 |
| The magnificent Pentax MX |
It's been 13 years since i got hold of my first Pentax MX. Back in 2013 I wrote an initial review but as time has gone by, I decided to take it down and write a new one. Now that I have gone through different samples of this camera and shot a decent amount of rolls, I can write a more balanced review based on long term experience.
My 2013 review was based on a camera given to me by my then neighbour. Soon after that review, the camera developed an issue where the mirror would not lift; it went twice for repairs and eventually I gave up and sold it. On reflection, my frustration was with the repair service company (which I will not name) and not with the camera - sometimes I wonder if they even opened up the camera to see what was wrong. Having looked into these sort of problems online, I will speculate that those mirror issues were the result of deteriorating foam getting stuck on the mirror box mechanism.
I came across a second sample in a charity shop around 2018 which was in a sad looking state and had the usual problem of the flickering LED lights. I shot a couple of rolls but I felt that the overall condition of the camera did not justify a service so I ended up selling it too. This review here is based on my third MX - another charity shop find which is in good working order and perfect cosmetic condition. Despite that, I decided to send the camera to Luton Cameras for a full overhaul and it came back as if it had just left the factory.
 |
| The F5 shoots faster. But which one shoots cooler? |
Design - ergonomics
The Pentax MX is very often cited as the smallest, mechanical SLR ever build. I remember being so impressed with how small, dense and well made it felt. It has a jewel-like quality - immediately i started comparing it to my OM-1n which, to me at least, felt more substantial. The film advance is smooth, the shutter button very responsive and the shutter/mirror mechanism nicely quiet. Looking through the viewfinder, you see aperture and shutter speed values and the focusing screen is big and bright.
The first impressions the camera gives you is that of a quality product with everything being where you would expect to find it and which operates in a very smooth manner. The Pentax MX has a depth of field preview switch, a shutter button lock and also a small window which turns red when the shutter is cocked.
 |
| The Nikon F5 prism is almost half the size of the Mx. |
In line with all "pro-calibre" cameras of that era, the Pentax MX comes with interchangeable focusing screens and backs, a winder and a motordrive.
As I started playing a bit more with the camera and dials, I noticed a few things that I started having mixed feelings about. The first thing is the shutter speed dial - it is a bit stiff to turn and very often you have to move the advance lever out of the way in order to be able to grab and turn it.
 |
| Due to small size, the top feels crowded. |
The viewfinder is nicely big and reasonably bright but if you are used to any manual focusing SLRs from the 80s/90s which use high quality fresnel screens (ie Minolta X-700), then the viewfinder of the Pentax MX might feel a bit dim. Another issue is that you can't fully appreciate the viewfinder if you are wearing glasses - you have to put your eye almost next to the eye cap to see all of it. With glasses you see just a bit more than the centre.
The third thing that can be a bit of an issue is how thin the top and bottom plates really are. Nowadays it is becoming more and more difficult to find an MX without any dents or bruises.
One thing that became more apparent as I started using the camera is that, by being 8cm tall, your thumb rests on the advance lever, the index finger on the shutter button and two fingers on the camera body - leaving the small finger with nowhere to rest (under the camera most of the time). It's not a big deal but if you are used to the ergonomic grips of bigger, more modern cameras, you will gave to re-think how to hold this camera.
Do you want to know of a real omission? Exposure compensation or exposure lock; *that* is something I really wished was there. Ok, point taken, there is metered manual and no automation but it would be great if it had an exposure lock. Or a mirror lock up - that would really be nice (please do not do the quick flicking of the shutter button as a mirror lock up, I have heard that it can affect the mechanics of the shutter button).
Overall, despite it's shortcomings, I grew to like the feel and ergonomics of this camera. I know that it is not everyone's cup of tea but personally I got used to them and it does not bother me any more.
 |
| The metering LED system. Some people like it, some people don't. |
Other interesting bits and pieces
At the time of its introduction, Pentax put a lot of effort in advertising the new metering system which was based on the use of Galium Arsenide Phosphide diode which was 1.000 times more responsive than the older CdS cells found in competitors cameras like the Olympus OM1 and the Minolta XE-7. Another, often downplayed feature the MX has, is what Pentax calls, "magic needles" - that is a series of plastic spindles on the spool that help with grabbing the film and making loading easier. Also, in order to activate the meter and keep it on, you have to pull the advance level to a 20⁰ angle from its resting position.
You can use the focusing screens from the Pentax LX in your MX too but there is a small catch. The LX screens are slightly brighter which means that the meter will register 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposure. Also, there is a bit of debate as to whether they are more difficult to focus as they are less gritty and therefore you can't see the microprisms as easily. I am not willing to spend £40 to find out - the standard screen that came with the MX is good enough for me.
 |
| The Pentax-m 50f/1.7 is a stellar lens. The small MX was a good choice for carrying around all day. |
Internal construction of the Pentax MX
The MX came out at a time when camera manufacturers were turning their attention to polycarbonate. Unlike other manufacturers though, Pentax did not spare on metal with the MX. Both top and bottom plates are made of stamped brass (although a bit too thin for my liking) and the chassis is made of heavy-duty, die-cast aluminum alloy.
All gears in the advance gear train are made of high tensile brass and hardened steel in an attempt to avoid shearing cog teeth when a high torque motor drive is attached. The same materials are used for the mirror box linkages and timing gears.
The only plastic found inside the Pentax MX is around the meter housing and places which are not under any mechanical stress (i.e. prism housing).
Popular photography called the MX "a shrunken pocket battleship" in their review, a high praise for it robustness. Popular Photography stated that Pentax managed to create a "semi-professional grade" internal clockwork mechanism that "wouldn't shear its gear teeth under the violent torque of a motorized film advance".
Redesigning the shutter
Although the Pentax MX is largely based on its predecessor, the KX, Pentax redesigned parts of the shutter in order to make it more reliable. This includes a redesigned slow speed escapement for speeds slower than 1/30. Simplified electronics (there are only nine cables in there) and the gears that operate the shutter differ from its predecessor (Pentax claimed that the gears have been strengthened but doesn't say much more). Pentax argued that these improvements on the advance mechanism were necessary in order to stand the mechanical stress of the 5 frames/sec motor drive. Also many changes have been incorporated in the shutter tension gear to make it more reliable.
When it came to the metering system, Pentax installed a temperature compensation circuit and also a stabilising circuit to eliminate flickering LEDs when exposure falls between two different values.
Last but not least, Pentax used a micro pneumatic damper to cushion the mirror - this is a better solution compared to the rubbery one used in the Pentax-ME Super which deteriorates to a sticky toffee and renders the shutter button arm inoperable (and the camera into a brick).
 |
| Holding a small camera requires new muscle memory. |
Reliability/repairs
The Pentax MX is a scaled down version of the old and very reliable Pentax KX (which in turn is based on the reliable Spotmatic). As such, the MX is a very reliable camera provided that you always treat it as a precision instrument, you take good care of it and you service it. If a 50 year old Pentax has not been serviced then you get some of the following common issues.
- shutter capping above 1/60th sec although it is more likely to see it at speeds 1/500th and 1/1000
- mirror not lifting up during exposure
- flickering LED lights (like a Christmas tree).
- jammed self timer
- sticky slow speeds
Now, if there is something that is this camera's Achilles' heel, that is the amount of foam that is used inside the body and with time it deteriorates into sticky toffee. There are four main blocks of foam pads:
a) a big chunk of foam positioned roughly below the shutter speed dial and above the self timer. When this deteriorates and cramps into pieces, it finds it's way on the mirror mechanism, the self timer and in some occasions the shutter gears and the shutter curtain shafts.
b) on the other side of the mirror box, around the screws that hold the front plate. These ones are usually the least of your worries as there are no moving parts there (only flash terminals).
c) on the inside of the top plate, below the flash contacts. This can migrate on the PCB on the top of the prism.
d) a large chunk of foam around the rewind fork shaft. This too ends up covering all the left side of the PCB causing chaos with meter LED lights.
If you ever had to clean any of this stuff, you know it is no good fun. You can also find foam in other places like the back door, the mirror cushion and the mirror box walls. This is why the repair person is charging this amount of money for servicing.
 |
| The changes in the Asahi Pentax logo |
Changes in the Asahi logo
My Pentax MX, my Spotmatic and the two ME seem to have the "Asahi" logo on the prism whilst the Pentax MV-1 doesn't. Through some search online, my Pentax MX was produced between 1978-1979. Serial numbers 4.20x.xxx are transitioning models.
Looks like that my Pentax MX was produced during that period of change when :
a) the "Asahi Opt. Co japan" was moved from below the advance lever on to the film memo.
b) the "Asahi" logo was omitted.
Mine has the Asahi logo but the "Asahi Opt. Co japan" is on the film memo. By 1980, Pentax has dropped the Asahi logo and the word "Asahi" has been etched above "Pentax". The "Asahi Opt. Co japan" is on the film memo on my MV-1.
Apparently early Pentax MX had the serial number below the rewind crank and "Made in japan" on the bottom plate. Personally, I haven't seen any of these online, if someone has seen something please post a picture as I suspect this is just hearsay.
 |
| Battle of the Titans |
The "Olympus OM1 vs Pentax MX" saga
I am seriously biased towards Olympus for no reason other than starting with an OM long before having an MX. Each camera has its own strengths and weaknesses and it greatly depends on your style of working that can sway you towards one system or another.
The Olympus OM1 has:
- quieter shutter
- ergonomics designed around a small camera
- thicker top and bottom plates
- simple needle exposure indication on the viewfinder
- a mirror lock up
The Pentax MX has:
- full information on the viewfinder
- smaller dimensions
- a more responsive meter cell
- takes modern batteries
 |
| Length-wise, the cameras are the same. The MX is shorter. |
It is up to you to decide which glass is half full and which one is half empty. For me, these two cameras are nicely complementing each other, just like Roger Moore and Tony Curtis in the "Persuaders" series.
From a reliability point of view, so far I had four OM-1 (kept two) and three MX (kept one): all OMs had good working shutters but two had non-working meters and one completely rotten prism (a black OM-1 MD which I replaced the prism and still have). The two OMs that had working meters, would suffer from jumping needles and required cleaning the ground screw under the potentiometer. Both previous MX had dancing LED lights and one developed mirror issues. In the MX's defence, sticking slow shutter speeds are easy to access (just remove bottom plate). With OMs you need to remove the bottom plate of the mirror box which can be a bit of a handful to put back.
 |
| The Pentax ME. Friend or foe ? |
The enemy from within.
 |
| The ME is smaller but does not have a shutter speed dial. With the ME-Super, Pentax had to add buttons due to size. |
Another difference that becomes noticeable when you have the two cameras side by side is that the advance level on the ME is smoother and has a shorter travelling distance than that of the MX - it makes sense if you think about it; the electronic Seiko shutter has less moving parts than the mechanical cloth shutter of the MX which requires more tension to operate.
[Ps: by the way, the original Pentax ME has a metal top plate, just like the MX. The later ME-Super has plastic polycarbonate treated in a way that feels like metal. The same with my MV-1 which also has a plastic top cover, they feel very similar but if you know, you can notice the difference].
Of course the MX is a different beast, forcing the photographer to work in a different way with the camera. I get that but when I need a small camera to use the Pentax-M lenses, the Pentax ME becomes a very strong competitor for the MX.
Reading the sales brochure
I found it funny reading through the sales brochure of the Pentax MX which is avaliable online. I can even imagine the guy writing it being high on something. Everything is good to a superlative degree and every single characteristic or feature is "unmatched", "without a peer" or "unrivalled" by other cameras. That includes the shutter button which "is unrivalled in location"(?) which allows for "scalpel sharp pictures every time". Duh.....
Historical figures and photographic press reception
As expected, the Pentax MX was well received by the photographic press of the time. It was considered a mechanical marvel, beating the OMs in size and was instantly loved by the professional photographers, photography students and backpackers. It went on to sell 1 million units, a lot of them in black (Pentax scrapped the 5% premium for black models) and remained popular even when the LX came out. Of course, the big winner back then was Canon with its AE-1 models, the OM-2n with automation and of course the Nikon FM with its dedicated Nikon fan base.
For Pentax, it was the ME and its later derivative, the ME Super which went on to sell an estimated 6 million units. For every person buying an MX, six people bought the ME. The ME was the main source of income for Pentax and the MX was reverted by the demanding photographers who wanted a tough reliable, mechanical camera.
 |
| Shutter of the MX Vs the ME |
Internet reception
The Pentax MX would be my nomination for a place in the pantheon of underrated/unappreciated cameras. I don't see a lot of hype about it - no dedicated MX-funclub and prices online very much within the affordable price range. You could spend a lot more of your precious money and get a far worse camera.
So why the Pentax MX is not as popular nowadays as it's K1000 siblings, the OMs, the LX, or the Nikon FM? Well, it looks like YouTubers do not like it that much. It is often dubbed as "a great camera but not for me" sort of camera which in the grand scheme of things it helps with keeping prices to reasonable levels.
Another thing you will very often read in reviews is that the camera "is built like a tank" - well, it is well made, robust and reliable but it is not build to the same standards as - let's say - Nikon F. On the other hand not many other cameras are made to F standards either. This is not to say that it is not reliable - it is - but you'll struggle to find one in good cosmetic condition.
 |
| The meter coped well with the bright light |
Using the Pentax MX
After i received the MX back from its service, I took it out together with an Olympus OM-1N for a day out in different national trusts locations. Switching from one system to another can be a bit of a faff at times - this highlights how different the two systems can be in practice. All pictures came out fine and I enjoyed using the Pentax MX as much I liked using the Olympus.
I shot a second film during a day visit to London. I decided to travel light and the MX together with the Pentax-M 50f/1.7 and the M-35f/2.8 seemed ideal. Walking around London with the Pentax MX around my neck was easy. The meter is nicely accurate and coped remarkably well with the high contrast of that sunny day.
One thing that helps when using the Pentax MX is to treat it as an aperture priority camera - that is, set the shutter speed and adjust the aperture to set exposure. Due to the fact that the shutter dial is stiff to turn and not easy to grab (due to being overcrowded on the top right of the camera) adjusting the aperture is a much easier way of working with it.
Summary
In case you haven't figured it out yet; I like the Pentax MX. It is small and reliable, feels nice in the hand, takes quality glass and delivers good pictures. This camera is going to stay in my collection as a good choice for using Pentax-M lenses.
After using these cameras - on and off for a decade - have they turned out to be what I was expecting?
This is a difficult question to answer - we are living in times of internet hype and sometimes we expect a camera to be something that it isn't. My initial impressions were tinted by two problematic samples that never quite operated the way they should.
The ergonomics of a small camera might not be everyone's cup of tea. Although reliability and performance is there, the MX can feel too small and too fiddly for some. I think Pentax realised that and with the LX they went back to a larger SLR body (actually larger than an OM1). There are some minor hiccups and omissions that some people might notice when using the camera (lack of mirror lock up, stiff shutter dial, no exposure lock etc..) but for me they never felt like a deal breaker.
 |
| The MX is a beautiful camera |
Taking all the above into consideration, people need to shoot this camera for a few months and get used to it before forming judgement, sometimes switching between different systems can affect your view of this camera.
Mike Johnston referred to the Pentax MX with a Pentax-M 50f/1.7 as a great alternative to the very expensive Leicas and although this didn't make too much sense when i first read it, it does seem to resonate now. I know I didn't make any mention of the Pentax-M line of lenses but they are exceptionally good lenses, they are cheap and plentiful and the 50f/1.7 is as sharp as a razor. I also own and use the f/1.4 variant which is a fantastic lens and so are the 28f/2.8 and 35f/2.8.
Do i recommend it? Yes I do - find a good sample and enjoy it. The Pentax MX is a fantastic camera.
Comments
Post a Comment