I'd pay $100 for an excellent condition MX all by itself, so no problem... <g>
And as far as the MG is concerned, it's nothing but a standard grade, aperture priority MX, an all mechanical workhorse. I have TWO of those! Same body size as the small MX. keith Larry Levy wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:53:41 -0400 > > From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: MX > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > What he said! > > > > Except the part about the MG's, because I don't have any of them. But the > > rest I'll go along with. > > > > I love my little MX. Like you, I have the Winder MX, and when it's not > > advancing film, it makes a great grip for bigger lenses. I paid a bit > > more than $70US (but not much) for my combo, and I love that > > little thing to death. > > > > Larry, you'll love it. Who wouldn't? Congrats on a great deal. > > > > cheers, > > frank > > > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > Hi Larry, > > > > > > In my most humble opinion, if you got a good, working, great looking MX > > > AND winder for $70, you got an excellent deal... > > > I have lovely MX myself, and I wouldn't part with it for $200! Even for > > > the body only! Nossir! Never! > > > Mine is within the 9,173,xxx serial number range, too. > > > > > > That camera and my two MGs will go to the grave with me! > > > And probably still be working just fine! > > > > > > Love those cameras! > > > > > > Enjoy your purchase. You did well. > > > > > > keith whaley > > No, guys, it was $70 for the MX and manual - not the MX, manual AND winder. > Thus far it feels right and offers just a little bit more than my heavier > Honeywell Spotmatic. I've had the PK adaptor for years, so the SM lenses > I've got around should work just fine (i.e., as well as they do on the > Spotty). The build quality seems a lot better than other newer camera bodies > I've seen and held. > > Just had to set the record straight. > > Larry
