If Pentax did a one off ...

... run of say 15,000 brand new LX bodies, (assuming that they still

have all the jigs and machinery lying around somewhere) how fast

would they sell? And seriously, what would they sell for, (as much

as the MZS?) and would Pentax make a profit? Who'd buy one?

They did something like this for the year 2000. I'm not certain how well they did, my understanding was that they were sold only in Japan and were silver/black and were a limited series with a 50mm f1.2 lens.

I might buy one, if they'd add spotmetering.

<p>

<A href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

Did they even sell 15,000 of them when they were making them NEW???

This is one of the alltime great 35mm cameras, I own three. I too would love to see Pentax run another limited batch of these. But they would have to be priced right. The limited series LX-2000 was 1000 cameras at more than twice the price of the last LX (330,000 yen compared with 150,000 yen). What price would you pay, Sandeha? LX-2000's are extremely hard to get in this country as most were bought up by collectors in Japan. I was fortunate to acquire an LX-2000 a few months ago, but uncertain if/when I will ever use it (it cost more than a Leica!). It's BEAUTIFUL, though.

I wouldn't. Yeah I had fun when my one worked, but repair costs ate me up. I'd prefer some good piece of glass if I had money to spend. By the way Pentax should improve the flash functions. Good luck to all working-LX owners.

I think they should make a run of LX-D. It would be nice to have a professional caliber digital from Pentax, but I don't expect it to happen. (Nothing against the *istD--I'd love to have one, but it's not in the same league as the upper end model from Canon or Nikon.)

 

And I'd like to offer a little balance to Jochen's comment--I'm sorry he had some problems, but I've had an LX for years, run thousands of rolls through it, and only had one repair that was more than a CLA. I think the LX, like many professional bodies of the period (compare it to a Nikon F3 or the "newer" Canon F1) were "ridden hard and put away wet." I'm just very pleased that Pentax is still servicing them--although you pay a premium, I felt like i had a brand new camera after sending mine to them. . .

 

Most of the problems seem to be with sticky mirrors and the like--which doesn't happen if you send it off every few years for a CLA. The mirror foam deteriorates and becomes sticky because of exposure to contaminants in the air. Not to be unexpected after 15 to 20 years of use.

 

After stating my undying love for my LX, I don't think that I would pay to buy a new one that was simply made using the old design. It was a nice camera--in the 1980's. It's a little outdated to be produced now--at least without some major improvements. Hmm. Good question.

So they did! But only 1000 of the LX-2000 ... that must be their marketing department orc at it again! Shame on them, they could've done a run of 5,000 and sold them just as fast without the 'collector's' premium.

<p>

I have a personal prejudice against paying a premium price for limited editions, so in reality I would only pay a 'street' price for what would be a manual backup body for me ... it's just that a brand new LX would be the best manual back-up imaginable compared with, say, an old MX.

<p>

I agree that it's an old design and could be upgraded in a variety of ways, not least a titanium body ... and fixing that mirror problem. But even 'as is' at the right price it seems an attractive idea.

I honestly think that pentax should make a MX camera again. It is the perfect backup body, being as it doesn't require batteries to operate the shutter, there only there to operate the light meter. The camera is small, has depth of field preview, I would add mirror lockup to it, and just keep the shutter speeds the way they are (top speed is 1/1000th). For a backup, it is a great camera.

 

I feel like the LX would be a good bet, but I just bought one and the mirror locked up so it needs to be repaired. It does have a better viewfinder, but the battery dependancy doesn't sit well with me. If they made a new one using the older specs so they would actually be robust enough for professional use, I would pick one up. But would rather have a new MX with the addition of mirror lock up.

Well' i've a LX from, say, '89: last year i was forced to replace shutter & advance assemblies: a part inside the film counter got broken, and the chips ruined the rest. That was 450EU worth, but i was happy to have my LX back, as new. I'm unsure if i would buy a new one, and i wonder how much that Pentax guy would price such a rarity. After all, it's a 20y old design (maybe 30?), and lacks some useful gadget, as autofocus, or, don't being so modern, spot metering. I'm planning to put my hands on a F4, when i'll be able to put the money together, and N lenses are more easily avaible than Pentax K, on the famous site.

The LX is an ergonomically beautiful camera and superbly well made, and I use mine with pleasure. However there are some serious limitations, which really ought to have been overcome at the design stage:

1) No exposure lock.

2) No defined partial or spot metering option so that you can be sure of what you are metering.

3) No ability to do fill flash in auto mode.

4) Flash only fires when the speed setting is below 50th of a second.

5) too much shutter/mirror vibration at a 30th of a second.

 

In some ways the MX, though even more limited, is a better camera - it certainly has fewer vibrations at low shutter speeds.

 

1)2) and 5) make me reach for my Leica M's far more often.

I agree entirely with Mark, but will add another, more important, limitation. The viewfinder meter indication is limited to showing full stops only. This is crazy for a pro-oriented camera. It means you can't bracket at half-stop increments using the aperture ring alone - you must resort to using the exposure compensation dial with your left hand or awkwardly reaching over the prism for it with your right. With the MX, you can bracket at half stops with effortless ease just by leaving your hands where they are and rotating the aperture ring one click and confirming the result with the half-stop LED display.

 

I understand from an article on the Asahi Optical Historical Co website that Pentax had prepared a prototype of a manual only LX-body camera alongside the LX protoype but the rising popularity of aperture preferred cameras at the time killed it. Shame. If more people had used the MX and seen how easy and instant it is to use, I bet that aperture-preferred cameras would not have been regarded as preferable. Note the confusing logic - especially to novices: change the aperture on the lens and see a change in the shutter speed indication in the viewfinder. So the MX is the supreme manual-control Pentax.

I meant to say "I agree totally with Robert..." but stuffed up. Robert made good comments. I also have wondered why Pentax didn't correct the design. Of course the LX has no problem if you shoot entirely with aperture-preferred thinking - fine if you always have the camera on a tripod.

The LX was discontinued due to parts shortage. Some of the electronic parts are no longer available from the subcontractors. The same situation killed the F3 as well.

Hence, Pentax cannot make a Limited edition of the LX unless they redesign the electronics something that is probably not feasible. In addition, the LX was handbuilt and it was probably sold at a loss.