Pentax MZ-50

Cute...

This was an impulsive buy - found it for £5 and thought i could have it. It came with 2 CR-2 batteries and initial testing at the shop showed that it worked well. Anyway, the batteries alone cost more than £5.

I am not sure how did Pentax experienced the 1990's. Pentax was big in the swinging and dancing 60's with the Spotmatic, did very well in the 70s with the MX and it was the LX that dominated Pentax's pro-line in the 80s. But in the 90s Pentax did not come up with any pro camera and did not introduce any exotic lenses either. The different iterations of the Z-1 were good cameras but in the same league such as the Nikon F90 or Canon EOS5. If you scroll down my blog you will find a review of the Z1 - a very good camera which I sold due to the complicated user interface.

 I have to say that the photographic press was pleasantly surprised by the Z-20. I don't see a lot of them coming up online and some of the reviews I read describe it as functional as well as basic. I think the metering system on auto was particularly praised together with the hypermanual function. I do remember well thought the initial excitement that the MZ-5 caused back then and there was a hope for a pro MZ which unfortunately never materialised. The MZ-3 was as good as the MZ-series could be for most people - very few people saw the MZ-S from close. I also had an MZ-5 back in 2011 which was a brilliant camera but ended up selling it quite quickly after I started reading more and more reports of having issues with the mirror mechanism.

Not bad at all. Camera did well
with this scene

Initial impressions

When you first pick up the MZ50 you are instantly impressed by its small size and light weight. Even with the light 35-80 f4-5.6 it is very front heavy. The camera is very thin also, making it somehow difficult to grab. Despite the plasticky feeling, all knobs and buttons have a nice reassuring action and the overall quality is of a camera that will not fall apart whilst using it (little did I know).

All controls are accessible via a few switches and knobs. It is a very straightforward interface and the camera's biggest strength. On paper, the MZ-50 has a decent array of specifications and everything is easy to access. You just rotate the dial on the left and push-pull the level concentric to the shutter button.

Controls are self-explanatory

When you compare the MZ-50 to similarly priced cameras of that era (Minolta Dynax 5, canon EOS-300, Nikon F65/75) you can see that the MZ-50 lugs behind in terms of specifications. 

Noise levels are high for such a small camera. The AF, although surprisingly swift and accurate, is very noisy and so is the shutter and the film advance. Being quite light means that vibrations are also felt quite strongly.

The viewfinder is a disappointment. I am used to cameras having pentaprisms and using fast standard lenses so looking through a pentamirror with a slow zoom lens makes it look like someone pulled the curtains. It also feels quite small.

Plastic mount is to be expected at this price range

One of the reasons I bought this camera was my initial impression that the lens was the very well respected 28-70f/4. Obviously I did not have my glasses with me and did not pay attention that it is the cheaper 35-80 f/4-5.6. Optical performance from that lens ranges from "ok" to "meh" - it will somehow get you a picture on film but don't expect miracles.

There are four major (to me) shortcomings. First of all it has only one AF sensor. Even for a mid-late 90s entry level SLR, this was behind competition. Then, when you go through the specifications you notice that there is no true matrix metering - just a glorified centered weighted metering in the form of 2-zone matrix(!). Then, there is no true Programme mode either - there is the Green Programme but it is set and you cannot alter exposure combination and it also engages the flash which I found very annoying. And finally, you can mount manual focus K-mount lens but it doesn't communicate aperture to the body. Basically you can't use older K-mount lenses effectively. 

In all honesty thought, the buyers of this camera back in the mid-late 90s would probably not be bothered by any of these omissions. The camera is doing what is meant to do even though it is not up to my standards.

Using this camera.

As it is the case with any camera coming from that era, technology was cheap and effective. It was mature enough to be implemented in cheap cameras and those AF SLRs are doing well what they were meant to do. Any testing I did in low or good light led to the camera locking focus easily and the metering system gave me good enough exposure in normal light.

I loaded a roll of Foma 400 and went out and about testing this camera. After I took the second picture, I heard the dreaded mirror cogs going. It stopped lifting up the mirror. All you can hear is this:

 I think this is the second camera in my experience (after the Praktica BX20) that actually died on the first roll. What a disappointment this has been - I have read about the mirror cogs eventually giving up but this is almost a world record. I have uploaded a picture in this review to show what it is capable of when working.

Conclusion
A camera that I really wanted to like but it wasn't meant to. Small size and straightforward to use but unfortunately i cannot recommend buying it. Maybe it was a good camera back in the 90s but now it is way past its expiring date. These cameras have a 100% fail rate - I hear this for all the MZ-series (including the exotic and expensive MZ-S). If you want a reliable Pentax AF SLR, the Z-1 is your best bet. You can even dip your toes into the older SFx or maybe the Z-20 which are good fun cameras from what I hear (not so much the Z-10 which was a cheaper Z-20 with some features removed). But the MZ-series despite the lovely size and user interface, they are the ones to avoid.

Not recommend.