Hi Dave, I don't care for the way the ASA and exposure compensation is set. Also, in order to use the meter, the film advance lever has to be moved out from the camera or the shutter button has to be held half way down. The advance lever often hits me in the eye, and being required to hold the shutter release down makes it difficult (for me) to adjust the shutter speed or aperture at the same time. And, iirc, the camera won't work without batteries as it uses an electronically controlled shutter. Plus, while not overly so, it is heavier than the other K bodies. I should mention that I've only used the K2 DMD, not the regular K2, but I'm pretty sure the annoyances mentioned are the same for both cameras.
For me, the joy of the K body cameras is that they can work without need of batteries unless one chooses to use the built-in meter, which I generally don't use. I agree with you about the LX meter readout and what I consider excessive information in the viewfinder. I prefer using the older cameras more using the LX as well, although the LX has certainly come in handy quite a few times. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Mann > On Dec 25, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > The K2, while nice, is a little too fussy for my taste, but it's a > > lovely camera nonetheless. > > I'm curious... what do you find fussy about the K2? > > Overall I actually like it more than the LX but I shouldn't say that > too loudly. The LX is a real gem of a camera but I just can't stand > its meter readout. Plus the K2's weight feels more comfortable to us > muscle-bound 6x7 users :)
