The MX could be used by pros, but was more of a semipro model, and was a good match with the Nikon FM and Olympus OM-1. The FM series has been used by many pros from the beginning to the present, because although it isn't a capable or rugged as the F models it's good enough and smaller lighter and doesn't need batteries to work. The MX was like this too.
There are differences in pro equipment regardless of marketing and who uses it.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
