Pentax made the MX and introduced it to the world as a pro 35mm camera.I think this is a rather subjective matter. From my point of view, MX was a simple mechanical camera with very limited features. It is a great camera which I still use. However, when it was compared to other pro bodies of the same era from Canon & Nikon, MX was no match to them. LX on the otherhand, is very much comparable to Canon F-1 & Nikon F3. I realize MX was marketed by Pentax as a system camera, but I honestly don't think it deserve the "professional" tag which was set by Nikon & Canon in that era. About the PZ-1, it is an advance amateur model and that's it. I use the Z-1p too, but I don't see how it can stand the abuse caused by real commerical photographers. Pentax simply cut corners on these Z/PZ models. If they were built as tough as Minolta 9 or Nikon F4, sure I have no problem to call it professional, but that didn't happen. But then again, these are my very personal point of view.
Subsequently made the LX and introduced it to the world as a pro 35mm camera.
Much later also introduced the PZ1 as a pro 35mm camera. I was wondering what
Mr Alan Chan's reason was for declaring that the LX was the only true pro 35mm
camera Pentax ever
produced.
regards,
Alan Chan
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
