Talk:Pentax LX

Removed text
I have removed the following pieces of text from this article, either because they are unsourced or because I believe them to be inaccurate or not encyclopedic.


 * As of 31/12/06 Pentax charges $130 plus parts and shipping to service the LX.

Since a service's cost depends on what is done, I have my doubts. Maybe Pentax charges $130 for a CLA (clean-lube-adjust) but I see no references.


 * The view of the focusing screen is dimmer than other Pentax models because of the extra optics necessary to make a removable viewfinder.There is a "brite screen",SC-69 which increases the brightness one half stop,a better solution is to use a fast lens with a f/1.4 focusing aperature.The Pentax description for the SC-69 is natural-brite-matte while other screens are clear-brite-matte,the ambigious names indicate an ambigious difference.

No extra optics are required to give a removable viewfinder. The SC-69 screen, according to http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/screens/index.html, gives only 1/6 of a stop's increase in brightness - while this is perceptible, it's not huge. The LX only has a partially-silvered mirror, which passes 15% of the light for the meter; this may be a cause for some dimness, but I have not seen any reports of the LX being especially bad in this regard.


 * The viewfinder has a plastic window which is not as optically clear as glass and scratches easily and can be replaced with glass from a microscope slide blank.

Unreferenced personal observation


 * Brassing is a traditional way to determine the value of a camera but the LX is well sealed from environmental damage so external wear does not indicate equal internal wear.

Again, personal observation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation; Pentax' implementation of 'Off-the-Film' metering vs. Olympus
Throughout this section, the Pentax LX implementation of OTF metering (copied from Olympus and introduced only after the Olympus patent expired) is frought with errors; referred to as a "refined" version of the Olympus OM-2, described in hyperbole "as much or more (sophisticated) than any camera of it's time" and generally parrots Pentax' marketing weasle-words from the 1980 launch of the LX. The fact is that the 1980 LX implementation was arguably inferior to even the original 1974 OM-2; and moreover by the time the LX was finally released, Olympus OM-2n and OM-10 implementations were vastly improved and the LX implementation was archaic by comparison. Without objection, I will be revising accordingly ElectroNautical (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)