Alan Chan posted his reasons: > > 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. >
Well I can definitely agree with you on the "subjective" and "point of view" aspects (grin) But if I understand you correctly from your posts, then: The MX is *not* a professional camera because it's an all-manual mechanical camera, as are the Leica M-series up to the M6, the Nikon F and F2, most Hasselblads and all large-format cameras. The LX *is* a professional camera because its feature set compares with other makers' "professional" models of the same period. You consider it a professional camera although, in your experience, it is not as reliable as either the Super Program, which has many more features, or the MX, which has fewer -- but neither of which is a professional camera. By the way I disagree with you that the PZ-1 isn't tough enough to be a professional camera. But as you said, it's very much a matter of opinion.
