Well at least I got a rise out of you. Yes I know I overstated the case and when I described the F3 as being as big as a 67. I kept away from any numbers because well it's impression that seems to be counting here and my impression of the F3 is that it's huge.
I have to take exception to the airplane analogy. The apex of mechanical camera design camera design was in the mid to late 1980's I doubt that there is much different in the FE3 mechanically from a medium duty Nikon of that era. The difference is in the electronics. More a difference between a B53A and a B52G. Unfortunately the LX development was frozen around the E upgrade. At 11:42 PM 8/2/2002 -0600, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Peter Alling Subject: Re: Re[2]: Subject: LX repair update > > > > I think you missed my point. William said that the use of >mixed > > electronics and mechanicals in the > > shutter mechanism was a hodgepodge, and one of the reasons for >the LX's > > supposed un-reliability. I pointed > > out that Nikon would probably not have used a similar setup if >that was > > true. (I kind of like the FM3 by the way). > >Actually, I called it a bastard marriage. For the most part, the >exposure system of the LX seems pretty reliable, keeping in mind >that the heart of it is prone to rusting away. > >I don't think comparing the LX to the FM3 is valid, as they are >from entirely different eras of manufacturing technology. >You are comparing a Sopwith Camel to a Hawker Hurricane. > > > > I think that the comparison to the > > F3 is a bit unfair by the way. It is much bigger, > > almost as large and heavy as a Pentax 67. If you can't build >in > > reliability by using bigger heavier parts then you're doing > > something wrong. > >Who are you trying to kid? >The Nikon F3HP is: >(W x H x D) : approx 148.5 x 101.5 x 69 mm. Body weight: Nikon >F3HP: 760g approx. > >The 6x7 with the meter prism attached is: >(W x H x D) 177 x 208 x 91mm, and weighs 2270g approx. > >The comparison is between top of the line cameras that are >contemporaneous to each other from competing companies. It is a >perfectly valid comparison. >If making it bigger makes it more reliable, Pentax had the >option of doing it with the LX, and the 6x7 would be their most >reliable camera body. > >I do expect that if the 6x7 is in fact a less reliable camera, >it is because it is actually used by pro photographers, and is >subject to more wear and tear. >I don't believe that statement for a minute, and no proof was >given to back it up. > From my own experience, the 6x7 is a very reliable product. I >have known 4 of them that were used day to day by pro >photographers, and they were all as reliable as a one piece >hammer. >My own 6x7 has been in the shop twice, once to cure T-Maxitus, >which I don't hold against the camera, and once to repair a PC >terminal that I broke right off the body. > >William Robb >- >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 .
