Pentax LX vs Nikon FM3a
Ken Monroe
I'm looking for experience/opinions with currently available (used) Pentax
bodies. I'm considering this against a new Nikon FM3a. My concern with the
LX is acquiring a used body with x amount of years on it already and what
the future life might be. Also the availability of repair parts.
Thx
John
The LX was the finest systems camera of all time. The ultimate 35mm for
the working pro. That said it was discontinued some 8 years ago and I would be a
little leery of buying one today for professional use unless it was in good
shape and I had planned to send it to Pentax for a CLA and replacement of
gaskets and such.
Regards
John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
http://www.darkroompro.com
Bandicoot
news:qTpF9.49449$wc2.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
Hi,
I like the LX a lot - I use three of them fairly regularly - so while I am
certainly not an LX expert, I have a reasonable amount of experience.
If you want a manual focus body to use with Pentax (or Pentax mount) lenses
and are happy that whilst the meter is spectacularly good it is simply
centre weighted and has no matrix metering wizardry, then the LX is a superb
choice. Be aware also that it does offer excellent TTL flash control, but
without any of the latest contrast control, red-eye reduction etc. features,
nor will it give you trailing curtain sync. Its also heavier than many a
modern camera as it has pretty much no plastic at all in it - for some that
is a good thing! Still, being a Pentax and therefore having ergonomics
higher on the list of priorities than many makers put it, it is still
compact compared to the professional bodies offered by others at the time,
and is small compared to a modern top flight SLR. Part of this is having no
built in winder of course, but even with the LX winder (2 fps) it is not
particularly bulky - the motor drive (variable 0.5 - 5 fps) does make it a
bit more cumbersome.
Handling is _much_ better with a grip attached. These can still be
ordered new from Pentax (as can the focussing screens and a few other
accessories) but the price of a used LX with a grip is generally no
different to that of one without, so its worth seeing if you can get one
with the body. There are two types, which you can find described and
pictured by following the first of the links I've put in below.
Your best sources of information are:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/
Lots of info. and pictures.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/thepentaxlx.html
Not quite as much detail, but does include information on common faults, and
help on identifying more or less whether you are looking at an early,
middle, or late example.
http://www.euronet.nl/~pimr/lxfsmain.html
Details of the various focussing screens for the LX.
http://www.geocities.com/sorefeets/lx/lx.htm
Some specific information about the metering pattern and about TTL flash.
http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
The Pentax USA manuals download site - includes downloadable PDFs of
(photocopied) manuals for the LX and for some of its accessories.
Your specific question was about parts and maintenance. In my experience
the LX is very tough, and I would expect even one that has had hard use to
work well in most cases. But like any older camera you will want to get a
CLA done on it, and it will be wise to get it CLAed again every couple of
years or following any particularly arduous use. The better the one you buy
was looked after, the less work will need to be done on it at each
'pit-stop' and the more confident you can be of its reliability - I've never
had one fail on me, even though two of my three are quite old, but then I do
look after them. The moisture/dust sealing is very good indeed, so in
general an LX is often in better condition internally than another camera of
similar age that has seen a similar amount of use. (Someone will flame me
for that, but I did say "in general" and I stand by it.)
The key thing to be aware of is "sticky mirror" syndrome. This can be fixed
by a CLA, especially if you get Pentax to do it as they will replace the
troublesome gasket with a new material that fixes it and _seems_ to keep
it from recurring. If you come across a used one where you _know_ this has
been done already you are onto a good thing. I haven't tried here to
describe exactly what "sticky mirror" is or what causes it because you will
get all of that much better explained than I can do it by going to:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lxproblems.html
If you are concerned about repairs and spares, contact the Pentax agency for
your territory and ask them if either they do repairs or they recommend
someone, then talk to the repair people about what a CLA costs and whether
they have problems with parts for any of the more normal problems. My own
experience is that parts are not a problem for 'economic' repairs ie. if
you've broken one badly enough that you are at the stage of wanting a part
that is unobtainable, chances are even if you could get it it would be
cheaper to buy a 'new' used body anyway - so you are no worse off than if
the part was obtainable.
Hope this was helpful. If you have any specific questions on the feature
set, the various LX specific accessories, etc., post them and I'll try to
help. Good luck,
Peter
Mark Roberts
>On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:38:14 GMT, "Ken Monroe" <kmon...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'm looking for experience/opinions with currently available (used) Pentax
>>bodies. I'm considering this against a new Nikon FM3a. My concern with the
>>LX is acquiring a used body with x amount of years on it already and what
>>the future life might be. Also the availability of repair parts.
>
> The LX was the finest systems camera of all time. The ultimate 35mm for
>the working pro. That said it was discontinued some 8 years ago and I would be a
>little leery of buying one today for professional use unless it was in good
>shape and I had planned to send it to Pentax for a CLA and replacement of
>gaskets and such.
I'd go along with this. Pentax sems to have a good stock of parts for the LX
but I'd certainly factor $150.00 for CLA into the price. See
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lxproblems.html for typical
problems. Hit the Pentax mailing list (http://www.pdml.net) for more data.
Be warned: Those who have the LX generally love it only slightly less than
life itself ;-)
Yes, it's something of a cult. (Not a member myself, though; I have MZ-S,
PZ-1p, MX, K2 and 645.)
Also, have a look at:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/thepentaxlx.html
http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/index.html
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
John Halliwell
<kmon...@cox.net> writes
Hi Ken,
I'm a big Pentax user with loads of kit, including two LXs (both
suffering from the sticky mirror, both bought used with unknown
history). It remained in some kind of production until around 2000 or
thereabouts, spare availability may be a problem.
The LX is a great camera, very versatile and offers a good feature set
if your looking for a well built camera. It offers some features not
found on the FM3a (removable finders, OTF metering down to EV-6.5,
better sealing amongst them).
However, if you're looking for a new camera (and haven't got a bagful of
Pentax lenses), the FM3a makes more sense to me (assuming costs are the
same). If you get a good deal on an LX or have loads of lenses then it's
a harder choice. When I was looking at new 35mm bodies, I was
considering the FM3a myself.
The Nikon uses an existing motordrive, but the Pentax motordrive either
runs off a NiCad battery (most used ones are probably knackered by now -
very expensive new if available) or a less common 'pistol' grip that
takes 12 AA batteries (and I imagine gets unwieldy?).
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Bandicoot
"John Halliwell" <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OIjT6DAr...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
[SNIP]
>
> The Nikon uses an existing motordrive, but the Pentax motordrive either
> runs off a NiCad battery (most used ones are probably knackered by now -
> very expensive new if available) or a less common 'pistol' grip that
> takes 12 AA batteries (and I imagine gets unwieldy?).
>
> --
> John
>
> Preston, Lancs, UK.
> Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
>
There is supposedly someone around who will replace the NiCd cells in the
motordrive power pack for you when they wear out - but I've not found out
who this is: wish I could tell you. No idea if they are available new any
more, but absolutely agree they'd be expensive if they are.
Last time I had a need of a motordrive I bought a NiCd pack from a second
hand dealer who had already gotten the cells replaced. It works well. The
pistol grip is indeed a bit unweildy, but I could see using it with a big
lens that was on a monopod or else on a tripod +gimbal mount.
Peter
John Halliwell
ndle_here"@techemail.com> writes
>There is supposedly someone around who will replace the NiCd cells in the
>motordrive power pack for you when they wear out - but I've not found out
>who this is: wish I could tell you. No idea if they are available new any
>more, but absolutely agree they'd be expensive if they are.
The NiCd's should be relatively 'easy' to replace by a competent
electronics guru assuming the pack comes apart easily. I'd imagine
they're standard (i.e. commonly available) cells, presumably 'tagged'
(with connections that allow them to be easily soldered together to form
packs).
>Last time I had a need of a motordrive I bought a NiCd pack from a second
>hand dealer who had already gotten the cells replaced. It works well. The
>pistol grip is indeed a bit unweildy, but I could see using it with a big
>lens that was on a monopod or else on a tripod +gimbal mount.
B+H had prices for the motordrive a couple of years ago (no idea about
availability), IIRC the price was about $1,000 US and I'm not sure if it
included the battery pack?
The winder is possibly a more sensible option, it runs off just 4 AA's
and it still offers power rewind.
Pudentane
The LX is an excellent, versatile, well made, durable camera body. It
ranks up there as most Pentax enthusiasts all time favorite. It was
Pentax's PRO camera comparable to Nikon's F3.
You can use Pentax 'A' lenses with it, but you have to set the aperture
manually.
It has aperture priority automation available, and the shutter is
electronically controlled when used in auto mode, yet it retains
mechanical shutter for the manually set shutter speeds (so if the
battery dies, you aren't left with a dead camera).
--
I do not speak for any government, corporation or organization.
These are MY opinions. No one else is to blame.
ChrisPlatt
I switched from Nikon to Pentax several years ago.
I have found that the selection of the most desirable
used Pentax lenses is far smaller and often more costly
than that of MF Nikkors.
Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-
T. P.
Hi Ken,
I use both Pentax LX and Nikon FM3A bodies.
There are many differences. The most obvious include the FM3A's very
reliable 1/4000 sec top shutter speed (against the LX's less reliable
1/2000 sec), 1/250 sec maximum flash synch speed (LX has only 1/90th),
DX coding (LX has only manual selection of ISO), instant 1.5 stop
overexposure for backlit subjects and a brighter viewfinder.
The LX has a good selection of interchangeable viewfinders (FM3A has a
fixed viewfinder), plus a very different feel in the hand (you either
like it or you don't) and the ability to use (and meter with) the many
superb Pentax lenses going all the way back to the 1960s and all the
way forward to 2002's AF lenses, but obviously without autofocus.
The LX tried to be a much more compact competitor to the Nikon F3, but
it really wasn't strong competition, except among Pentax aficionados.
It just doesn't bear serious comparison to the Nikon F3 (or my
all-time favourite Nikon F4) but I can't use the superb Pentax lenses
on those.
Most LXs are now suffering from a problem that is widely known as
"sticky mirror syndrome". Unlike most SLRs, where a sticky mirror is
usually caused solely by the degradation of the mirror foam, in the LX
there are several additional rubber components in the mirror linkage.
These all need replacing every 15 years or so - whether the camera has
been regularly used, or not.
Pentax USA (Colorado) will guarantee availability of these parts only
until 2006, after which the LX will go the way of the Spotmatic, with
no spares or service support from the manufacturer. I will have my LX
CLA'd just before Pentax support ends, and after that I will probably
be too old to be concerned if it happens again!
I bought my LX solely so I could use the superb (and mostly cheap)
used Pentax glass on a camera with a choice of viewfinders. There are
many, very sharp Nikkors plus a few with a pleasant rendition of
out-of-focus parts of the shot, but Nikon aren't known for making a
whole range of lenses that have the *all-round* optical excellence of
Pentax glass.
There is much more to an excellent lens than just sharpness, and
Pentax 'bokeh' is up there with that of both Leica and Carl Zeiss.
I suggest that you might make an initial decision on the basis of
which glass you would prefer to use, and then figure how much the 2006
end of spares/service support should affect your final decision. The
FM3A will be supported by Nikon until 10 years after the announcement
of its withdrawal, so you can be reasonably sure it will still be
serviceable until at least 2013.
T. P.
>
>Hi,
>
>I like the LX a lot - I use three of them fairly regularly - so while I am
>certainly not an LX expert, I have a reasonable amount of experience.
>
>If you want a manual focus body to use with Pentax (or Pentax mount) lenses
>and are happy that whilst the meter is spectacularly good it is simply
>centre weighted and has no matrix metering wizardry, then the LX is a superb
>choice.
Exactly the same could be said of the FM3A (a comparison was asked).
>Be aware also that it does offer excellent TTL flash control, but
>without any of the latest contrast control, red-eye reduction etc. features,
>nor will it give you trailing curtain sync. Its also heavier than many a
>modern camera as it has pretty much no plastic at all in it - for some that
>is a good thing!
Exactly the same could be said of the FM3A.
>Still, being a Pentax and therefore having ergonomics
>higher on the list of priorities than many makers put it, it is still
>compact compared to the professional bodies offered by others at the time,
>and is small compared to a modern top flight SLR.
Exactly the same could be said of the FM3A.
>Part of this is having no
>built in winder of course, but even with the LX winder (2 fps) it is not
>particularly bulky - the motor drive (variable 0.5 - 5 fps) does make it a
>bit more cumbersome.
Agreed. The winder also improves the balance of the camera.
>Handling is _much_ better with a grip attached. These can still be
>ordered new from Pentax (as can the focussing screens and a few other
>accessories) but the price of a used LX with a grip is generally no
>different to that of one without, so its worth seeing if you can get one
>with the body. There are two types, which you can find described and
>pictured by following the first of the links I've put in below.
The FM3A handles much better with the MD-12 motor drive attached. A
good grip for the FM3A is hard to find, but some were made by an
aftermarket supplier in the 1980s to fit the FM, FM2, FE, FE2 and FA.
You could also modify one of the aftermarket grips that were/are still
made for the Leica M series rangefinder cameras.
>Your best sources of information are:
<excellent list of links snipped>
>Your specific question was about parts and maintenance. In my experience
>the LX is very tough, and I would expect even one that has had hard use to
>work well in most cases. But like any older camera you will want to get a
>CLA done on it, and it will be wise to get it CLAed again every couple of
>years or following any particularly arduous use. The better the one you buy
>was looked after, the less work will need to be done on it at each
>'pit-stop' and the more confident you can be of its reliability - I've never
>had one fail on me, even though two of my three are quite old, but then I do
>look after them. The moisture/dust sealing is very good indeed, so in
>general an LX is often in better condition internally than another camera of
>similar age that has seen a similar amount of use. (Someone will flame me
>for that, but I did say "in general" and I stand by it.)
That's good advice. I've snipped the rest because it closely
parallels what I wrote in my own reply to the OP.
TP
>I switched from Nikon to Pentax several years ago.
>I have found that the selection of the most desirable
>used Pentax lenses is far smaller and often more costly
>than that of MF Nikkors.
Whilst that is undeniably true, you simply don't have to buy the
rarest and most expensive lenses (such as the 85mm f/1.4) to better
Nikon lenses. For example, Nikon have never made one 50mm SLR lens
with good bokeh, whereas the bokeh of Pentax 50mm lenses over the last
40 years has varied from very good to outstanding.
I have tried a great many Pentax 50mm lenses from 1960s single layer
coated Takumars to the later K, M, A, F and FA and they are all better
than any 50mm Nikkor. My 50mm of choice is the f/1.4 A which has
excellent sharpness AND outstanding bokeh.
The nearest approach Nikkor have made to an average Pentax lens is
probably the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P Nikkor. Whilst it is amongst the best
ever 'normal' Nikkors, it doesn't even begin to compare with the
better Pentax 50mm lenses made in the last 40 years.
I was delighted to buy my near-mint 50mm f/1.4 A from a reputable
dealer for the princely sum of GBP 75 (US $110), complete with a
one-year no-quibble warranty. A 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor in the same
condition would have cost between two and three times as much for a
noticeably inferior optic.
Nelson
> AND outstanding bokeh.
What is "bokeh"????
John
> A 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor in the same
>condition would have cost between two and three times as much for a
>noticeably inferior optic.
But then there is the 55mm Micro-Nikkor ;>)
John
>> AND outstanding bokeh.
>
>What is "bokeh"????
See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
stevie
"perfect
sample" that was supplied to the magazines for "review"
Well TP if this is the case can you supply full examples of the cases where
this has happened, giving details of lenses reviewed, magazines involved and
dates. I consider it fraud and deception on Sigma's part, and will go to my
local Trading Standards office to begin action against them. Failing this I
have consumer insurance which I can invoke against fraudulent claims by
suppliers of products I have purchased, look forward to your detailed reply.
Steve
"T. P." <t.p.@noemailthanks.com> wrote in message
news:gmteuu05u7orciauk...@4ax.com...
stevie
"perfect
sample" that was supplied to the magazines for "review"
Well TP if this is the case can you supply full examples of the cases where
this has happened, giving details of lenses reviewed, magazines involved and
dates. I consider it fraud and deception on Sigma's part, and will go to my
local Trading Standards office to begin action against them. Failing this I
have consumer insurance which I can invoke against fraudulent claims by
suppliers of products I have purchased, look forward to your detailed reply.
Steve
"T. P." <t.p.@noemailthanks.com> wrote in message
news:5freuuoqlj1fq5crv...@4ax.com...
Bandicoot
> In article <103852467...@dyke.uk.clara.net>, Bandicoot <"insert_ha
> ndle_here"@techemail.com> writes
> >There is supposedly someone around who will replace the NiCd cells in the
> >motordrive power pack for you when they wear out - but I've not found out
> >who this is: wish I could tell you. No idea if they are available new
any
> >more, but absolutely agree they'd be expensive if they are.
>
> The NiCd's should be relatively 'easy' to replace by a competent
> electronics guru assuming the pack comes apart easily. I'd imagine
> they're standard (i.e. commonly available) cells, presumably 'tagged'
> (with connections that allow them to be easily soldered together to form
> packs).
Good thought, I'll look into it when mine eventually need to be replaced.
The NiCd battery pack (either Battery Pack M or Battery Pack LX - both fit)
seems to have a metal top plate - ie. the surface that mates with the bottom
of the motordrive - that is attached with a few screws, so presumably, yes,
it is easy to get into the pack. Don't know about the cells and I'm not
about to take my pack apart to find out! But given the date these were
made, plus the fact that someone is replacing them regularly, I'd bet they
are a basic tagged design and still available.
> >Last time I had a need of a motordrive I bought a NiCd pack from a second
> >hand dealer who had already gotten the cells replaced. It works well.
The
> >pistol grip is indeed a bit unweildy, but I could see using it with a big
> >lens that was on a monopod or else on a tripod +gimbal mount.
>
> B+H had prices for the motordrive a couple of years ago (no idea about
> availability), IIRC the price was about $1,000 US and I'm not sure if it
> included the battery pack?
I see the motordrive plus a battery pack offered together as a second hand
item form time to time here (UK), seems to be in the £200-£275 price range
for one that has had new NiCd cells installed.
> The winder is possibly a more sensible option, it runs off just 4 AA's
> and it still offers power rewind.
Yeah, for general use this is much better - I only have the drive because I
actually needed one a couple of times, I use the winder more often (and wind
by hand more often still, but that just reflects what I use my LXs for.)
The winder can also be fitted with a remote battery pack so you can keep the
batteries warm in a pocket in cold conditions (less of an issue these days
with Lithium AAs available) and that provides a remote tiggering facility.
(You can do the same with the motordrive if you have the right cable to go
between the battery pack and the drive.) Unlike some remote battery packs
though, if you use this you get to keep the winder's batteries warm, but the
camera's get no benefit: the meter and shutter are still powered by the
onboard battery even when you have AAs or NiCds powering the winder or
motordrive.
The winder will also take as a remote release trigger the same cable and
lead as the MEII winder - but this only allows you to fire single or
continuous whichever is set already on the winder, whereas the remote
battery pack lets you shoose with a switch on the trigger.
Phew!
Now a question - anyone have _any idea_ what the two weird
slots/indentations on top of a Battery Pack LX are? They look as if they
are for attaching something but I haven't a clue what. (Did wonder about
using them to attach a really nice custom shaped wooden grip for using the
pack as a remote trigger, but on reflection that seemed somewhat, well,
pointless!)
John sure has brought out the camera bore in me with this one!
Peter
Bandicoot
>
> >Hello!
> >
> >I'm looking for experience/opinions with currently available (used)
Pentax
> >bodies. I'm considering this against a new Nikon FM3a. My concern with
the
> >LX is acquiring a used body with x amount of years on it already and what
> >the future life might be. Also the availability of repair parts.
>
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I use both Pentax LX and Nikon FM3A bodies.
>
> There are many differences. The most obvious include the FM3A's very
> reliable 1/4000 sec top shutter speed (against the LX's less reliable
> 1/2000 sec), 1/250 sec maximum flash synch speed (LX has only 1/90th),
> DX coding (LX has only manual selection of ISO), instant 1.5 stop
> overexposure for backlit subjects and a brighter viewfinder.
[SNIP]
Both Pentax and some of the after market manufacturers supply brighter
screens for the LX - I use Pentax bright screens in mine. Any experience /
comments on how the viewfinder brightness compares to the FM3A (or another
good modern camera) once the LX screen has been 'modernised' in this way?
Just curious as to how much the difference is the screen and how much the
complexity/quality of the rest of the viewing system.
Peter
TP
Pudentane
>
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:44:50 +0000, TP <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote:
>
> > A 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor in the same
> >condition would have cost between two and three times as much for a
> >noticeably inferior optic.
>
> But then there is the 55mm Micro-Nikkor ;>)
Yeah, but it won't fit on the Pentax K mount.
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Pentax LX vs Nikon FM3a
>From: TP t...@noemailthanks.com
>Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2002 5:44 PM
>Message-id: <t89fuus6bgot51fhb...@4ax.com>
>
>chris...@aol.com (ChrisPlatt) wrote:
>
>>I switched from Nikon to Pentax several years ago.
>>I have found that the selection of the most desirable
>>used Pentax lenses is far smaller and often more costly
>>than that of MF Nikkors.
>
For the averagably (not quite a word but what the heck) desirable, not the most
desirable, I would figure that the Pentax lenses from screw mount up to FA
would be cheaper than their Nikon counterparts?
>
>Whilst that is undeniably true, you simply don't have to buy the
>rarest and most expensive lenses (such as the 85mm f/1.4) to better
>Nikon lenses. For example, Nikon have never made one 50mm SLR lens
>with good bokeh, whereas the bokeh of Pentax 50mm lenses over the last
>40 years has varied from very good to outstanding.
>
The 50/1.7 A was deliscious in the bokeh department, probably one of my
favorites of all time for reflex lens bokeh.
>I have tried a great many Pentax 50mm lenses from 1960s single layer
>coated Takumars to the later K, M, A, F and FA and they are all better
>than any 50mm Nikkor. My 50mm of choice is the f/1.4 A which has
>excellent sharpness AND outstanding bokeh.
>
As good sharpness at f/1.4 and f/1.7 as the Pentax A/1.7 wide open?
>The nearest approach Nikkor have made to an average Pentax lens is
>probably the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P Nikkor. Whilst it is amongst the best
>ever 'normal' Nikkors, it doesn't even begin to compare with the
>better Pentax 50mm lenses made in the last 40 years.
>
And I though that this lens was supposed to have an excellent reputation for
bokeh, not just for a Nikon lens but for bokeh in and of itself...
>I was delighted to buy my near-mint 50mm f/1.4 A from a reputable
>dealer for the princely sum of GBP 75 (US $110), complete with a
>one-year no-quibble warranty. A 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor in the same
>condition would have cost between two and three times as much for a
>noticeably inferior optic.
I'm surprised, I thought used 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors (MF) would be more in the
$75-100 range because they are/were so plentiful here in the states...
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Nov 30, 2002 3:57 AM
>Message-id: <3DE83741...@no.where.invalid>
>
>John wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:44:50 +0000, TP <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor in the same
>> >condition would have cost between two and three times as much for a
>> >noticeably inferior optic.
>>
>> But then there is the 55mm Micro-Nikkor ;>)
>
>Yeah, but it won't fit on the Pentax K mount.
I've got some Krazy glue and two wads of used gum that say otherwise... ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Pentax LX vs Nikon FM3a
>From: T. P. t.p.@noemailthanks.com
>Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2002 2:15 PM
>Message-id: <5freuuoqlj1fq5crv...@4ax.com>
>
>"Ken Monroe" <kmon...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Hello!
>>
>>I'm looking for experience/opinions with currently available (used) Pentax
>>bodies. I'm considering this against a new Nikon FM3a. My concern with
>the
>>LX is acquiring a used body with x amount of years on it already and what
>>the future life might be. Also the availability of repair parts.
>
>
>Hi Ken,
>
>I use both Pentax LX and Nikon FM3A bodies.
>
>There are many differences. The most obvious include the FM3A's very
>reliable 1/4000 sec top shutter speed (against the LX's less reliable
>1/2000 sec), 1/250 sec maximum flash synch speed (LX has only 1/90th),
>DX coding (LX has only manual selection of ISO), instant 1.5 stop
>overexposure for backlit subjects and a brighter viewfinder.
>
>The LX has a good selection of interchangeable viewfinders
One of the best speed/action finders I've _ever_ had the chance to look through
(Compared to the F3's and the F1n's)...
(FM3A has a
>fixed viewfinder),
Wish it was high eyepoint but if its as good as the FM2n it should be adequate
enough for most glasses users...
plus a very different feel in the hand (you either
>like it or you don't) and the ability to use (and meter with) the many
>superb Pentax lenses going all the way back to the 1960s and all the
>way forward to 2002's AF lenses, but obviously without autofocus.
>
>The LX tried to be a much more compact competitor to the Nikon F3, but
>it really wasn't strong competition, except among Pentax aficionados.
>It just doesn't bear serious comparison to the Nikon F3 (or my
>all-time favourite Nikon F4) but I can't use the superb Pentax lenses
>on those.
>
>Most LXs are now suffering from a problem that is widely known as
>"sticky mirror syndrome". Unlike most SLRs, where a sticky mirror is
>usually caused solely by the degradation of the mirror foam, in the LX
>there are several additional rubber components in the mirror linkage.
>These all need replacing every 15 years or so - whether the camera has
>been regularly used, or not.
>
Once these problems are fixed, how are the durability and robustness otherwise
- in other words, how reliable exactly are they? I've heard bad things about
some LX's (if memory serves) reliability, I was wondering if you had different
thoughts/experiences w/ this over the years...
>Pentax USA (Colorado) will guarantee availability of these parts only
>until 2006, after which the LX will go the way of the Spotmatic, with
>no spares or service support from the manufacturer. I will have my LX
>CLA'd just before Pentax support ends, and after that I will probably
>be too old to be concerned if it happens again!
>
Long before that occurs it would be nice to see a ZX-1 from Pentax w/
interchangeable viewfinders (although no manual backup speeds of course since
its AE/AF).
>I bought my LX solely so I could use the superb (and mostly cheap)
>used Pentax glass on a camera with a choice of viewfinders.
Which, in your opinion, do you think are some of the the best Pentax lenses
(from screw mount to FA) and what makes them best (bokeh, sharpness either
stopped down and/or wide open, color rendition, contrast, other qualities?)?
There are
>many, very sharp Nikkors plus a few with a pleasant rendition of
>out-of-focus parts of the shot, but Nikon aren't known for making a
>whole range of lenses that have the *all-round* optical excellence of
>Pentax glass.
>
Sure, if you consider a "range" being from the 105/2.5 to the 75-150/3.5 Series
E ;-). I am partial to the 50/1.8 Series E's rendition but as much for its
separation between subject and background as for its background bokeh, which
though perhaps not as pleasingly soft at or near wide open as other lenses,
still seems to go, for some odd reason (aberrations) significantly more blurry
in the background, which I like even more than the smoothness of my Yashica f/2
ML (obviously not a Zeiss, but I haven't owned the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 in years so
that's what I compared it to).
>There is much more to an excellent lens than just sharpness, and
>Pentax 'bokeh' is up there with that of both Leica and Carl Zeiss.
>
Agreed. And I have owned (actually do own when it comes to Zeiss lenses) all
three 35mm systems (Leica R & M and Contax/Yashica SLR).
>I suggest that you might make an initial decision on the basis of
>which glass you would prefer to use, and then figure how much the 2006
>end of spares/service support should affect your final decision. The
>FM3A will be supported by Nikon until 10 years after the announcement
>of its withdrawal, so you can be reasonably sure it will still be
>serviceable until at least 2013.
I wonder if Nikon will still make a manual focus lens line in 2016?.... Of
course there wil probably be enough used Nikon MF lenses floating around until
Star Trek's (the original series) Century (23rd) :-)
Regards,
TP
>
>Both Pentax and some of the after market manufacturers supply brighter
>screens for the LX - I use Pentax bright screens in mine. Any experience /
>comments on how the viewfinder brightness compares to the FM3A (or another
>good modern camera) once the LX screen has been 'modernised' in this way?
>
>Just curious as to how much the difference is the screen and how much the
>complexity/quality of the rest of the viewing system.
An interesting question.
First, I must question your statement about brighter screens for the
LX. I don't think the more modern Pentax bright screens for the LX
are significantly brighter overall, they are just less coarse.
The original LX screens were so coarse that they contained large black
specks. The latest (2000) LX screens are much finer and the black
specks have gone. But I have taken luminance readings off both old
and new LX screens in the same lighting conditions. They were within
1/10 stop of each other, even though the new screen appears brighter
to my eye ... go figure.
Now to the question you asked. Subjectively, the K3 screen in my FM3A
appears brighter than the latest (2000) screen in my LX, and much
brighter than the original LX screen, but I cannot take representative
meter readings because the FM3A's prism is fixed. I'm sorry I cannot
give a more definitive answer.
Bandicoot
"TP" <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote in message
news:k3qhuug6o9pskdr5k...@4ax.com...
Is your LX an LX2K then?
The bright screens from Pentax that I was thinking of are sold by them as
being brighter and I don't _think_ were ever supplied as original
equipment - but maybe they were in the 2K special edition model, I don't
know. The 'standard' screen is called an SC21, and there is a bright-screen
version that has the same arrangement of central split and surrounding
microprism ring that is called an SC69 - this is what I use (except in one
body where I have the bright version of the grid screen - can't remember the
number for that.) I think Beattie or one or more of the other after-market
screen people does a bright screen too.
For all that, I am only going on them 'looking' brighter to me too (I agree
the original ones are rather coarse). Just wondered whether you had the
screen that 'claims' to be brighter, or a new-&-improved version of the
'normal' screen...
Peter
John Halliwell
andle_here"@techemail.com> writes
>I see the motordrive plus a battery pack offered together as a second hand
>item form time to time here (UK), seems to be in the £200-£275 price range
>for one that has had new NiCd cells installed.
I must admit I've never really looked for used motor, I assumed they'd
all have knackered cells, never bothered to check.
John Halliwell
>screens for the LX - I use Pentax bright screens in mine. Any experience /
>comments on how the viewfinder brightness compares to the FM3A (or another
>good modern camera) once the LX screen has been 'modernised' in this way?
Not sure, but one thing to remember is that the LX meter is under the
mirror and won't be affected by using a much brighter screen.
TP
<rest snipped>
No, it's 20 years old.
I use the SC69 screen which came out in 2000, and have compared it
with the 80s Pentax original that had a split image "rangefinder" in
the centre of a matte screen. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear.
russell holroyd
"Ken Monroe" <kmon...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qTpF9.49449$wc2.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
> Hello!
>
> I'm looking for experience/opinions with currently available (used) Pentax
> bodies. I'm considering this against a new Nikon FM3a. My concern with
the
> LX is acquiring a used body with x amount of years on it already and what
> the future life might be. Also the availability of repair parts.
>
> Thx
>
>
TP
Which parts? C'mon now, don't be coy!
russell holroyd
Am I mistaken?
"TP" <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote in message
news:j33tuu0grki25fiug...@4ax.com...
Pål Jensen
"russell holroyd" <rhol...@ozemail.com.au> skrev i melding
news:6WjL9.500$Qk5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Depth of field preview parts.
> Am I mistaken?
Yes you are. The LX was in production until year 2000 and parts are still
available.
TP
>Depth of field preview parts.
>Am I mistaken?
Yes, you are. Your chosen repairer may find them difficult to obtain,
but they are still available.
I am led to believe that Pentax importers in the US and Europe have
undertaken to provide full parts support until 2006. After that, we
will have increasing problems.
My LX will probably go for its (last?) CLA in 2006. I have no doubt
it will be worn out by 2010!
Bandicoot
> "russell holroyd" <rhol...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
[SNIP]
> My LX will probably go for its (last?) CLA in 2006. I have no doubt
> it will be worn out by 2010!
To steal a phrase from a book I read once: "Caterwaully waily woe..."
Peter
Morty Sklar
> "Ken Monroe" <kmon...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm looking for experience/opinions with currently available (used) Pentax
> >bodies. I'm considering this against a new Nikon FM3a. My concern with the
> >LX is acquiring a used body with x amount of years on it already and what
> >the future life might be. Also the availability of repair parts.
>
>
>
> I use both Pentax LX and Nikon FM3A bodies.
>
> There are many differences. The most obvious include the FM3A's very
> reliable 1/4000 sec top shutter speed (against the LX's less reliable
> 1/2000 sec), 1/250 sec maximum flash synch speed (LX has only 1/90th),
> DX coding (LX has only manual selection of ISO), instant 1.5 stop
> overexposure for backlit subjects and a brighter viewfinder.
>
> fixed viewfinder), plus a very different feel in the hand (you either
> like it or you don't) and the ability to use (and meter with) the many
> superb Pentax lenses going all the way back to the 1960s and all the
> way forward to 2002's AF lenses, but obviously without autofocus.
>
> The LX tried to be a much more compact competitor to the Nikon F3, but
> it really wasn't strong competition, except among Pentax aficionados.
> It just doesn't bear serious comparison to the Nikon F3 (or my
> all-time favourite Nikon F4) but I can't use the superb Pentax lenses
> on those.
>
> Most LXs are now suffering from a problem that is widely known as
> "sticky mirror syndrome". Unlike most SLRs, where a sticky mirror is
> usually caused solely by the degradation of the mirror foam, in the LX
> there are several additional rubber components in the mirror linkage.
> These all need replacing every 15 years or so - whether the camera has
> been regularly used, or not.
>
> until 2006, after which the LX will go the way of the Spotmatic, with
> no spares or service support from the manufacturer. I will have my LX
> CLA'd just before Pentax support ends, and after that I will probably
> be too old to be concerned if it happens again!
>
> many, very sharp Nikkors plus a few with a pleasant rendition of
> out-of-focus parts of the shot, but Nikon aren't known for making a
> whole range of lenses that have the *all-round* optical excellence of
> Pentax glass.
>
> Pentax 'bokeh' is up there with that of both Leica and Carl Zeiss.
>
> which glass you would prefer to use, and then figure how much the 2006
> end of spares/service support should affect your final decision. The
> FM3A will be supported by Nikon until 10 years after the announcement
> of its withdrawal, so you can be reasonably sure it will still be
> serviceable until at least 2013.
I've had an FM3A for eleven months--along with a 1.4 AIS lens. Here's
what's wrong with it (confirmed by Photo Tech in New York City, and
repeated by other FM3A owners on Photo.net): From f/2 to f/1.4, the
shutter speed doesn't double--it increases by only 2/3rds--both in
manual and in AE. I'm going to send mine in to Nikon in Melville, N.Y.
to look it over, but I'm sure the problem has to do with the 1.4 AI
lens with this camer, and is not a problem specific to my camera only.
Photo Tech put the lens on an F3 and it worked fine. Nikon doesn't
seem to have heard of this problem (I doubt that--they're probably
trying to figure out what to about it). I hope they can fix it, as I'd
like to keep the camera.
Morty Sklar
John Halliwell
Sklar <msk...@mindspring.com> writes
>I've had an FM3A for eleven months--along with a 1.4 AIS lens. Here's
>what's wrong with it (confirmed by Photo Tech in New York City, and
>repeated by other FM3A owners on Photo.net): From f/2 to f/1.4, the
>shutter speed doesn't double--it increases by only 2/3rds--both in
>manual and in AE. I'm going to send mine in to Nikon in Melville, N.Y.
>to look it over, but I'm sure the problem has to do with the 1.4 AI
>lens with this camer, and is not a problem specific to my camera only.
>Photo Tech put the lens on an F3 and it worked fine. Nikon doesn't
>seem to have heard of this problem (I doubt that--they're probably
>trying to figure out what to about it). I hope they can fix it, as I'd
>like to keep the camera.
Possibly the aperture simulator doesn't go far enough for an aperture of
f/1.4 or it's slipping off the lever or something?
McEowen
camera with interchangeable viewfinders. Either would serve most photographers
well.