish I'd kept mine: It would now be occupying a place of honour mounted on a plinth in my computer room.
david

I know what you mean. Ironically I bought an FM2n as an "upgrade" to my MX years ago (1/4000 top speed, 1/250 flash sync, better made, titanium shutter yada yada yada).

However, the MX kept finding it's way back into my camera bag, whilst the "superior" FM2 stayed on the shelf.

There's something definitely "right" about the MX design that I subconsciously preferred.

I still use the MX and in fact I bought another one. The FM2 is still on the shelf

R

Where does the MX sit?

Mine sits comfortably in my bag awaiting the next foray out with film...

?????????? Ugh!

G

Wish it sat in my camera bag! LOL !