> If there was a modern Af camera that was built > according to the same quality level as the LX and that > was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the > 31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was > the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to > buy new, what would you choose: this one or a cheap > ZX/MZ-something plastic body? I think the market has > already given the answer.
Alexander, I don't think the market has given the answer because the market has not been given the actual choice. Yes, Pentax would rather build ZX-5's and ZX-7's, and this probably means that it thinks it can do so more profitably than it could build a camera such as you describe. But that doesn't mean that the market wouldn't support an "AF LX" if one were available. After all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. Those are: 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing 2. Quiet operation 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses 5. Aperture-priority AE 6. AE lock 7. Non-resetting ISO 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for decent portability 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not too many extra controls and features confusing everything. I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, and I'd probably be using an MZ-S if it had #1. The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the "top ten" features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't "dictate" the way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotography. But for someone who did either of those things, those features would be mandatory. Slide photographers may not give a hoot for a 100% viewfinder; others would be very concerned with motor drive capability; landscape photographers may well not care about quiet operation; and the list goes on and on. What Abe Lincoln said really holds true here. "You can satisfy some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time." No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must be a pretty thankless task. --Mike
