Comments within... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Keith Whaley posted: > > > > I thought the MX review was very interesting too, but what surprises > > me ~ in light of what the reviewer said about the KX ~ is that you HAD > > a KX and didn't like it! > > After reading Lon Williamson's review, I thought I just might want to > > have one! Now I wonder. What did I miss? > > Why don't/didn't you like the KX? > > I seem to recall he said it was like a pre-LX design...that sounded > > pretty interesting to me. > > > > I do have an MX body, and I just got it a few days ago, but haven't > > had time to really wring it out. > > I am really looking forward to road-testing it, however. > > > > Your thoughts on the KX? > > In the first place, when I bought the KX it had been several years since I'd > last owned a K1000 and my Pentax bodies since then had all been smaller. Found > I wasn't that comfortable going back to the big bodies.
I went from an Olympus OM-1 to an OM-2, to a Pentax MG, to a Spotmatic F, to an MX. Even in that sequence, the MX is SMALL... I really like the small size of the MX! > Secondly, although I > understand this doesn't bother many people, I found that having to keep the > winding lever in a stand-off position to use the meter was a distraction -- I'd > never owned a camera with that requirement before. Nor I, but I don't yet have enough time behind the shutter with my MX to know... > It wasn't that there was anything *wrong* with the camera; just one of those > subtle handling not-quite-"me" issues that sometimes present themselves and > make the difference between a camera you happily reach for and use, and the one > on the shelf you reach past to get to the one you like using. So I bought the > LX and as soon as I'd established that the LX was working properly, sold the KX > to partially offset the investment in the LX. I'm familiar with that! <grin> Thanks for your comments. keith whaley
