Pentax LX vs Nikon F3 and 50/1.4's

[ChrisP]

I'm looking at picking up a new film body. Upgrading Past my MX to something that meters in a little lower light. I was thinking the obvious choice would be an LX but I'm having a hard time finding one so I figured a Nikon F3 might be a good option (they seem to be a little cheaper than the LX and I think they're sexy)

Anyways I'm wondering if anyone has used both cameras and could compare them? What are the differences between them? Mostly interested in Metering, the viewfinder, size and how noisy they are. But any experiences would be appreciated.

Also looking to compare manual 50/1.4's for each camera (the cheap $100ish ones, not Zeiss ones). Any noticeable difference between them, or do they each "render differently"

Thanks in Advance,

 

[ChrisP]

No one has played with both of them? Or even compared Pentax lenses to the Nikons?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've used both and even though the LX is a bit more uncommon it offers some things the F3 doesn't like better weather sealing and full mechanical backup through a greater range of shutter speeds. It's a bit smaller as well. The LX has always been one of my favorite bodies and now that I'm not dedicated to Nikons, the next film SLR I get may very well be an LX. (Haven't had one since 2004.)
The reason the LX holds value so well is that the people who use them know that they are top shelf cameras and they keep them to use.
I'm also partial to the Pentax lenses which are just insanely inexpensive these days.
The Nikon digital bodies have been propping up the cost of used Nikkors which are good but I think the Pentax versions are a better deal if you go by price alone.
Go with the Pentax and you won't have to switch systems as well since you already have an MX.

Phil Forrest

 

[Steinberg2010]

Phil beat me to it – I didn't realise you already had a Pentax. Probably best to stick in that family then!

I'm afraid I've never used a Pentax LX (though I believe my mother has a P30T(?)). I recently bought an F3 from KEH for about $160 including shipping to England. Couldn't be happier with it. To be honest, 50mm f1.4 lenses aren't the hardest pieces of glass to manufacture so you're unlikely to have an issue whichever way you go. Perhaps consider other factors such as other accessories you may wish to purchase down the road.

~S

 

[maclaine]

I went through this same struggle last year when deciding which SLR system to buy into after shooting mostly rangefinders for a long time. For me, it was down to the Nikon F3, Pentax LX, and Canon New F-1. Here's my thoughts on the three and why I went with the Nikon in the end:

Nikon F3

Pros: Extraordinarily broad range of accessories and lenses. Most Nikon lenses (that I plan on shooting) take the same filter size, so less duplicates or adapter rings. Relatively inexpensive due to the length of time it was in production and the number of copies out there. 100% viewfinder. Built extremely well and made to keep shooting.

Cons: Only one fully mechanical shutter speed (1/90) in case of battery failure. Viewfinder isn't illuminated very well, so low light shooting may be difficult. No spot meter, although a relatively tight 80/20 center weighted pattern.

Pentax LX

Pros: Smallest, lightest body of the three. Pentax lenses are dirt cheap. Good, practical range of mechanical speeds.

Cons: Most expensive of the three. Not serviced by as many people. Not as many accessories as the Nikon. No spot meter.

Canon New F-1

Pros: Easily the most substantial feeling of all three. It feels like it could withstand a nuclear blast. Variable metering patterns available based on focus screen choice. Felt the best in my hands compared to the other two. Canon FD lenses are also quite cheap. Good and practical range of mechanical speeds.

Cons: Dead system. Body more expensive than the Nikon, though cheaper than the Pentax. Less accessories than the Nikon.

So, in the end, I went with the Nikon. I had previously owned a Nikon FM3a, and though that camera was not for me, I liked the lenses. I have been extremely happy with my F3. For the price, you get so much, and if I ever wanted to get a newer body, either film or digital, I can still use my lenses. If you already have Pentax lenses, then the LX might be the right choice for you for the same reason, although I really had a hard time with the price. It made it feel more like it was a camera for cradling gently than taking anywhere you want and putting through its paces. This is all just my opinion.

 

[Charlie]

I would avoid the LX like the plague. Mine was a complete and total lemon. It developed electronic problems early and often, and got to the point the meter would stay on non-stop so I couldn't keep batteries in them. Pentax worked on it 3 times while still under warranty. When it went out of warranty, they insisted on charging me for the persist problem that should have been fixed on their dime. That was the end of my love affair with Pentax. Haven't bought one since.

 

[ChrisP]

I only have one Pentax lens, a 50/1.4. Seems like I could get an LX for the price of an F3 plus a 50/1.4 so they're about equal. Just wondering if you could elaborate on this point. I shoot primarily in low light (prefer film to my E-3's high ISO). What makes it hard to use in low light? This might be a deal breaker for me.

Cons: Only one fully mechanical shutter speed (1/90) in case of battery failure. Viewfinder isn't illuminated very well, so low light shooting may be difficult. No spot meter, although a relatively tight 80/20 center weighted pattern.

 

[rover]

No one has played with both of them? Or even compared Pentax lenses to the Nikons?

Well, that is a matter of opinion rather than features and build. They are different and produce images unique from each other. Which do you like more? Do you see a difference? I am not a fan much at all of any 50mm Nikkor, and I happen to really like the images I get from Pentax lenses. But that is just my opinion. My eye may see differently than yours.

 

[maclaine]

I only have one Pentax lens, a 50/1.4. Seems like I could get an LX for the price of an F3 plus a 50/1.4 so they're about equal. Just wondering if you could elaborate on this point. I shoot primarily in low light (prefer film to my E-3's high ISO). What makes it hard to use in low light? This might be a deal breaker for me.

Cons: Only one fully mechanical shutter speed (1/90) in case of battery failure. Viewfinder isn't illuminated very well, so low light shooting may be difficult. No spot meter, although a relatively tight 80/20 center weighted pattern.

It's not the actual viewfinder (focusing screen brightness) that is an issue, it's the data read out for the shutter speed and +/- indicator. It's an LCD display, and isn't backlit. There is a button to illuminate the display on the outer right hand side of the viewfinder, but it is very, very tiny and difficult to press in. I think it's universally agreed upon as the F3's biggest weakness. The aperture information is displayed optically through a tiny mirror that reflects it from the aperture ring of the lens itself. If there isn't enough light to illuminate it, you might have trouble seeing it. Having said that, I have shot in low-light conditions with little trouble, I just don't rely on seeing the shutter speed and aperture info from the viewfinder. Years of shooting with meterless M's has helped in this regard 😉.

If you haven't already, there's more information than you could ever hope for here:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/index.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/

[URL="Pentax LX]http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/[/URL]

 

[dap]

I never shot with the F3, but I have owned a couple of Pentax LXs. They are beautiful little cameras, but be prepared to spend on maintaining them. I've found the old wives tales about Leicas needing routine maintenance to be utrue - not the case with the LX (or at least the two examples i've had).

Manual Pentax lenses are really nice - they probably are a little more spendy than the equivalent Nikon glass on the second hand market though.

 

[Don Parsons]

I had 2 LX's-hated them.

I had one F3, loved everything but the weight.

 

[sevo]

I had 2 LX's-hated them.

I had one F3, loved everything but the weight.

I always disliked the F3, but I have come to accept that it is at least reliable. I always wanted to love the LX, but like the OM-4 (another unhappy love of mine) it proved to be a service queen more than anything else...

 

[Arvay]

I love Pentax's lenses more. They are closer to Leica's with the picture as my eye sees.

 

[akptc]

Pentax LX has been my main go-to manual body for a few years now, never any problems, it just works. The viewfinder is big and bright and the ergonomics are simply the best I've seen in an SLR. I use the MX as a backup.

I got a Nikon FE to play with and I must say that I do like how easy it is to quickly focus the 501/8 on it. Inspired by that, I ended up getting just about every focusing screens for the LX and found one that works well for me.

My vote goes for the LX.

 

[daveywaugh]

Having owned both I can certainly second many of the other comments... F3 definitely a more reliable camera. Personally I prefer the LX for it's form and one of the nicest SLR shutters ever. Weather sealing... nice but in reality does it make it more reliable than an F3? Don't think so.

I also have never been fond of Nikon 50's (and to be honest, I have never liked OM 50s either). I loved my Pentax f1.4 though. Not sure why. Nicer bokeh - more character perhaps. Slightly sharper wide open.

Both cameras are GREAT. 6 or half dozen really.

 

[mfunnell]

I don't have an LX (my Pentax cameras are a K1000, an MX and a K200D) but do love the Pentax 50mm/f1.4 (mine's the K version with the 52mm filter size). I do have an F3 (and a whole bunch of other Nikon cameras, my favourites of which are the FM3a and FM2n). I've not much used the Nikon 50mm/f1.4 lens, though I do have one. On my limited experience I love the Pentax 50s a whole lot more (I have a Pentax 50mm/f1.7 as well). Perhaps I'll learn to love my Nikon 50, but at the moment I get much more use from my CV Ultron 40mm/f2 on Nikon bodies, along with other Nikon lenses I like more than the 50.

...Mike

 

[sevo]

Weather sealing... nice but in reality does it make it more reliable than an F3? Don't think so.

Indeed I fear that it may have made it more subject to condensation - contrary to all intuition it has a much higher share of electronics issues than its less well sealed Nikon and Canon temporaries.

Similar issues plagued the OM-4, the other major weather sealed SLR. Sealing obviously did not combine too well with the eighties trend towards producing ever smaller and more complex cameras.

 

[mawz]

Owned both of them over the years.

LX: Small, great finder, excellent metering display, good exposure-compensation control. Small enough to be fiddly, limited ISO range (to 1600 on early bodies, 3200 on late bodies). Available winder & motor drive, FAR better flash system (standard shoe, fully compatible with current pentax flashes). Very prone to Sticky-mirror failures due to a degrading bumper in the mirror system.

F3: Larger, monster of a motor drive available but no winder. Great viewfinder, LCD meter display is dreck (and the backlight is usually broken), lousy exposure-compensation dial, very vulnerable to damage (the usual failure on F3's is a broken exposure compensation dial, usually due to a fall with a flash attached), awful flash configuration (custom shoe, requires rare adapter for use with standard flashes, Nikon no longer offers a flash which supports TTL on the F3 even with the AS-7). Backup mechanical release annoying (it has a front release, not the normal shutter release).

Of the two, I'd take an LX. But I'd take a FM or FE series body over either.