I've used an MX and an LX for photojournalism, and I wasn't blown away by either. This is probably because newspaper-style photojournalism is not what these cameras do well. It is also a case of showing their age.
I too never fell in love with the MX. The CONCEPT of a small, simple, mechanical camera is certainly sexy. Mine were nothing but trouble mechanically (old, probably) and some of the features of the era were a bit limiting (weak indication of degree of over/under exposure, slow maximum shutter speed and flash sync). The motor drive was nice, except the silly grip M which I found a pain to handle, put in the bag, etc, and the lack of power rewind. Mind you, for many ideal MX uses the motor drive is pointless, but it IS one of the places where the MX is feature-superior to most of the competition. For me, the slightly smaller size and weight were not important, and I'd prefer a heavier camera with the same basic features such as the K1000, spotmatic, or Nikon FM2n. From what I've heard, the Olympus OM3 was the best of the lot in terms of fully-featured small, light, mechanical cameras. The current used prices and lack of availibility seem to bear this out. I loved a lot about the LX, and I gave mine heavy use for more than a decade. The meter on that thing is still unsurpassed, and it gave better TTL flash exposures than anything else I've ever used. The electro-mechanical shutter gives it much the same appeal as the MX, plus it has slightly more viewfinder information. Compared to other "pro" cameras it is quite light, although not small. I found it relatively rugged, but difficult and expensive to get fixed. Apart from the repair issue, the thing that drove me away from the LX for photoJ use was the damn motor drive/handgrip thing. Too clever by half! The nicad packs were better than the M grip (basically unchanged since the spotmatic days...) but very expensive and eventually very hard to get. If the LX had taken a motor drive more like motor drive A, with rewind, (and had been built like the F3 to need fewer than a dozen batteries to drive it!), I could have carried it in my bag and around my neck much more easily, and I could get more power at any corner store. BTW this is one of the things I like about the *istD. Yeah, you don't get a lot of shots on a set of AA alkalines, but you can get AA alkalines almost anywhere. With Nikon DSLRs, you either pay $300 for an add-on grip that allows you to use AAs, or you carry about $200 worth of proprietary rechargeables--just like the LX! I wound up using Super Programs for photoJ until I switched to Nikons. Feature-wise they were better, but reliability and durability were probably worse since they weren't built for that level of use. WITHOUT the silly grip or motor drive, the LX makes a fine camera for me for vacation pictures, etc. I could always get the winder LX which looks like a nice unit. I wouldn't even THINK about taking out a Nikon F3 for vacation pix--too big and heavy, especially with drive (no winder...) and no realistic batteryless operation, plus the over/under exposure information is just as bad as the MXs. Given the impending demise-of-factory-service for the LX, would it be too much to ask of Pentax that they put out something like an FA limited camera to replace it? Something like a ZX-M with AF and LX-level build quality. How 'bout a spotmatic re-issue with K mount? DJE
