Best Pentax Spotmatic?

[Ian Grant]

My first camera was an SP500. It was a like a miracle after learning on my fathers Exakta VX with waist level finder. Stop down metering, but metering nonetheless. Had it for about four years before trading into the Olympus OM system. Pentax didn't have nearly the breadth of fast lens selection. But I still like the classic design of the Spotmatic line.

My big mistake was not buying an Exacta Varex 1000 and going for a Zenit E as a young teenager A school friend had a Spotmatic kit a few lenses a second body an SV or S1a, all in a nice case, his fathers old kit, and I just loved the simple elegance and functionality of his Spotmatic and decided wanted one.

Pentax seem to have been rather complacent a few times, they held back before changing to the K mount, the M42 screw mount was a constraint for faster lenses. They were very late into Digital as well, more recent changes in ownership might not have helped.

I've not thought about how many Pentax cameras I own, 3 Spotmatics, 2 S1a's bought for £2 but easily restored, and many K mount - should add a few came with my wife

Along with my M3 Leica the Spotmatics are my favourite 35mm cameras, although my Praktinas now only trail slightly behind. Unfortunately I rarely shoot 35mm these days.

Ian

 

[Steve Roberts]

I'm a Pentax enthusiast (I hesitate to say "collector" as that implies some method!) I have examples of just about all of them that interest me from the Asahiflex to the M series (and a couple of LXs that I don't much care for). I don't (yet) have the original Pentax and I can't get excited about the meter-less Spotmatic, the SL. As to the OP's question regarding the best of the Spotmatic era, I'd like to say the open-aperture metering SP-F but the fact that it doesn't have a meter switch spoils it for me. I'm not big on lens caps. The Electro Spotmatic, ES and ESII are fine cameras as long as the electronic circuitry works. If I could have any Pentax in brand new condition from the SP era it would have to be the Spotmatic II.

However, jump forward a few years and you have the benefit of bayonet mount lenses that Ian Grant mentions in the K series. You also have the option to go for the open aperture metered KX with meter switch and the advantages of silicon cells over CdS. The KX is a descendant of the SP range, so if that could count, it would a good choice IMHO. I've had my KX for 32 years.

As for construction with regard to longevity or professional use, I don't think there's anything to choose between the SP era Pentaxes and those from the rather short K series era (I'm excluding the later HK and Chinese assembled K1000s). In repairs and servicing that I have undertaken I would consider the construction and materials used to be consistently good.

Steve

 

[BradS]

.... the open aperture metered KX with meter switch and the advantages of silicon cells over CdS. The KX is a descendant of the SP range, so if that could count, it would a good choice IMHO. I've had my KX for 32 years.
Steve

How fabulous would it be to be able to buy a brand new KX today ?!?!?!

Well, we can dream can't we?

 

[darinwc]

OK Thank you!. I now have a Spotmatic F and a Pentax SV.
The F is great with its open-aperture metering. SMC lenses are not much more than the super-taks.
But I really like the handling of the SV.. a bit smaller. No flash shoe. No timer lever on the front. (it is around the rewind lever!)

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...No timer lever on the front. (it is around the rewind lever!)

It is a nice looking self-timer dial. However, I have to wonder what kind of linkage they used to trip the shutter from the opposite side of the camera.

 

[John51]

My first camera was an SP500. It was a like a miracle after learning on my fathers Exakta VX with waist level finder. Stop down metering, but metering nonetheless. Had it for about four years before trading into the Olympus OM system. Pentax didn't have nearly the breadth of fast lens selection. But I still like the classic design of the Spotmatic line.

I got a SP500 recently and kinda wish I'd got one back in the 70s instead of an OM1. It feels nicer.

 

[Ian Grant]

I got a SP500 recently and kinda wish I'd got one back in the 70s instead of an OM1. It feels nicer.

I had a real dilemma when I needed to switch from my Spotmatic F and S1a's in the late 1970's, this was purely because the screw mount was too slow and clumsy, I was shooting rock bands professionally. I just didn't like the new K mount Pentax cameras, the OM1 just didn't have that Spotmatic feel and simplicity.

By chance I went for a Chinon CE-4 and later a CE-4s after seeing the quality a friend's assistant was getting with the camera and their standard lenses, I guess I was really looking for a new K mount equivalent of the ESII. My pair of Chinons were fantastic cameras, a friend borrowed them along with my Vivitar S1 70-210 zoom, and Chinon 50mm f1.4 lens for a Lucas calendar shoot at Le Mans, a highly successful trip. Unfortunately they were stolen not long after, I replaced them with an MX and ME Super, the MX cameras are worthy successors to the Spotmatics, the ME Supers less than ideal in terms of simplicity or build quality.

Ian

 

[BradS]

I had a real dilemma when I needed to switch from my Spotmatic F and S1a's in the late 1970's,.......I guess I was really looking for a new K mount equivalent of the ESII.

Ian

The K2 ?

 

[Billy Axeman]

You can see that the K2 is from the same period as the late Spotmatics (1975), but it has less height and it is more refined. An attractive point is also that it has a metal shutter.

I once CLA'd a K2 and it is a disaster from a construction point of view. This camera has concentric rings around the mount (ASA setting and exposure compensation), and also behind the front panel (aperture position and for the coupled resistor), and these rings have a large surface to be oiled or greased. So when the oil or grease becomes slightly sticky the rings immediately start having too much resistance to work properly. Not to speak from the amount of work to do: lens mount, front rings, body front plate, rings behind the front plate, and also the top cover must be removed to get access to all the parts involved.

 

[Ian Grant]

The K2 ?

There was a reason for not going to a K2, it may well have been price as well as size, the ME was available but not so easy to use as a "Manual" camera as the later ME Super.

I was considering possibly switching to another brand/lens mount entirely but when loaned a CE-4 to test found it handle exactly as I wanted, and it took a Power winder which the K2 didn't. I needed two cameras, one for B&W the other colour so price and quality were important.

Ian

 

[darinwc]

It does seem that Pentax stalled in camera development during the spotmatic age.
The design was will established by 1958 with the Pentax k.
By 1962, the spotmatic was released with ttl metering and many small improvements.
But it seems major developments just halted for a decade until the k mount cameras were released.

 

[Les Sarile]

It does seem that Pentax stalled in camera development during the spotmatic age.
The design was will established by 1958 with the Pentax k.
By 1962, the spotmatic was released with ttl metering and many small improvements.
But it seems major developments just halted for a decade until the k mount cameras were released.

Of course you mean 1957 with the original Asahi Pentax - the first instant return mirror SLR. Then the S in 1958 and the K shortly after. My original and K models.

Pentax was first to develop TTL metering but only in prototype with the Spot-Matic in 1960. The first production Spotmatics were released in 1964.
Pentax had many industry firsts including lens multi coating, autoexposure and prototyped bayonet mount systems during that time. You can read about these in http://www.aohc.it/_old/indexe.html.

Pentax cameras grew in size and started going to smaller form factor after Olympus released the OM1.

The Pentax K2 manual even listed it as the smallest aperture priority capable SLR. Unfortunately, these were printed shortly before Olympus released the OM2 which was in fact smaller then the K2.

I particularly appreciate that they reached back to the original design when they developed the LX.

 

[flavio81]

Pentax seem to have been rather complacent a few times, they held back before changing to the K mount, the M42 screw mount was a constraint for faster lenses.

This is what I used to think, however Pentax at the end sold more cameras than Canon and Nikon combined, I think;

Also, in 1964 (spotmatic introduction), Pentax was perhaps the only brand that offered a lightweight, professional-quality 35mm camera with TTL metering. Fast forward to 1971 and the Electro-Spotmatic was the first camera to offer built-in auto-exposure (the Canon F-1 required a BIG accessory set to do this, and this comes from a canon fanboy like me).

So perhaps from 1972 to 1976 Pentax was perhaps "outdated" since the other manufacturers brought out bayonet-mount cameras with auto-exposure.

1976 was the introduction of the K-mount and this is seen as being "too late". However, I don't really think the M42 had any inherent problem except speed of mounting-dismounting. The K1000 wasn't any mistake, and has outsold many cameras.

Where Pentax perhaps took too much time, IMO, was in releasing the M-series cameras, which were the answers to Olympus' OM system. However, the MX is perfect and sometimes I consider trading one of my Canon F-1 or Nikon F2 for a mint MX or (better) LX. They also took IMO a bit too long in introducing a pro camera to go against the F2 or F1. The LX was too late (1980), a fully Pro Pentax should have been released in 1971... Well, the Spotmatics are almost, almost "fully Pro" cameras.

After many years of Canon fanboyism and Ca/Nikon lens collecting, i've come to appreciate Pentax and Takumars a lot. Sometimes I think that Asahi Optical is the true great Japanese camera/lens maker, not Canon nor Nippon Kogaku nor Minolta. The Takumars are always designed for practical use, that is, giving a priority to bokeh and rendering; and the cameras are always engineered with excellent ergonomics; I would love for my Canon F-1 or Nikon F2 to have the ergonomics of the Spotmatic, MX, or even my lowly P30 (which is very nice.)

I got a SP500 recently and kinda wish I'd got one back in the 70s instead of an OM1. It feels nicer.

I agree with you. I never understood the appeal for the OM-1 and OM-2. The SP spotmatics feel better built and of course more rugged.

The Pentax MX, which I finally own, is IMO superior in every respect to the OM-1.

 

[faberryman]

I never understood the appeal for the OM-1 and OM-2. The SP spotmatics feel better built and of course more rugged.

I had a SP500 and moved to an OM1. Full aperture metering and a wider selection of lenses were the reasons. The OMs were system cameras, something Pentax did not achieve until later.

 

[Paul Howell]

Wider selection of lens, M42, all makes, quite a selection.

 

[faberryman]

Wider selection of lens, M42, all makes, quite a selection.

I should have said wider selection of manufacturers lenses. There were of course a wide selection of third party lenses for M42 in the early 1970s, mostly stop down metering only though..

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
I agree with you. I never understood the appeal for the OM-1 and OM-2. ...

When the OM-1 was first introduced, it was a sensation. The small shapely body, chrome accents, and the Tardis-like manner in which the viewfinder image appeared larger than life.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have little use for internal metering, so look fondly back at the earlier Pentax models. They were built tough and some of those screw-mount lenses did a wonderful job with high contrast films like Kodachrome, whereas more modern lenses might give it a harsh look. The same could be said for Velvia.

 

[blockend]

When the OM-1 was first introduced, it was a sensation. The small shapely body, chrome accents, and the Tardis-like manner in which the viewfinder image appeared larger than life.

Some of the best photographs I ever took were on my OM1. Olympus paved the way for subsequent camera shrinkage other companies adopted. Of course they could only shrink lenses so far, and even the 50mm 1.8 looked big on the body. Mirrorless digital cameras have the same issue.

 

[flavio81]

Some of the best photographs I ever took were on my OM1. Olympus paved the way for subsequent camera shrinkage other companies adopted. Of course they could only shrink lenses so far, and even the 50mm 1.8 looked big on the body. Mirrorless digital cameras have the same issue.

The problem is that, all else being equal (aperture, price point, technological know-how, current year), shrinking down the optical part of a lens will inevitably reduce performance in some aspect or other, be it distortion, full-aperture performance, bokeh, falloff, etc. This is evident, for example, in some of the Pentax M-series (compact) lenses compared to their K-series (classic bayonet mount) equivalents, where usually the K version is better.

On the OM system, there is no choice: all lenses are "shrunk-down" lenses.

 

[faberryman]

The problem is that, all else being equal (aperture, price point, technological know-how, current year), shrinking down the optical part of a lens will inevitably reduce performance in some aspect or other, be it distortion, full-aperture performance, bokeh, falloff, etc. This is evident, for example, in some of the Pentax M-series (compact) lenses compared to their K-series (classic bayonet mount) equivalents, where usually the K version is better. On the OM system, there is no choice: all lenses are "shrunk-down" lenses.

Are the optical lenses shrunk down or are the barrels, helicoids, aperture mechanisms, etc. shrunk down? For example, the original 35mm f/2 Super Takumar has a 67mm filter thread. The Olympus 35mm f/2 has a 55mm thread. The Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 has a 39mm thread. I doubt the Super Takumar outperforms the Olympus or the Leica. I don't think that buying lens by size alone is a reliable measure.

 

[blockend]

Are the optical lenses shrunk down or are the barrels, helicoids, aperture mechanisms, etc. shrunk down?

The latter, probably. Corners are shaved on hardware, the glass real estate is pretty much the same as other SLRs.

 

[Bill Burk]

Some of the best photographs I ever took were on my OM1. Olympus paved the way for subsequent camera shrinkage other companies adopted. Of course they could only shrink lenses so far, and even the 50mm 1.8 looked big on the body. Mirrorless digital cameras have the same issue.

The 40mm f/2 is pretty compact.

 

[Bill Burk]

Oh, that's straying from topic. The Super Takumar 35mm f/2 (with 67mm filter size) is my go-to lens these days. It's always been my favorite.
Though it is amusing to me how tiny the Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 is by comparison.

 

[faberryman]

Oh, that's straying from topic. The Super Takumar 35mm f/2 (with 67mm filter size) is my go-to lens these days. It's always been my favorite.
Though it is amusing to me how tiny the Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 is by comparison.

Funny, it's the lens which got me off Pentax cameras because it was so large!. I think they came out with a smaller one later.