(02-26-2020, 10:20 AM)Klaus Wrote:I was thinking about writing "the Pentax LX was the closest moment for me to step into the Pentax world" as I really liked the concept and some of the things Pentax simply did different - but then the explanation why I did not do it at the very end also came back: If modular, then why stay with tiny 135 film? Costwise it was not that far away from a Mamiya 645 Super, and the Pentax had no interchangeable film magazines.(02-26-2020, 07:23 AM)mst Wrote:(02-26-2020, 06:59 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: Oh, and the Pentax LX-1 was such a huge success... blew all the Nikon F2, F3 and Canon F1 just out of the bags of press-photogs, right?
Well, it's easy to call a camera a fail looking backwards, the question is was it a fail because of its concept or because of the brand name printed on it (and such being part of a bigger or in this case smaller ecosystem that maybe wasn't attractive enough).
Since you mention the F3 yourself: it had a modular design, too. 5 different viewfinders were available, combined with no less than 16 different focus screens, an optional motor drive, bigger film storage and different backs.
Neither had the F3. And it's backs are no substitute for a fully functional film magazine. Also, for standard hot shoe strobes you'd need an adapter. One downside of modules...
The Rolleiflex 2002 had them, but still was a 135 type and the whole modules lifted the price region close to MF, not to mention the limited lens choice of sort of normal Rollei lenses or sort of less normal, but steeply priced Zeiss glass. That's why I still think buying a well designed integrated body with all the features I need is better than legoing it together (and it was never seamless, Klaus). As AF these days happens on sensor level, I would be curious how interchangeable sensors would behave. My guess: Worse than integrated systems.