- Pentax Serial Number Database
- Pentax Serial Number Database System
- Pentax Serial Number Database Code
- Pentax K1000 Serial Number Database
- Pentax K1000 Serial Number Database
User guides are created in the PDF (Portable Document Format) file format using Adobe® Acrobat®. To read the PDF files you need to install the Adobe® Acrobat® ReaderTM in your computer in advance. If you do not currently have Acrobat Reader, please visit the Adobe website to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader.
Spotmatic serial numbers May 7, 2003 I know that this is not digital but.I've had a Pentax Spotmatic for about 30 years now which I like to get out and use from time to time as a change from my digital cameras and I'd like to look up its serial number to see a bit of its history.does anyone have a website they know about where these might. Oct 20, 2008.
Warning! The Brochures, Leaflets and Manuals that are made available from this website are copyright of SIGMA Corporation. No part of this manual may be reproduced, modified, or distributed or licensed to a third party without written permission of SIGMA Corporation. - May 12, 2009.
- This database contains an ever-evolving listing of serial numbers for every kind of Pentax photographic item, including cameras, lenses, and accessories. The mission of this database is threefold: first, it will allow users to discern faulty items; second, it will build an overview of production trends; and third, it will establish owner.
- PENTAX Support Center. EC-2990Li Video Colonoscope – UltraSlim.
- Brochures
- Single Lens ReflexDC (APS-C)
- AML72-01
- DG (Full-frame)
- WR-CIRCULAR PL RCP-11
- WR-PROTECTOR LPT-11
Models
Download Pagico 7 3.
- MirrorlessDC (APS-C)
- DG (Full-frame)
- SIGMA SA-E /
CANON EF-E - SIGMA SA-L /
CANON EF-L - SIGMA SA /
CANON EF /
NIKON FF - L-mount
- SIGMA SA /
CANON EF /
NIKON F /
PENTAX /
Sony A-mount - L-mount /
CANON EF-M
Models
Download
- SIGMA
- NIKON
- CANON
Who knows how many MX were produced in total?
AFAIK there were two production runs, started with 4.xxx.xxxx and 9.xxx.xxx
It would be interesting to have the total numbers compared with her electronic sister, the ME/ ME super.
For these who are too young to remember that camera back in the 1970's - one of the nicest SLRs ever build - here is my one:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_MX_e.html
sorry if the information is posted somewhere else, but I did a serach on 'MX' and nothing found !
cheers, Frank
AFAIK there were two production runs, started with 4.xxx.xxxx and 9.xxx.xxx
It would be interesting to have the total numbers compared with her electronic sister, the ME/ ME super.
For these who are too young to remember that camera back in the 1970's - one of the nicest SLRs ever build - here is my one:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_MX_e.html
sorry if the information is posted somewhere else, but I did a serach on 'MX' and nothing found !
cheers, Frank
![Pentax serial number database Pentax serial number database](https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/7598/1_copies_096.jpg)
Syberia 1 0 2. Peter Elgar
Member
15 yearsMember
BRENTWOOD,Essex,(UK)
I don't know the answer to your query, but I got three MX's, the last one was the last body in Comet Discount for £65 I remember, Romford, Essex. When wife No.2 went off she took one with her (and my lovely 120mm f2.8 SMC Pentax lens !) been a member of Pentax Club since the Ron Spillman era! Got COMPUTERISED at last - DIGITISED? Taken the PLUNGE - BUT FILM STILL RULES !!!
Hi Peter, your wife proved a fine sense for aestethics..
johnriley
Pentax User Team
18 yearsPentax User Team
Tyldesley, Manchester
The ME cameras sold more, and probably a lot more if you count all the avriations. From memory, and subject to correction, the MX started at 15,000 per month and was increased to 25,000 per month. The ME went I think from around 25,000 a month to almost double that.
Of course that still doesn't give us an accurate total as it will have grown, peaked and fallen off. And the figures could be wrong..
If I can find the actual figures I have recorded somewhere, I'll let you know, but it'll still be as vague as above! Best regards, John
Of course that still doesn't give us an accurate total as it will have grown, peaked and fallen off. And the figures could be wrong..
If I can find the actual figures I have recorded somewhere, I'll let you know, but it'll still be as vague as above! Best regards, John
I am not sure you will get an accurate figure. Pentax seem to have been very loath to publish such info, if indeed they kept a very accurate table. The reason for the M42 database project is to try and resolve some of the questions and it often throws up odd things such as a different type of lens with a serial number in the middle of a block assumed to be the preserve of one type. Add to that various minor changes and it gets even muddier.For instance the early MXs had a very square film memo holder like the K series one. At some stage it changed to a more rectangular one and I don't think the change relates to a major change in serial number order.
Kim
Kim
Editrocket 4 5 5. johnriley
Pentax User Team
18 yearsPentax User Team
Tyldesley, Manchester
Changes could relate to the two new factories built by Pentax to respond to the high demand for the M series cameras. Or simply that they changed the sourcing of some bought-in components. Best regards, John
Hi,
I think it is a simpler answer than that. The early ones were left over from production of the K range and they used those up before using the ones that became standard on the M series and LX. Shame really because the early ones were actually the size of the film carton end!
Kim
I think it is a simpler answer than that. The early ones were left over from production of the K range and they used those up before using the ones that became standard on the M series and LX. Shame really because the early ones were actually the size of the film carton end!
Kim
The reason why I'm curious about the production numbers of the ME/MX sisters is my understanding that PENTAX did kind of a 'market test' with them, kind of 'what will sell better', electronics/simple to use/automatic exposure (ME) or 100% manually (MX). You can add the KX (bigger manual camera, build more like the Spotmatic series) and K2 (the best of two worlds) to that experiment.
Now we know that electronics was the winner, but in the early 70's this was not so clear to anticipate..
It seemed to me that the K-series was outranged soon due to lack of success - with exception of the K-1000 marketed with some right as 'beginners camera', low-priced, probably could be mounted at the 'old' Spotmatic facilities.
But the next who was outranged was the MX. There was a MEsuper, MV and so on but no 'MXsuper' - with some right the LX can be considered as the follower of the MX but not in the same price league and incorporated a lot more electronics.
So my rough estimation is the MX got outselled by the ME by a multiple! Good for Pentax in some way because they made much more money with the ME, which was cheaper to manufacture than the MX..
cheers, Frank
Now we know that electronics was the winner, but in the early 70's this was not so clear to anticipate..
It seemed to me that the K-series was outranged soon due to lack of success - with exception of the K-1000 marketed with some right as 'beginners camera', low-priced, probably could be mounted at the 'old' Spotmatic facilities.
But the next who was outranged was the MX. There was a MEsuper, MV and so on but no 'MXsuper' - with some right the LX can be considered as the follower of the MX but not in the same price league and incorporated a lot more electronics.
So my rough estimation is the MX got outselled by the ME by a multiple! Good for Pentax in some way because they made much more money with the ME, which was cheaper to manufacture than the MX..
cheers, Frank
![Pentax serial number database search Pentax serial number database search](https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/3930/1_1e-Upload.jpg)
Hi Frank,
I think that there were various factors at the time and you need to look at other manufacturers and the different types of users as well. At the time the general opinion seemed to be that the pro's would only use a manual camera in case of that dreaded battery failure and the first choice was the F2/F3. This view tended to carry over into the top end of the amatuer market and can still be heard today in other places such as the spot group. Time has proved this to be nonsense and nearly all pros are now digital. Pentax had the K range out which was mainly mechanical with the exception of the K2 with it's electronic shutter. There was therefore a natural hole for the ME auto only without duplication. In time the MX came to replace the KX partly because there was a smaller/lighter is better swell of opinion at the time, perhaps partially/mainly fueled by the OM1. The MES was a natural replacement for the K2.
As to an MX Super, what are you going to add apart from the one thing it missed most and that is mirror lock up. I would suggest you end up looking at things such as a wider system and this leads you to finders etc and the LX and tends to the pro market. After the LX was often compared with the F3 and the Canon F1 especially when the superfast and big A lenses started to appear. I wonder how many people changed the screen in the MX or used a motor drive at 5fps and if you do, you are back to looking at the LX. The other alternative is to start looking at more metering options and automation. This leads you quite nicely to the Super A.
The K1000 is slightly different. At the time of the K range, it was by quite a long way the cheapest fully mechanical SLR apart from the East German/FSU offerings. None of the other major players did a simple cheap and robust SLR for the price. Because of this cost, it became recommended by the colleges for photo courses. Had there been other SLRs in the same price bracket, no doubt the colleges would have put them on the list. What people tended to forget was that it was simply a cut down KM with the KX above that in the same way that the SP1000 was a cut down Spotmatic. However it became a popular conception that it was the 'only' camera to learn on and it had to be something 'special'. Pentax managed to maintain the low price by first switching production to Hong Kong and then China and replacing some of the construction with polycarbonates. Very few people would argue that the SP1000 was better than the Spot but almost up to the present day, most people would suggest that a K1000 was better than the other K's. Until about 6-9 months ago it was quite easy to pick up a KM for around half the cost of a K1000 and a godd KX for around 2/3 the price of the K1000 and less than half the price of the MX. This seems to have changed recently and it it suddenly become increasingly difficult to pick up a good KX and the prices have increased markedly.Talk about a succesful marketing strategy! Had it not been for the college connection the K1000 would have died with the rest of the K range.
Back to the MX, I doubt it was outsold by the ME or it's derivatives, the MG, MV etc. However it was probably outsold by the MES. I don't find this at all surprising. For the 'average' user as opposed to photo buff, it is better speicified. The battery argument is nonsensical and apart from being able to change the screen and shoot at 'up to' 5fps, the MES has a better spec. Wider range of more accurate shutter speeds, aperture priority for everyday use etc. The MX has become a bit of a cult and is a very fine camera but the MES offers much better VFM especially these days.
Kim
I think that there were various factors at the time and you need to look at other manufacturers and the different types of users as well. At the time the general opinion seemed to be that the pro's would only use a manual camera in case of that dreaded battery failure and the first choice was the F2/F3. This view tended to carry over into the top end of the amatuer market and can still be heard today in other places such as the spot group. Time has proved this to be nonsense and nearly all pros are now digital. Pentax had the K range out which was mainly mechanical with the exception of the K2 with it's electronic shutter. There was therefore a natural hole for the ME auto only without duplication. In time the MX came to replace the KX partly because there was a smaller/lighter is better swell of opinion at the time, perhaps partially/mainly fueled by the OM1. The MES was a natural replacement for the K2.
As to an MX Super, what are you going to add apart from the one thing it missed most and that is mirror lock up. I would suggest you end up looking at things such as a wider system and this leads you to finders etc and the LX and tends to the pro market. After the LX was often compared with the F3 and the Canon F1 especially when the superfast and big A lenses started to appear. I wonder how many people changed the screen in the MX or used a motor drive at 5fps and if you do, you are back to looking at the LX. The other alternative is to start looking at more metering options and automation. This leads you quite nicely to the Super A.
The K1000 is slightly different. At the time of the K range, it was by quite a long way the cheapest fully mechanical SLR apart from the East German/FSU offerings. None of the other major players did a simple cheap and robust SLR for the price. Because of this cost, it became recommended by the colleges for photo courses. Had there been other SLRs in the same price bracket, no doubt the colleges would have put them on the list. What people tended to forget was that it was simply a cut down KM with the KX above that in the same way that the SP1000 was a cut down Spotmatic. However it became a popular conception that it was the 'only' camera to learn on and it had to be something 'special'. Pentax managed to maintain the low price by first switching production to Hong Kong and then China and replacing some of the construction with polycarbonates. Very few people would argue that the SP1000 was better than the Spot but almost up to the present day, most people would suggest that a K1000 was better than the other K's. Until about 6-9 months ago it was quite easy to pick up a KM for around half the cost of a K1000 and a godd KX for around 2/3 the price of the K1000 and less than half the price of the MX. This seems to have changed recently and it it suddenly become increasingly difficult to pick up a good KX and the prices have increased markedly.Talk about a succesful marketing strategy! Had it not been for the college connection the K1000 would have died with the rest of the K range.
Back to the MX, I doubt it was outsold by the ME or it's derivatives, the MG, MV etc. However it was probably outsold by the MES. I don't find this at all surprising. For the 'average' user as opposed to photo buff, it is better speicified. The battery argument is nonsensical and apart from being able to change the screen and shoot at 'up to' 5fps, the MES has a better spec. Wider range of more accurate shutter speeds, aperture priority for everyday use etc. The MX has become a bit of a cult and is a very fine camera but the MES offers much better VFM especially these days.
Kim
johnriley
Pentax User Team
18 yearsPentax User Team
Tyldesley, Manchester
Kim has summed things up pretty well there, but there is one factor that makes the MX a better bet - reliability. If I wanted a camera to take on a long trip I would rely on the MX more than the ME and derivative designs. I had lots of these over the years, and they all eventually suffer from various electronics problems. The MX is a very straightforward design and I have never had one fail.
Even the LX, superb as it is, does share some of the electronics traits of its less expensive siblings. Best regards, John
Even the LX, superb as it is, does share some of the electronics traits of its less expensive siblings. Best regards, John
Hi John,
I think this is a common perception and perhaps not strictly true. Any camera will have it's weak points and nearly all film cameras will need a service now and again to keep them trouble free. The MX is no exception. I have always found found the LX to be extremly reliable. The 'sticky shutter' problem is well documented and the viewfinder can go out of alignment (As can the MX, it is a problem with the way the screen is mounted) and nether problem affects the quality of the photos. However, as long as an LX is serviced every 10 years or so this is not a problem. I have taken an LX around the world several times. It has been thrown half the length of an aircraft, (not intentionally, I forgot it was in my bag ) it has got dents in the finder from being knocked and it has never let me down including during exercises in the arctic circle when the temperature was -30. As far as the ME series is concerned, the Seiko shutter is very reliable and keeps it timing better than most. The biggest problem is the rubber bushes in the film transport mech. Again if the camera has been regularly serviced, this is less of a problem and could be easily cured if you could get hold of the spares.
As far as the MX is concerned, many of them are going to start having problems if they are not already suffering. The 'reliability' issue has always been one of the battle cries of the Spotmatic users. The 'you can't beat a good solid mechanical camera' brigade. The problem with a mechincal fabric type focal plane shutter will always be lubrication and how this dries out over a period of time. The main sympton is a slowing down of the higher speeds and also uneven exposure. The KX's tended to start suffering badly about 4-5 years ago and most MX's are probably in the early stages. The problem is that most people don't notice. Even slide users are unlikely to notice a half stop error in the shutter speed unless they critically examine all their slides when they come back. At one stop, they probably will but print users may not notice until it gets so bad that the shutter starts capping and they use it at high speeds. I have had 2 MX's that I bought second hand that needed to go to Mike and I have seen far worse in the camera shops.
I like the MX and I am not knocking it. However, it is no more reliable than the Spotmatics or indeed the mechanical K series. (They have been to Mike as well!) They are great if you like a small camera and a different screen. However, because of their cult status they are expensive and if you get one it is going to need a service either now or soon if it hasn't been done. If you want mirror look up, a more informative viewfinder display or prefer the handling of a slightly larger body, the KX is still a better option and despite the recent price increase better VFM. If you do like a small body, the MES does offer much better VFM and has good handling if you can live without changing the screen or a motordrive.
Kim
I think this is a common perception and perhaps not strictly true. Any camera will have it's weak points and nearly all film cameras will need a service now and again to keep them trouble free. The MX is no exception. I have always found found the LX to be extremly reliable. The 'sticky shutter' problem is well documented and the viewfinder can go out of alignment (As can the MX, it is a problem with the way the screen is mounted) and nether problem affects the quality of the photos. However, as long as an LX is serviced every 10 years or so this is not a problem. I have taken an LX around the world several times. It has been thrown half the length of an aircraft, (not intentionally, I forgot it was in my bag ) it has got dents in the finder from being knocked and it has never let me down including during exercises in the arctic circle when the temperature was -30. As far as the ME series is concerned, the Seiko shutter is very reliable and keeps it timing better than most. The biggest problem is the rubber bushes in the film transport mech. Again if the camera has been regularly serviced, this is less of a problem and could be easily cured if you could get hold of the spares.
As far as the MX is concerned, many of them are going to start having problems if they are not already suffering. The 'reliability' issue has always been one of the battle cries of the Spotmatic users. The 'you can't beat a good solid mechanical camera' brigade. The problem with a mechincal fabric type focal plane shutter will always be lubrication and how this dries out over a period of time. The main sympton is a slowing down of the higher speeds and also uneven exposure. The KX's tended to start suffering badly about 4-5 years ago and most MX's are probably in the early stages. The problem is that most people don't notice. Even slide users are unlikely to notice a half stop error in the shutter speed unless they critically examine all their slides when they come back. At one stop, they probably will but print users may not notice until it gets so bad that the shutter starts capping and they use it at high speeds. I have had 2 MX's that I bought second hand that needed to go to Mike and I have seen far worse in the camera shops.
I like the MX and I am not knocking it. However, it is no more reliable than the Spotmatics or indeed the mechanical K series. (They have been to Mike as well!) They are great if you like a small camera and a different screen. However, because of their cult status they are expensive and if you get one it is going to need a service either now or soon if it hasn't been done. If you want mirror look up, a more informative viewfinder display or prefer the handling of a slightly larger body, the KX is still a better option and despite the recent price increase better VFM. If you do like a small body, the MES does offer much better VFM and has good handling if you can live without changing the screen or a motordrive.
Kim
John, this is good news. I have my MX just a year (bought from 1st hand, female, looks not much used). In 1981 I hadn't the curage to buy a MX instead of an ME super.. longevity neither the MX nor the LX have best reputation here. Maybe because some photographs with big fingers just don't have trust them?
Anyway the small size is what I like most at it.. coming back to the roots of Asahi-Pentax 1957 or even Asahiflex beeing as compact as possible SLRs.. similar to the MZ later? Don't have experience with them, 'too young' for me..
cheers, Frank
Anyway the small size is what I like most at it.. coming back to the roots of Asahi-Pentax 1957 or even Asahiflex beeing as compact as possible SLRs.. similar to the MZ later? Don't have experience with them, 'too young' for me..
cheers, Frank
Hi Frank,
I am sure you will be delighted with it. I would however check the seals and the shutter very carefully. If it hasn't been used much, it is unlikely to have been serviced and as the old saying goes, prevention is better than a cure. The problem stems from age rather than use. If there is any sign that the foam has lost it 'spring' or worse is slightly sticky, get it looked at. If the mirror damper foam goes it is likely to get on the screen and mark it. It is the devil of a job to get a good replacement, I know, I have been asked several times now to source a screen for other people. The LX screens will fit but they will put the meter out as they are brighter.
Kim
I am sure you will be delighted with it. I would however check the seals and the shutter very carefully. If it hasn't been used much, it is unlikely to have been serviced and as the old saying goes, prevention is better than a cure. The problem stems from age rather than use. If there is any sign that the foam has lost it 'spring' or worse is slightly sticky, get it looked at. If the mirror damper foam goes it is likely to get on the screen and mark it. It is the devil of a job to get a good replacement, I know, I have been asked several times now to source a screen for other people. The LX screens will fit but they will put the meter out as they are brighter.
Kim
No the foam everywhere looks good at the moment, and light-proof.
With the dark screen, I think I need to live with, since there is no replacement available with fresnell-rings. Weird if I change between the MX and screwmount S2 or something.. older cameras with much brighter screens! I guess the AP or S2 with a 2.4/58mm Takumar is better or on level with the MX equipped with an 1.7/50! And if turning the 2.8/28 on it. it goes daaark.
At production numbers: I found the Spotmatic and early Pentax numbers in the great book Gerjan von Oosten wrote about screwmounts. Great recherche work. No books written about the later stuff?
cheers, Frank
With the dark screen, I think I need to live with, since there is no replacement available with fresnell-rings. Weird if I change between the MX and screwmount S2 or something.. older cameras with much brighter screens! I guess the AP or S2 with a 2.4/58mm Takumar is better or on level with the MX equipped with an 1.7/50! And if turning the 2.8/28 on it. it goes daaark.
At production numbers: I found the Spotmatic and early Pentax numbers in the great book Gerjan von Oosten wrote about screwmounts. Great recherche work. No books written about the later stuff?
cheers, Frank
Pentax Serial Number Database
Arthur Dent
Member
Member
Pentax Serial Number Database System
15 yearsSector Z-Z-9-plural-Z-Alpha
Pentax Serial Number Database Code
I've had two MX cameras for a zillion years, they were all I used until the world went digital.
They both have winders, have been heavily used, and they still work fine!
I got them on the theory that 'if it isn't there, it won't break'. So far so good!!
But now the business has gone digital, so I'm really glad all my old lenses work on the *st D just like they did on the MX - take a reading, compose, shoot! 42
They both have winders, have been heavily used, and they still work fine!
I got them on the theory that 'if it isn't there, it won't break'. So far so good!!
But now the business has gone digital, so I'm really glad all my old lenses work on the *st D just like they did on the MX - take a reading, compose, shoot! 42
Pentax K1000 Serial Number Database
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.