Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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.
... less expensive, too ... :-) Yes, I just looked at the comparison pictures John posted. They're cool. I hadn't seen them before; I had based my remarks on reading the printed specs. > > 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. I'm trying to figure out what "more information" the LX has over the MX, but the only thing I can think of is the permanent presence of the whole shutter- speed range -- not much more than the MX. Am I forgetting anything? Well, it's all personal preference of course, nothing to fight about. I like the LX finder a bit better, myself. The display inside the ME Super's finder (just to go back to "where we came in") has the whole shutter speed lineup in it (like the LX) though, IIRC, on the other side of the screen. And the ME Super, unlike the LX and MX, doesn't show the aperture in the viewfinder. But my dear sir, if you think the LX has a colorful busy finder, you really would hate the *ist D! As a matter of fact I don't think you'd care for the PZ-1 or the ZXen either. 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. Yes, I seem to remember your telling me about the MX being quieter than the LX, back in the days before I had an MX. None of the cameras cited could fit in MY shirt pockets, by the way ... ;-) I think it's time to run some film through the MX for the joy of the experience now. The LX had its turn late last month. ERNR
