Ironically, I can justify the purchase of the LX but not an MX. The MX
isn't sufficiently different from my little Ricoh (Better build, winder,
but lower max shutter than the Ricoh). The LX has sufficient advantages
to make it justifiable.
But I really would like the DA14, of course, I could wait for the 12-24.
Decisions, Decisions.
-Adam
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've made perfect
exposures in a room that was completely dark but for a flickering TV
screen, the light from which was constantly changing. The LX, with the
shutter open, just kept measuring the light until the proper exposure was
made, times varied between around twenty to forty seconds. That evening I
got 36 perfectly exposed shots. Portraits by TV light ... y'gotta love it!
Add the new, brighter focusing screens and a fast lens, and you've got a
real low-light shooter. The nice thing with the LX is that if the light
changes during exposure, the metering system adjust while the exposure is
being made.
Although I prefer the MX for daily shooting, it doesn't hold a candle to
the LX in low light situations.
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <
Hmm. Honestly, I'd go for an MX over an LX but then I always
preferred the Nikon FM/FE over the F2-3 as well (except for the hp
viewfinder). In truly low light, I never bother with the meter ... I
use a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide with its table of available light
exposure suggestions. :-)
On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of
low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been
spoiled by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also
likely to still work in 5 years.