That should be B52
At 10:51 AM 8/3/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>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 .
-
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 .
