Why do I choose or stay with Pentax? Good question. Why indeed. I suppose because I like the underdog.
I first used a Pentax (SP500) at art college. For those students without their own cameras, there were half a dozen Zenits and a Spottie. We raced for the Spottie, and I was that desperate NOT to have a Zenit, and the single default Spottie was such a must have, that I bagged it every time, even though the film door latch was a short length of tape. It was nice to use and didn't chew the film up at the end of the roll like the Russian contraptions. After college, I saved up and bought a Practica where I experimented with a 135mm lens. Later, I got A Fujica ST605N which I loved, but it still didn't have the quality or the kudos of something like a Pentax. I aspired to a Pentax, and when I could, I finally achieved my prize: a brand new Pentax MX. Cost for the body only was a few pennies over £80 from Techno Cameras just outside Thames TV in the Euston Road in London, 1980. I was working by now, and could afford such luxuries (NOT!). The MX was a different league altogether from the Practica and the Fujica. It was beautiful, small, elegant, tasteful. It was real quality. I was delighted. Brand-wise, I had considered Canon and Nikon. There was a lad at college who dressed in plaid jackets (we all wore T-shirts and jeans) and had grotty glasses and a permanent dribble at the corners of his mouth. He raved about Nikons. That was enough to put me off for life. Canon, to me, seemed even more mainstream. They were sponsoring the 1980 (soccer) World Cup (if memory serves) and I shied from them for that reason. Canons and Nikons were everywhere. I hated following trends, it was so 'uninspiring'. Pentax, however, seemed sleek, just the right amount of 'not as popular, yet proper quality'. For this reason I might have considered Minolta, except that I had fond memories of the Spotmatic, plus the recently introduced MX beckoned. The size of it! Even in my huge mits, it was just a delight to use. I knew I would have one from the day I first saw one. To actually own one I seem to recall, well, I guess my colleagues thought I'd been on the mushrooms. Permanent smile. That's really it. From then on, no other brand came close, with one notable exception: Mamiya. As my career progressed, so did my pay, and the medium format bug caught me. Along came an RB67 with waist-level finder and standard lens (90 mil Sekor? I can't remember). The cost in 1981 was horrendous: over £400. I had 2 MXs and 3 or 4 lenses by now. A few years later, the RB67 had gone, and a SMC 15mm f3.5 had joined the troupe in it's place, along with a 400mm. Over the years, lens came and went, including (sadly) the 15 mil, and the second MX drifted off. At one point I was down to the first MX and a 50 and 28. Until about 5 years ago when the bug hit again. The rest, as they say, is history. So why Pentax? Niche quality. Personal history. Not following the flock, going off on my own (if there's a few following me, well hey: that's, ahhh, cool. Baby ;-) Thanks for the thread. Nice one. Cotty PS - the original MX, purchased as body only, plus a SMC 28mm 2.8 lens, are still with me to this day, both retired. The MX has never been serviced, and everything works fine, top shutter speeds obviously adrift a bit, otherwise perfect. They sit oin my desk as an always available touchy-feely monument. Sad, eh! _______________________________________________________ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
