Talk:Pentax LX

Pentax LX (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 15 December 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Photography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]