Bob, I certainly hope this doesn't happen with me. I know I've heard every kind of report about the LX, from bodies surviving hard use for 20 years with nary a hitch, to nightmares about sticky mirrors and repeated visits to the repair wizards.
As for the "sad truth," I guess my feeling is that Wunderplastik is the same as MMM cameras--inexpensive ones are cheap, and good ones are expensive. For more (okay, much more) of my thinking about all this, see next Sunday's column. It's called "The Public and Me--What Should an SLR Be?" --Mike > As much as I love the solid feel of old manual cameras, and -- like Mike -- > would like to figure out how to senisbly own a fully manual system, I think > the reality lies elsewhere. The LX I dearly loved spent more time in the > shop than any body I've owned. The MX I bought from KEH went right back for > too many little wear-related problems. My K1000 is still in good shape, and > I still use it. Likewise my MV. But I can always tell at a glance -- by > frame spacing -- whether I used an old manual camera (uneven to overlapping) > or new wunderplastik model (perfect) to shoot with. > > The sad truth is, a cheap auto-everything all-carbonate SLR from any of the > new manufacturers today is a hell of a camera. They're light weight, they > meter well, and they're amazingly reliable. Best of all they're really > cheap. Not robust? You can wear out three or four entry-level bodies > (especially bought used) for the price of one FM3 or LX. > The best feel to a camera just might be a reliable one.
