The LX is only about 1/4 inch taller and 1/4 inch wider and has the same depth from the front of the lens flange to the camera back of course. However partly due to the difference in shape of the MX's prism housing it seems to be much smaller than the difference in dimensions would indicate. It isn't really any quieter however, although on the examples I own the shutters have distinctly different sounds. I wouldn't say that the MX is any less cluttered than the LX except in the finder display, The LX has a couple of extra controls the MX packs the ones it has closer together. Both cameras are joy's to use, I think that the MX just 'seems' to be more invisible.
At 09:13 AM 3/3/2002 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated Sat, 2 Mar 2002 3:18:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, Shel >Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I've been thinking a bit about this and realized that, for me, there is > > no "best" 35mm camera. When I'm out on the street or elsewhere I and > > want to shoot fast, quietly, and thoughtfully, the MX does it best. The > > small size and weight, lack of clutter from features and automation, > > makes it particularly appealing. > > > > However, there are times when automated exposure, or the need for a > > different finder, or a motor drive or winder, is useful, and then the LX > > comes into its own special sphere. > > >As a point of interest, why would you choose the MX over the LX for some >situations? I've never owned the MX, so I don't know -- is it *that* much >smaller & lighter? And is it quieter? >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
