Good results from my new £8 camera

[walliswizard]

These are from the first roll of film (Fomapan 200) through my Pentax ME Super that I picked up at the local car boot sale the other week. I cleaned it up, cut and fitted new light seals, new batteries, switched the lens from the 1.7 it came with to the 1.4 I had already.

Developed the film last night in fresh D76 and tweaked the scans for dust and levels.

Pretty pleased with the results, I do love these little Pentax SLRs!

 

[SanMiguel]

I used an ME Super for the first time at the weekend, with a 135mm f3.5. Lovely compact combination...it felt even smaller than my OM1. All shutter speeds shown in viewfinder, Nikon FM3a-like, although with an LED rather than a needle. It felt very nice in the hand.

Only downside is that there are no shutter speeds on the dial. I guess the buttons allow you to alter the electronically guessed speeds but I haven't experimented with them yet.

Like you I got some fairly decent (and contrasty) negs - although I did expose and develop for HP5+ only to see FP4+ appear along the top of the negative strip...

 

[walliswizard]

Ah HP5+ and FP4+ aren't too far apart I guess. Maybe that's YOUR undiscovered secret to great photos

 

[John Bragg]

Nice work and well done for rescuing a great camera.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I used an ME Super for the first time at the weekend, with a 135mm f3.5. Lovely compact combination...it felt even smaller than my OM1. All shutter speeds shown in viewfinder, Nikon FM3a-like, although with an LED rather than a needle. It felt very nice in the hand.

Only downside is that there are no shutter speeds on the dial. I guess the buttons allow you to alter the electronically guessed speeds but I haven't experimented with them yet.

Like you I got some fairly decent (and contrasty) negs - although I did expose and develop for HP5+ only to see FP4+ appear along the top of the negative strip...

You need to read the manual.
Google is your friend, but you should find one at Butkus.
Make a point of reading the manual before using a camera or any device you don't know.
Don't assume you know how to use a camera. There might be surprises.

As an example, last Sunday I used for the first time a Zeiss Nettar and a Contaflex Super B.
I knew these cameras for a long time, but I read the manual nonetheless.
By doing so, I found out the Nettars with the /6.3 lens don't have self-timer and use a different filter size.
Also, I found out the Contaflex meter isn't always on even though it is a Selenium type. It is only On on the Auto setting when shutter is cocked.

 

[Huss]

Very nice results! These cameras are great and it is both good and bad that most people have no idea. Good because that makes them cheap. Bad because others have no idea what they are missing out on.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

These are from the first roll of film (Fomapan 200) through my Pentax ME Super that I picked up at the local car boot sale the other week. I cleaned it up, cut and fitted new light seals, new batteries, switched the lens from the 1.7 it came with to the 1.4 I had already.

Developed the film last night in fresh D76 and tweaked the scans for dust and levels.

Pretty pleased with the results, I do love these little Pentax SLRs!

View attachment 157199 View attachment 157200 View attachment 157201 View attachment 157202 View attachment 157203 View attachment 157204 View attachment 157205 View attachment 157206 View attachment 157207 View attachment 157208 View attachment 157209 View attachment 157210 View attachment 157211

Very nice shots!
But, I wonder how the /1.7 would fare compared with the /1.4.
I never had the 2 Pentax-M series. Only the /1.7 and that one was pretty good.

 

[Punker]

Eight pounds? What is that like 3.5 kilos? Sounds like a beast to lug around.

But in all seriousness, good find and great results!

 

[SanMiguel]

Ah HP5+ and FP4+ aren't too far apart I guess. Maybe that's YOUR undiscovered secret to great photos

I think my undiscovered secret to great photos lies more with the processing I do before I take the photograph than any processing I do afterwards

 

[walliswizard]

Ha. No no, my good man, Eight of our Queen's Stirling, gawd bless 'er....

As for whether the 1.7 would have been any different, I doubt you'd see much difference. None of the above were shot at 1.4, probably none below f/2 I'd think. I've got two 1.7s now anyway so I will probably sell one at some point.

I don't honestly think the seller knew anything about the camera. I got the impression the seller was just selling off some of a departed relation's old things. Also surprised that nobody else had snapped it up before I'd got there. I got lucky I guess.

 

[cuthbert]

We also meet here!

However, I think in that class a Praktica B is a better camera. I see you're into cars, so I'm posting here some pics I've taken last Sunday at Gaydon with my LX and some Pentax glass:

Definitely Pentax was second to none.

Very nice shots!
But, I wonder how the /1.7 would fare compared with the /1.4.
I never had the 2 Pentax-M series. Only the /1.7 and that one was pretty good.

I think I have almost all the Pentax primes, there are at least three generations of 50mm f1.4, two of 1.7 and one of 55mm f1.8/2.

IMO the 1.7 is the worst of them, still decent but it is outclassed by the 55mm 1.8 they replaced (that were Takumars in disguise), for the 1.4, the K version is better, but for a Mx or a ME it the M version suits more the size of the camera. The A class lenses aren't well made in comparison to the predecessors.

 

[walliswizard]

My Dad had a Praktica "back in the day". Shame he got rid of it - think he traded it in for a Nikon or something.

The Chiltern Hills rally is only about 5 minutes down the road for me, so it's an obvious thing to go shoot. Have shot it a few years now though, and am seeing the same old cars, so will have to think of something else to do.

What a shame they never put that ADO 34 (your first pic) into production. Pretty car.

 

[Sewin]

Praktica B for me too cuthbert, I've most of the lenses and a couple of bodies, nice little system.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

I paid 35 € for mine some years ago on a flea market. It came with 3 lenses and was in good shape. Good camera, easy to use and not really heavy. Actually one of my favourite 35mm SLR cameras.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I think I have almost all the Pentax primes, there are at least three generations of 50mm f1.4, two of 1.7 and one of 55mm f1.8/2.

IMO the 1.7 is the worst of them, still decent but it is outclassed by the 55mm 1.8 they replaced (that were Takumars in disguise), for the 1.4, the K version is better, but for a Mx or a ME it the M version suits more the size of the camera. The A class lenses aren't well made in comparison to the predecessors.

Thanks!
I was thinking in only the M series.
I know very well the Takumars.

 

[gone]

That Pentax lens looks as good or better than the non AI H 50 2 I had on a Nikkormat. Great bokeh and sharpness. It makes you wonder why people pay thousands of dollars for "better" gear.

To follow up on the cheap camera & transportation theme, the first shot below is from an Argoflex TLR. Shanghai 100 GP3 in Rodinal at 1:25 w/ a yellow filter. The second is from a Rolleiflex E w/ Planar (Tri-X in D76 full strength). OK, the Planar is better, but then it was $700 vs $10 for the 'flex.

One can read the manual until their eyes fall out, the /*$:! shutter speed buttons on an ME are a PITA and it lacks exposure lock, which is why I sold mine. Otherwise, neat little cameras if you can work around those issues. Still, I'd probably prefer it to a Praktica. We don't see many of those here in the Colonies. Excellent viewfinder.

 

[cuthbert]

That Pentax lens looks as good or better than the non AI H 50 2 I had on a Nikkormat. Great bokeh and sharpness. It makes you wonder why people pay thousands of dollars for "better" gear.

To follow up on the cheap camera & transportation theme, the first shot is from an Argoflex TLR. Shanghai 100 GP3 in Rodinal at 1:25 w/ a yellow filter. The second is from a Rolleiflex E w/ Planar (Tri-X in D76 full strength). OK, the Planar is better, but then it was $700 vs $10 for the 'flex.

These are cool pics!

Regarding the Pentax glass, IMO with the SMC coating (that I understand they developed with Zeiss until the companies went apart in the mid 70s) they were ahead of Canon and Nikon, I have the Nikkor 50mm f2 AI and IMO it's just an average performer, a SMC Takumar 55mm or K 55mm outclass it. The Pre AI Nikkor 50mm S-C I have is a very nice lens but more prone to flare than a SMC Tak 50mm 1.4.

Of course you can't really argue with Canonikonisti, they are like a sort of church.

 

[blockend]

I have the Nikkor 50mm f2 AI and IMO it's just an average performer, a SMC Takumar 55mm or K 55mm outclass it. The Pre AI Nikkor 50mm S-C I have is a very nice lens but more prone to flare than a SMC Tak 50mm 1.4.

The pre-AI 50 f2 has an old fashioned rendering that I like, but it's not up to the standards of the 50 1.8 AIS or AF versions, which offer a very sharp and modern look. It depends which you prefer, I like both in different ways. Pentax made excellent lenses, especially the SMC range, but most of the Japanese offering were very good by the late 1970s. I still use my single coated lenses much of the time, though I own MC and AF equivalents.

To see how lenses have developed look at zooms. They were mediocre performers for the most part, even into the 1990s, but at mid apertures a modern high quality zoom is indistinguishable from a prime, and most will exceed old lenses for sharpness, contrast and even optical correction. Computer aided design is responsible for most of that improvement.

 

[walliswizard]

I would be interested to know how good the Pentax 50mm 1.2 is over the 1.4. (I appreciate if you HAVE to shoot at 1.2 then you can't do that with a lens that only goes to 1.4!). The 1.2 is a very expensive lens relative to the 1.4 I have!

 

[cuthbert]

I would be interested to know how good the Pentax 50mm 1.2 is over the 1.4. (I appreciate if you HAVE to shoot at 1.2 then you can't do that with a lens that only goes to 1.4!). The 1.2 is a very expensive lens relative to the 1.4 I have!

Guilty as charged!

I couldn't resist to the call of "the" 1.2 once I found one for a still decent price (£220), and last year I pulled the trigger on a very early K 50 mm f1.2, so far it's the oldest 1.2 known on pentax forum, on this 1975 brochure there is 120661, mine is 1200322.

Comment number 1 : you might get lost staring at that magnificent piece of glass for too long.

Comment number 2 : while most Pentax lenses are small, this one is too big for a LX, I prefer to use it on a K series body

Comment number 3 : the brochure boasts the fact this was in fact the first 50mm f1.2 (introduced in 1975, Nikon introduced his 50/1.2 in 1978 and Canon not before 1980. The fourth 50/1.2, the Fuji, arrived later) and indeed it was an achievement, the K mount was developed specifically for this lens.

In general, I can say the lens is built at top notch level, it's definitely better than the Canon FD 55mm f1.2 I have for my F1n (and half the weight), I don't know the performance of the Nikkor 55mm f1.2 but my understanding is that it wasn't that great, these two lenses were loaded with coma and flare wide open, the FD needs to be stopped down to f2.8 to become less muddy.

Here you can see a DOF study at f1.2 and f22 with the LX:

Sorry for the grain it's bad scanning...as you can see when it's focused properly it's relatively sharp wide open, but it's very, very hard to focus even with the ultrabright SA 23 screen, the DOF is so thin that might give the impression it doesn't resolute properly, just look at my face here:

On this hawk I focused at the leg but most of the subject is soft too:

Or this headstock:

At a certain distance separation becomes better:

Bokeh is of course great:

Low light performance also good:

Colors and resolutions are similar to the 1.4:

The lens is great for portraits:

All around:

In short I would describe it as a sort of 1.4 on steroids, if it does worth of it's up to you, thinking about the IQ and the price in comparison to a Leica Summilux I would say it's a bargain, if you like bokeh it's better than for instance the Canon FD 50 mm f1.2 IMO, here there's a Canon shot:

Here there's the Pentax:

 

[walliswizard]

Great reply, thank you!

I love the look of "big glass" on a camera, but if it is too big on the LX then it would be the same or worse on the MX/ME. I'm yet to shoot anything at 1.4 on my lens accurately enough to say I needed that aperture, so again 1.2 isn't *required* by me. That said, would I buy one anyway? If I had the money? Yeh.... definitely

I have the (digital) Fuji 56 1.2 lens and the only way I can accurately focus that when doing portraits at 1.2 is when I manually focus and use the built in EVF zoom facility so I can really critically focus. So trying to do so on a manual SLR would be very hit and miss I would suspect, at least for me.

 

[Les Sarile]

Great reply, thank you!

I love the look of "big glass" on a camera, but if it is too big on the LX then it would be the same or worse on the MX/ME.

Actually most beneficial when used on those bodies as their gigantic and bright viewfinders proves advantageous for nailing critical focus with fast lenses like the f1.2 quickly.

 

[cuthbert]

Great reply, thank you!

I love the look of "big glass" on a camera, but if it is too big on the LX then it would be the same or worse on the MX/ME. I'm yet to shoot anything at 1.4 on my lens accurately enough to say I needed that aperture, so again 1.2 isn't *required* by me. That said, would I buy one anyway? If I had the money? Yeh.... definitely

I have the (digital) Fuji 56 1.2 lens and the only way I can accurately focus that when doing portraits at 1.2 is when I manually focus and use the built in EVF zoom facility so I can really critically focus. So trying to do so on a manual SLR would be very hit and miss I would suspect, at least for me.

Then get a nice mechanical body like a KX or a KM AND the gigantic f1.2. If you can get a onepointtwo you will be able to afford an humble K body, won't you?