Keith, when I think of 'mechanical camera' I think of one that only loses it's meter if the batteries die. The only one in the "M" line AFAIK that fits this description is the MX. What do you mean by mechanical? I haven't had an MV for a while but it seems to me that it qualifies as an 'electronic camera' in that all but X and B shutter speeds are battery dependent. I won't knock the MV, but I've had too many thru here that just didn't stand up very well under heavy use. The ME and MES just seem 'tougher' in their construction. The ME even had metal top and bottom covers. I did notice that the MV-1 seems to have several stronger components, presumably to make it suitable to take a power winder, which the MV won't.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:23 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad? > > > The MV is a "gadget?" Please! > I have an MV-1 and love it. > Almost as much as I do my very similar MGs! > It's indeed a simplified version of the beloved ME, all of which lead to > the much vaunted MX! > Number one, you have to like mechanical cameras, or all bets are off. > However, if you are okay with mechanical cameras, the MG, the MV and the > MV-1 are very capable of providing you with excellent shots! > > In this case, at least, "cheap" does not equal poorly designed or > constructed... > > keith whaley > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Quoting frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:09:16 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>Is an MV something an enthusiast wants to be using? > > >>It's about the cheapest way you can use a k-mount lens. > >> > >>As far as whether an enthusiast wants to be using it, well, it seems > >>to me that an enthusiast uses whatever the heck they want to. If one > >>is insecure about "what to use", well, photography is the wrong thing > >>to be in. > > > Steve, Frank, Don, > > > > I ask because one comes attached to a 28/3.5 M lens I'm interested in. > > The body alone is $149, the lens alone is $149, the pair is > $179 ($Aust). > > > > I wondered if the body would have any resale value, or if it just a > > happy snap type of camera or perhaps had a history of problems, etc. > > > > I can see it is a fairly simple auto only gadget. > > > > Thanks :-) >
