I prefer the KX to the Minolta SR-t series. But of course I would take any SR-t over the K1000.
I prefer Minolta myself. The lens program and the bodies.
But I have an ME F that is fun to take for swing once in a while. The M lenses are super small and great. I like the 50 1.8, the 28 2.8 the 135 3.5 (thr 2.8 version seems quite rare) and oddly enough the 24mm 2.8 everyone seems to think is a stepchild. It’s seems almost or as good as the Minolta equivalent.
I prefer the KX to the Minolta SR-t series. But of course I would take any SR-t over the K1000.
The Minolta SRT200 models (there were EIGHT of them -- http://www.subclub.org/minman/srt200.htm) were almost exactly the same as the Pentax K1000 -- size, weight, features, etc.
The main difference is that you can find a Minolta SRT200 model for about 1/10th the price of the K1000.
The main thing about the SR-t is that their meter isn't accurate. Even when I used the correct battery it still has problem because the response isn't linear. Oh yeah the K1000 is selling used for more than the KX. That's the reason I hate the K1000. I do have a few of them for free but I would never use them. Being the same as the K1000 isn't something good. It's the cheapest SLR Pentax made.
But LX is larger than Super, MX, Program and A Super.
KX size is probably why they pulled it after only two years.
And you know this how? Never noticed anything off with any of mine.
As long as the cement holding the cells to the prism has not yellowed or has been properly cleaned off and replaced, it’s as good as any CdS meter.
Being the same as the K1000 isn't something good. It's the cheapest SLR Pentax made.
And you know this how? Never noticed anything off with any of mine.
As long as the cement holding the cells to the prism has not yellowed or has been properly cleaned off and replaced, it’s as good as any CdS meter.
The LX is very small even by small camera standards . . .
Size Lineup by Les DMess, on Flickr
Compared to it's peers - interchangeable viewfinder types . . .
MInolta XK, Canon New F-1, Nikon F3 & Pentax LX by Les DMess, on Flickr
And it has more viewfinders with the largest and smallest magnification . . .
LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr
By testing several of them with correct battery voltage. And yes I used Minolta meters to check.
The K1000 might have been the least expensive SLR that Pentax ever made -- adjusting for inflation (we'll forget about the Pentax 110 SLR for now) -- but it's certainly not the least expensive 35mm SLR to buy today. That's what really matters.
By testing several of them with correct battery voltage. And yes I used Minolta meters to check.
The K1000 is way overpriced today.
Did you test incident with a diffuser or on a blank wall? Remember CLC.
CdS cells has a different spectral response. Warmer light might account for the difference.The meter in the camera is reflected so the meter I use to compare with is also reflected. I used a dichroic enlarger so that I can dial in the intensity of the light which is a 6" circle. I checked the eveness of the surface and it's better than 0.1 stop using the Minolta spot meter. The camera would be put close to it and have that surface cover the entire frame. The light intensity is changed from EV9 to EV15 to check meter response when in a dark place as well as bright place. It's over expose in the bright and under in the dark. So you can't even compensate for it by using a different ASA than your film.
If I were to use an incident meter then the lighted surface must be 18% gray and also since it a flat surface the flat diffuser must be used. Also it's difficult to light a surface evenly when the camera is blocking the light.
CdS cells has a different spectral response. Warmer light might account for the difference.
Not a big deal at the time of Sr-t introduction, due to the slowness of film making it outdoors stricktly and flash indoors, or tungsten rated and sensitized film.
Olympus 35RC is a good (and rather tiny) example of that. However, the best definition of its release year I have is "1970-something"Some sources claim that it's from 1970 specifically, but I'm not sure.
The LX is very small even by small camera standards . . .
Size Lineup by Les DMess, on Flickr
Compared to it's peers - interchangeable viewfinder types . . .
MInolta XK, Canon New F-1, Nikon F3 & Pentax LX by Les DMess, on Flickr
And it has more viewfinders with the largest and smallest magnification . . .
LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr
View attachment 338279
I'm curious if this 1973 camera was the first one or if there were earlier examples, SLR or otherwise.
This example only has the shutter speed in the display, and an indication of under or over exposure, but no indication of lens aperture set on the lens
The Canon E F that came out also in 1973 had both the shutter speed in use and the lens aperture in the viewfinder.
Les, thanks for setting the record straight on the relative sizes of high end 35mm system cameras.
I love these comparison posts, super helpful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?