KX - LX Comparison please

I recently had my K2 stolen, a real bummer as I loved that camera. Eventually I will be replacing it, for the time being I am using an MZ-5 that I am considerably less fond of.

So the KX and the LX are more or less the two I am deciding between, I'm really leaning toward a mechanical shutter so hence these choices over another K2. I've held an MX a little bit and really didn't like the feel too much, I preferred the larger body of the K2. Obviously there is a big price difference between the the two, and I am trying to decide if the LX is worth the extra money or if I would be more or less just as happy with a KX. I don't anticipate using any add-ons like motor drive or data back or anything, my photography is purely recreational. The flexibility of the interchangeable screens and finder is attractive, although on it's own doesn't make up the price difference (especially when the added cost of the screens and finders is figured). Obviously the biggest difference is the light metering, and while I would say 95% at least of my photography is done manually, I suppose I might value the accurate exposure in low light conditions or the ability to have excellent TTL metering with flash. I guess what I'm wondering is just as a camera that I'm going to manually set the aperature and shutter speed, compose and shoot, is the LX much better?

I read conflicting comments about durability, some say that the LX is built like a tank with all of the extra seals and everything, and then the others say that there are all of those seals to go wrong and they are not that durable. KX seems unanimously praised in this regard, but are the standards for such comments set higher for the "ultimate" LX? Ideally I'd like a camera that works well, is a pleasure to use, and will last me a good 20 years. Any comments much appreciated.

Dave

Well, you obviously know the differences in terms of specification and without a doubt, the one to go for is the LX, providing that money is no object!

Having said that, the KX is extremely well regarded and I'm sure that it would satisfy your needs - given that you're not really looking for the pro features that the LX provides.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference and experience and as I've not used either camera, perhaps I ought to shut up now... but for what it's worth, I'd look for a KX.

Why not get your hands on both before making a final decision, not that either model is that easy to find but whichever you choose, I don't think you can make the 'wrong' decision!

For years I used a couple of MX cameras for my work. They are basically K-1000 with professional features (DOF preview, for one) and they are built like tanks.

Are you sure the LX has a mechanical shutter? I thought it has an electronically controlled shutter. That means no batteries, no photos!

The LX has a hybrid shutter design - speeds faster than 1/75 will work without batteries, longer speeds will not.

Hi,
I have been using both for about 20 years. The LX's handling IMHO is a lot smoother. Add to that the brighter finder with a choice of screens and a much better meter system and you have a manual camera that is very hard to beat. The KX is probably my second favourite camera. (Partly it was the camera that introduced nme to 35mm SLRs and the first one was an engement present from my wife!) Again IMHO, it is a better camera than the MX. I find the meter display is better and it has the facility to lock the mirror up as well as being slightly larger. The Lx's are quite a lot and about a year ago the KX's were an absolute bargain. However, people seem to woken up to the fact that there are much better than the K1000 and price have gone up fairly steeply recently.

Kim

Thanks for the comments everybody. Can someone speak to the reliability issues of the LX? I keep reading about sticky mirrors and incorrect exposure metering and a few other problems that come up seemingly a fair bit, but it's hard to tell how this compares with other cameras because obviously there are a lot more LX's out there than KX's for example and the average one is probably seeing a fair amount more use than the average KX.

Dave

I have an LX which has seen very little use because I only used it for for work that needed the extra facilities, mainly the TTL flash. I was more comfortable with my ME Super for run of the mill photography.

It has never suffered from the sticky mirror but I wouldn't claim that the metering is perfect any more. It seems a shame to see it go to waste but but I'm strangely reluctant to say goodbye to it. What should I do with it? What are they worth these days?

You could always offer it on eBay....Prices for mint examples seem to be holding up fairly well.

Hi Dave,
I have had 4 Std LX's at various times. I have always found them to be reliable providing they are serviced every 10years or so. If they are not serviced, sooner or later they will suffer from sticky shutter syndrme. This is caused by a breakdown in the seals of the camera. I have only come across one which has had a problem with the ASA dial and again a service cured this. It is very much more common in the ME's. I don't expect my car to go on working perfectly for years without being service so why should I expect the same with a camera.

I don't think the KX's are any better. I have had to replace the seals on all of my K series over the last couple of years and the M's are beginning to show signs of needing it. You will probably find that most K's will also need a re-lube if not serviced or they will soon shows signs of "capping". Interestingly, the age or the amount of use does not have the greastest effect on this but rather the amount of time a film has been in the camera. Film will give of a chemical which will accelerate the deterioration of the rubber used. Most repairers are now using neoprene seals which are not affected by this.

Regards
Kim