Hi, Thomas, All things being equal (which they never are <g>), since you do a lot of low light photography without flash, I think the LX would be better suited for your needs.
Of course, you have to factor in price, and reliability. I've been happy with my MX on both grounds. I've not had a problem with having to find parts for it, and my local repair shop is more than competent with CLA's on older mechanical cameras. I don't know that MX's have any particular weaknesses, although I've read about some that have had meter/led problems with theirs. The LX, of course, has the infamous "sticky mirror syndrome" that seems to plague many specimens, and I understand that the fix may be a problem with some shops, and you may have to send it off to Pentax for that (if they even do that anymore). As much as I'd love an LX, the price difference, along with the reliability issues (and ease of repair of an MX) keep me with the MX. But then, I don't do much low light stuff. Were I you, I might consider an LX. cheers, frank Thomas Haller wrote: > Hello Folks, > > I am an enthusist photographer, not a professional, but I take a lot of > pictures. Landscapes, autos, and lots of close up to macro stuff, like > flowers, knives, and bits of machinery. > > I prefer inanimate objects, but have taken good pictures of people if > they forget I'm there and I can take many shots of them. If I "love" > the subject (again usually inanimate objects) I often get what I > consider awesome photos. > > I "never" use flash (okay maybe a little fill-in if I absolutely _have_ > to, but it makes me feel like I've failed somehow). I usually use ASA > 400-3200 unless I'm shooting for detail where I'm "forced" to use ASA > 25-100. I like low light, night and early morning. > > I like small compact cameras. I could never get used to a F3HP, it was > just too big and clunky! > > I typically use a metered "manual" mode even if AE or SE or a program > exposure mode is available, but I'd use AE if I needed to. I want to > compose and set exposure with the lens wide open, then have it close > down when I shoot. > > I prefer the, oh I don't know what to call it, the drama or focus of > B&W photography and I "see in B&W" but I have a really good color sense > (like matching colors, using complimentary colors - I even taught > ceramic underglazing) so if I take my time I've made good color > pictures, but usually of slower moving subjects like flowers ;-). > > Once I bought a Epson Color 800 and now my new Epson 2200, I've taken > to having my B&W negs or color slides scanned (PhotoCD and a friend's > Nikon CoolScan). Then I use Photoshop and make my own prints. I'm in > the market for my own film/slide scanner. > > I started with my Dad's Leica IIIg with a 50mm Summicron (if I remember > correctly) , which took "magical" pictures where the subject somehow > stood apart from the rest of the picture. I remember a remarkable roll > of casual shots I made of my little brother in his sandbox that came > out like I was a pro at LIFE magazine. > > But when I was old enough to realize what I was holding, I got scared > and bought a Konica Auto S2 rangefinder, with which I created some my > best pictures, albeit after hours of cropping and exposure experiments > in the darkroom. (I will still take it out for barbecues or other > occasions where I don't want to bother with the SLRs.) > > Then I was convinced to buy an SLR to use different lenses, and found a > whole world of close-up pictures, wide angle and telephoto. My tool was > a Minolta SRT-101 with a few MD lenses. I bought the body and the 50mm > lens and my Dad bought a 28mm and a 100mm, When I left home, I left the > Minolta behind. > > When I could afford another SLR, I found the Pentax MX (with 50mm 1.4 M > lens) and felt like I had found the "perfect" camera. Bright viewfinder > with good coverage, unobtrusive LED metering and shutter speed > indicators and even the aperture showed with that little prism window. > DOF, mechanical shutter, that 1.4 lens, oh gosh I could go on and on, > as I'm sure most of you can imagine. :-) Soon came more lenses, > filters, macro, shades, a couple more MX bodies, winders and so forth. > > I even played with an LX for a while, loaned to me, and I really > appreciated the more sensitive meter, and of course the quality of the > body, but I actually preferred the viewfinder of the MX. (I could not > afford an LX then, anyway!) > > Now I seem to be at a crossroad, one you have probably travelled past > already, and I am hoping you can help me choose a path. As much as I > love my old Pentax equipment, it all seems to be getting awfully old, > and I keep having to send bodies out more often for repair and > adjustment, breaking those winder battery door screws, and even my baby > 1.4M doesn't mount like it used to. > > One response (as it seems to me) is to buy more MX bodies and Pentax > SMC-M lenses, in the best condition I can find, and just keep going the > way I have been. > > Another way to go seems to be to "move up" to a used LX body, as the MX > bodies are what is getting the most expensive and troublesome to > maintain, and keep collecting SMC-M or -A lenses. > > But I can imagine circumstances when AF would extend my domain, for > pictures of fast moving objects that are difficult to keep in focus > manually. (Can you say Laguna Seca?) And I've made plenty of "metering > mistakes" that might have been prevented by the newer matrix metering > systems. > > So, another way to go seems to be to step up to the plate and buy > either an MZ-3 (black) or an MZ-S, then start buying FA lenses. From > what I've read online there are some _fine_ FA lenses. I'm thinking the > 35mm FA f/2, 50mm FA f/2.8 Macro, 100mm FA f/2.8 Macro and 200mm FA > f/2.8 would make a good shopping list. But which body? Is the added > expense of the MZ-S worth it compared to the MZ-3? Remember I'm a > simple man, and not all that concerned with "Hyper" modes and so forth, > I'm just looking for a modern replacement for my MXs. > > But do you think I'll be able to live with the newer bodies? I _read_ > that the viewfinders are no-where-near as bright as the old MX/LX and > if I found the LX finder a bit busy, I can imagine what I'll think of > the MZs. I live in sleepy Santa Cruz CA, so please don't advise me to > head down to my "local" camera shop and look at both of the MZ cameras, > there ain't no such thing. I haven't seen an MZ-S even in the "big" > camera shops in San Jose, and of course we don't get the MZ-3 here in > the United States. I did see an MZ-5n on the shelf, but they were "too > busy" to let me play with it. >8-[ > > And then there's the D word! :-) It seems a bit early to me, but my > older brother has been using a C*n*n D60 and now a D10 with a bunch of > C*n*n lenses and swears by them. And since I'm scanning my film and > printing to an inkjet out of Photoshop, I certainly can't get on a high > horse about film resolution and so forth can I? Is this really the > answer? Move to digital rather than spend more monry on film based > bodies? > > So what do _you_ think? > > [ ] Keep buying used MXs ? > > [ ] Buy a used LX? > > Or do I move on to an AF body? And if I go AF, which MZ? > > [ ] An MZ-3 (black)? > > [ ] An MZ-S? > > Or, > > [ ] Move to digital (either now, C*n*n with RAW output, or wait for > the mythical Pentax D)? > > Sorry for the rambling tale, but I thought the background might help. > Thanks for listening! > > - THaller -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
