(except for the fact that they all use film). About the only thing they have
in common is their classic user interface. The partial electronic partial mechanical
shutter arrangement of the LX owe's more to the arrangement in the ES/ESII than the
ZX-5n owes to the LX. The TTL metering in ZX-5n is more reminiscent of the system
in the OM-2 with OTF for flash and cells in the prism for normal metering rather than
the simple and elegant solution in the LX. Now don't take this the wrong way, your
analysis is perfectly valid. I just see a more rugged body as being only half measure,
and I would really like to see a battery free film advance and mechanical shutter speeds
like that will ever happen.
At 11:10 PM 1/29/2003 +0000, you wrote:
After I said
> >I wonder what "LX with AF" means to whatever Pentax source used the term.
> >The -
> >5n is a similar size and shape with the same control layout, but the build
> >quality seems far inferior. And isn't the MZ-S supposed to have "the build
> >quality of the LX"? So maybe one of these models was supposed to be
> >the "autofocus LX".
> >
> >If they still mean to make one though, then they can do it by making the
> >-5n a
> >little tougher and putting user-interchangeable screens in the thing.
Peter Alling commented:
> Then it begins to look like a MX with electronic shutter and autofocus.
Well, the MX, the ZX-5n and the LX have a lot in common. However, since the ZX-
5n resembles the LX more than it resembles the MX; the MX doesn't have any sort
of electronic shutter and the LX shutter is partly electronic; the -5n and the
LX have TTL flash metering but the MX doesn't -- I still think making the -5n a
little tougher would produce a camera that would better described as an
autofocus LX than an autofocus MX with an electronic shutter.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
