Digital LX anyone ?

Then why not simply chisle off the decals from a K7 and write LX-D there instead?

If a digital LX didn't replicate the film LX in function then it would simply be re-using the name. Nothing outright wrong with that in marketing terms, but it wouldn't be an LX anymore than the new budget body is a KX.

Pentax seem to be going through a phase of reusing old names, so it might not be unreasonable to expect a new camera with a LX badge one day. But I can say with almost 100% certainty it would be the sort of camera I have been dreaming about in my original post.

I'm sure not too many of the laws of physics need to be bent to create such a camera. However the laws of economics mean it will never happen. Just as well, as I'd have to take out a second mortgage to pay for it.

It is nice to dream sometimes though.

Cheers,

/Ian

The K-m is nothing like the KM that i used back in 1975! But Pentax are cashing in on their heritage and rightly so. The LX epitomised the ultimate in Pentax 35mm Cameras and i would love to see a DSLR WORTHY enough to carry that name on!

Regards - Pete

I used to think a digital LX would be a good idea after using a *1stD and latter the K10D. But I think the K-7 is getting fairly close to the old LX magic.

I really did miss the excellent interchangeable viewfinder system on my LX while trying to manually focus a long lens in poor light on the K10D, (although I would probably have more trouble with the LX now my eyesight is not what it was) – Since upgrading to the K-7 I miss the LX a little bit less. I don’t know if it’s just the shape of the pentaprism but the K-7 seems to have a bit of an LX feel to it. Using live view has allowed me to start putting the M 400m f5.6 to some use again ...now if only the LCD could be tilted I wouldn’t miss the LX action finder so much

I think that the tilting LCD (or maybe OLED by then) would be a bit too flimsy for my taste. I`m sure it would`nt be impossible to make a slide off pentaprism though it might mean a very slightly bigger body than the K7 to accommodate all the electrickery bits in the single body unit.

Regards - Pete

No question, but that's not what the thread is calling for. The OP and others are after something which looks, feels and acts like an LX except that it captures images digitally rather than on film.

The very fact that this thread exists shows just how good the LX was, good as they are I can't see anyone in 20 years saying "you know, what I want is a K7Quantum"

Digital Pentax 110 Super! Lets face it, it is sort of 4/3 format, its small - it would zap the competition out of the water!

However, the LCD would be a tad small

I've always felt the obsession with LCD size in small cameras and laptops to be counter productive.

The idiocy of the average consumer spoils life for the rest of us

I agree the LX was the Camera i always dreamed of owning but never did. I guess the nearest you are going to get to your ideal would be an LX and scan the images on a N-K-n Film Scanner!
For me i would be happy with a High Spec FF DSLR with LX-D engraved on it!
Best Regards - Pete.

I wanted an LX when I was a teenager in the early 80s. Eventually got one when I was in my 40s in the mid zeros... Oh well. Still trying to complete my viewfinder collection!

K.

I know this camera is an old Cannon AE1 and of course its just a well made mock up with a digital compact camera inside, but it demonstrates perfectly the type of DSLR I want to own. I love the pre auto focus SLR cameras of 1970s/80s.

Just imagine if Pentax could make a ME-D, LX-D or you name it.. I would be willing to pay quite a premium for one.

link

What you describe isn't a million miles away from a Leica M9 (except it's a SLR rather than a rangefinder) and that costs around £5000 body only. We know Leica enthusiasts have money to burn, but how many people would realistically pay that for a Pentax with fewer features than a modern camera phone, let alone a Canon 1Ds / Nikon D3?

It's a nice enough dream, but I couldn't see it ever recovering its development costs to be honest.

I think it would need to keep AF and SR, otherwise they simply wouldn't sell any. We're talking about a premium camera and users expect both of those options. However, if it was delivered with a 45 degree split focussing screen (or microprism depending on personal taste) I can see it proving popular...

I have both an original '70s KM and the digital K-m, and while they're very different they do share some things. Both are very simple to handle, to the extent that you won't need a manual to pick it up and take decent photos providing that you have some understanding of photography.

I remember seeing one of the early experimental models - it used a "standard" body but with a new back to it which accommodated the sensor and associated electronics.

One idea was that you would buy a new "Digital Back" for your existing MZ-S rather than a complete new camera.

Whilst not pretty, it did prove that a DSLR could be made.

I'm determined to get my hands on an LX at some point, but I can't help but wonder if it's that much better than the MX or KX? Even well-used examples fetch what I consider big money (around the £200 mark) and you've no idea how long a used example will last before requiring a service, which seems to be scarily expensive.