The MX is lighter, and smaller in many dimensions, than the Leica. The pentaprism makes it a somewhat larger camera in height, but otherwise the MX is a scosh narrower, about the same with, and only a tiny bit taller than the Leica because of the pentaprism. It looks like John's put up a comparison, but if you'd like to see a pic of a Leica and the MX together, just say the word. And, depending on the lenses used, some Pentax lenses are smaller than the equivalent Leica glass, for example, the M85/2.0 is a LOT smaller and lighter than the Leica 90/2.0. The MX can end up being a smaller, lighter package overall.
The controls for both are simple and straightforward. The LX has more information in the viewfinder than is needed, and to some, this writer included, the colorful busy finder can be a distraction. The MX finder is very simple, very similar in concept to the finder in the Leicas that have a built-in meter. By that I mean there's minimal information, not a lot of lights, readouts, and extraneous details. They are both, IMO, cxameras for the photographer who doesn't want or need a lot of help when making an exposure. The MX is also quieter than the LX and many other SLR cameras, although not as quiet as the Leica. Both can easily be carried in a jacket, or even a large shirt, pocket. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 1/18/2005 8:59:18 PM > Subject: Re: Finally - enabled > > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The MX is the > > Pentax version of the Leica ... > > > Isn't it very similar in size to the M-ajority of M-series Leicas? I thought > I read that somewhere. > Less mass, I believe, but the dimensions ... ? > Of course, also the control layout. > I've never owned a Leica and only handled one briefly, a couple of times, so > I'm basing this on pictures and written specs. Whereas you, I believe, have > plenty of experience with both. > > ERNR
