[lesmore49]

This is a question that would go back to the film days...for the most part.

What was your experience ? Was it durable ? Picture quality great ?

Would you use it again ...or do you think you would of gone with the equivalent Canon (F1) or Nikon (F ) if you had to do it all over again ? Why ?

BTW...I've always been a fan of the LX. Almost got one, back in the '80's. Instead went medium format and got a Mamiya 220Pro F with 3 lenses.

But I've always wondered if I should of got the LX instead.

[Wheatfield]

I love the LX, and used them professionaly for many years. I have three of them and an entire set of finders.
The finders are really the strong point of the LX, and it is that which I miss the most with digital SLR cameras.

If Pentax wants to do something really different, they could give me an FC-1, FD-1/ FD-2 style system finder or an FE-1 style magni finder on a DSLR.
It's a dream I have.

[lesmore49]

I love the LX, and used them professionaly for many years. I have three of them and an entire set of finders.
The finders are really the strong point of the LX, and it is that which I miss the most with digital SLR cameras.

If Pentax wants to do something really different, they could give me an FC-1, FD-1/ FD-2 style system finder or an FE-1 style magni finder on a DSLR.
It's a dream I have.

One of my photo regrets was not getting an LX. BTW I'm also from the wheatfields of Canada. Lived in both....Alberta and Manitoba.

[Ratmagiclady]

Few pros back in the day would choose the LX. Those that did, knew why and what they were doing. Nice cameras, the LXes. Always wanted an excuse to have one. Honestly never thought it was anything to do with TV camera tech.

To be quite honest, the LX looked like a swan song at the time. Already had stopped when Canon was breaking for the amateur market back in the Eighties.

They'd made such a pretty thing and opted to be also-rans in the 'No, really, we have high-tech market.' Right when old Canon shooters were running for the ratlines.


They were damn fools.

C'est la vie.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-02-2009 at 10:29 PM.

[Ratmagiclady]

One of my photo regrets was not getting an LX. BTW I'm also from the wheatfields of Canada. Lived in both....Alberta and Manitoba.

Well, let's be serious, the sticker price of an LX was... not competetive with an F-1N nor an F3, if you could get.

They were.... Beautiful, but not necessarily mutated.

Still. Even in the mid-80s, the LX was apparently history, and no one was letting go of them, even if I wanted to work around such constraints. Also, I was really like, 'OK. What is Pentax's *problem* with focal lengths I like?" Best I could have sold you at the time was a Super Program, anyway, and they were only getting more plasticky from there.


Way I figure it is, Pentax should have *reallly* capitalized on the confusion of the times and *kept* making metal bodies and MF lenses. Waited till the tech matured till they even put their *name* on atofocus lenses that looked like they come out of Knight Rider.


Was not what they chose to do. Now they are maybe back, but they *did* drop that LX thing before anyone even *imagined* Nikonians would be glowering 'Film Is Dead.'


If they'd stayed with some basic idea of, 'This is made of metal, Y ou can focus with your hand, ' they might have lasted through the 90's. And aughts. If no one's heard of Pentax *now* it's a legacy they squandered in the past, imitating others and painting the plastic silver.

There's a lot of detrctors who thin gthe name actually carries some non-1337nesse or some other damn geeky thing now that a pixel is involved, but the LX, if history is a lesson, is a camera which is revered becasue, no innovations, no bells and whistles, but because someone stopped to *perfect* everything available at the time.

Unfortunately, they weren't alone, as it turned out, but..... when makers do that, this is where we get classic cameras. When I was coming up, I fidn't konw how spoiled we were. You *could* have had the LX, if you were a prime lens shooter, and you had a problem, and no one else could help, , and could find one, (and I wasn't quite that crusty yet in exciting times,) Or, an F3HP, which *looked* beautiful to shoot through and handled like a dog,

Ha. That's a better Grace Jones. ' You give me this quare motor drive. What's this. I will tell you when your camere is not new Wave enough. Until then. Silence!'

(It *was* the 80's, btw, From what I see in 'News and Rumors' it seems people put as much effort into camera stuff as we *used* to put into reducing 'Wereallgonnadie' to like *one syllable.*


Perspective.


It's ...kind of like...the LX was this camera that, if you much liked prime lenses, ou could go out and shoot with *now.* Kinda like the Terminator movies, there was no Terminator 2 or Terminator 5: The Divine Redemption. There was just the one movie and it was about Reagan having the nuclear triggers and no one messing with it politically, it was just that one thing, where you faced the day thinking you might die with maybe a couple rols of Tri-X in your left pocket *now* and it wouldn't be about anything but.... Bombs. And humanity.


That was it.


Few stopped to 'perfect' film cameras, but the LX was a fine thing.


Kind of how classics are made, is that.

[snkenai]

Sir, that was beautiful. What did he say? Sorry, I must be more senile than I thought.

Steve N

[Mike Cash]

I smell gin.

[tranq78]

Well, let's be serious, the sticker price of an LX was... not competetive with an F-1N nor an F3, if you could get.

They were.... Beautiful, but not necessarily mutated.

Great post. Ah, the 1980's. And I am not one of the 20 million people who bought "Thriller" the year it came out.

In the last couple years people have been passing on to me me their old film cameras either for free or for very little money. I have 2 LXs from a couple of photojournalists. One switched to Nikon, the other left the business. While one LX was free and the 2nd cost very little, I did pay to have them both CLA'd and rebuilt.

I do use my LXs. In fact, I've been using them this past couple weeks and I'll probably be using one at a kids' sports game tonight.

They're very nice cameras. You don't see precision, all metal instruments like this anymore. They simply work and don't get in the way of taking a picture. The mark of a really well made and designed piece of equipment like the LX is one that let's you use it for its intended purpose without you even thinking about it when you're using it.

[rthomas]

I wanted to get one but at the time (1990s) I was a college student and already heavily invested in Nikon. The LX always looked like a perfect 35mm camera to me.

[zoltan1983snapper]

I wanted to get one but at the time (1990s) I was a college student and already heavily invested in Nikon. The LX always looked like a perfect 35mm camera to me.

It's definitely close--every bit as nice as a Leica RF.

[Hamster]

I went to the Helmut Newton Museum in Berlin and I smiled when I saw his LX on display...

[Dangermouse]

I've never even held one, but what would appeal to me are the options to customise the camera to your individual needs. Body not a comfortable shape to hold? Add a hand grip. Don't like the conventional viewfinder? Change it for a different design. Want a different focussing screen? etc, etc.

[carlb]

I've never even held one, but what would appeal to me are the options to customise the camera to your individual needs. Body not a comfortable shape to hold? Add a hand grip. Don't like the conventional viewfinder? Change it for a different design. Want a different focussing screen? etc, etc.

Yep, and then you get to use a camera that is absolutely wonderful to work with. It really is in a class of its own.

Buy one and treat yourself..........you won't regret it

[keyser]

It still amazes me that they don't produce an all metal 'film' body with a digital sensor and screen on the back. Leica have proved that there's a premium market for vintage feeling cameras which contain modern day technology.

Put a non-crippled KAF2 mount and allow for AF but retain interchangable focussing screens and metering for older MF lenses (no green button!).

One thing to the plastic AF detractors - of which I'm one - is, don't forget that people wanted plastic at that point. A lot of amateurs genuinly feel less intimidated by plastic products. Pentax were merely following a trend, rather than setting their own.

[stevebrot]

It still amazes me that they don't produce an all metal 'film' body with a digital sensor and screen on the back. Leica have proved that there's a premium market for vintage feeling cameras which contain modern day technology.

Put a non-crippled KAF2 mount and allow for AF but retain interchangable focussing screens and metering for older MF lenses (no green button!).

You hit it right on the head!

• Non-crippled mount
• Usable manual focus capabilities
• Accurate metering
• Premium compact build
• Traditional control layout similar to the Leica

I would add the following that I would hope would decrease the body size/weight:

• Optional AF support through battery grip only (motor and big battery in grip)

Fat chance!

I keep praying that Cosina or maybe Zeiss might develop a bare bones, modular, K-mount pro-level SLR. Again, fat chance!

Steve

One thing to the plastic AF detractors - of which I'm one - is, don't forget that people wanted plastic at that point. A lot of amateurs genuinly feel less intimidated by plastic products. Pentax were merely following a trend, rather than setting their own.

Plastic is also considerably lighter. Old-school zoom lenses are really good for building one's strength!

Steve