Harmless, easy and quick survey for long time film users

[Don Promillo]

Can't answer correctly since today, in the new film era, I can only remember the old, almost forgotten days of the digital age, which was a time between the first and the second film era...

I started on a digital Pentax, then moved on to a proper camera, a Pentax MX. It's simple, compact, light weight, runs full mechanically without a battery (it needs juice only for metering, but real men use their own metering) and even though it is older than me myself, it has never let me down.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

First thoughts that come to mind:

- conservative (in features)

- reliable

- good optics (Takumar)


My SP500 with 50/2 was the only camera I owned and used for 15 years.

 

[RobC]

budget end of the market. But what do I know, I never used one so maybe I'm just a camera brand snob or was back then.

 

[georg16nik]

“Pentax” was originally a ZEISS registered trademark (“Pentaprism” + “Contax”);
Annulled after the WWII defeat... the name "Pentax" was given to Asahi Optical company.

 

[Paul Howell]

budget end of the market. But what do I know, I never used one so maybe I'm just a camera brand snob or was back then.

Well yes and no, the M42 bodies were bare bones, but well built, that is why so many Spotmatics are still functional. On the other side the lens were some of the best, wide range from fisheye to 800mm, and fast lens 135 2.0 and 85 2.0, may not be as many as offered by Nikon, but good enough. In the day the pros I knew felt that all of the extra stuff was for those of us were not well trained or talented and needed the extra help. While still in college I bought a Konica T3, I was free lancing for several of the local small papers, the full time guys gave me a lot of grief about needing auto exposure.

 

[removed-user-1]

When I think of Pentax (before about the year 2000), I think:

Spotmatic. My cousin had one.

K1000. Many of my fellow photo students had one (I had a Nikon FG). Also talked my former father-in-law into buying a K1000.

Pentax 645. A photog I worked for had one around 1995.

 

[winger]

- Easy to use, no manual required
- Logical - all functions controlled without moving eye from viewfinder
- slight inferiority complex (undeserved, imo)
- solid (mine are)



disclaimer - My dad bought an H1a in the 60s when he was headed to Alaska after college. He was nice enough to scoop up a good assortment of lenses. I've been borrowing the whole kit and kaboodle since high school. Yes, according to my mom I'm still borrowing it. It's got a roll of HP5+ in it right now. I've added a PZ1p and 645N (and a K-7). A few others have passed through my hands, but I let others have them as they needed them and I needed another camera like I need a hole in my head (also according to mom). Oh, and I'm closer to 50 years old than to 40 (holy blank is that hard to say).

 

[gzinsel]

while reading responses, I did not see in the first or even second line. "awesome" or " great optics" or flawless design, or anything that would read , quality!! Now,. . . . . that is not to say they were poor performers, its just that others did it better.

 

[ic-racer]

Pentax = name for a popular screw mount on lenses. Also associated with "Spotmatic." A friend in junior high got a new Pentax Spotmatic and it was a great camera. A pro-type camera for a teenager, he was lucky. I had a Zenit-E and an Ansco 127 at the time.

 

[trythis]

From my 1980's film days to my shooting studio slides but I have almost no opinion about Pentax, Nikon, etc. I had my Canon and that's what I knew about. I never paid any attention to other equipment.


Sent with typotalk

 

[mike c]

A friend of mine whom I bought a few cameras, Yashica 35mm slr, 4x5 speed graphic,Heath color canoe, model 11 Kodak drum processor and a few other items had a big grin on his face one day and showed me his spot-matic. He was very happy to get it, that was over forty five years ago, still remember that big grin on his face today.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

while reading responses, I did not see in the first or even second line. "awesome" or " great optics" or flawless design, or anything that would read , quality!! Now,. . . . . that is not to say they were poor performers, its just that others did it better.

That's because the people who would reply to this thread are restrained, like Norwegians and Icelanders, and shy away from hyperbole and superlatives.

Pentax equipment is definitely of high quality. As far as optics, back in the day (the 1970's) I don't think there was a Pfennig's worth of difference between Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, or Olympus lenses.

 

[destroya]

medium format cameras. they had too much competition in the 35mm market, so the med format market is where they made their name.

 

[LarryP]

gzinsel , what Theo said. Actually I think many Pentaxians would rather show you the results than talk up their gear.

 

[Paul Howell]

while reading responses, I did not see in the first or even second line. "awesome" or " great optics" or flawless design, or anything that would read , quality!! Now,. . . . . that is not to say they were poor performers, its just that others did it better.

As I recall Popular Photography tested the Pentax 40mm pancake and found it be one of the sharpest normal lens ever tested, along with the Konica pancake 2 of best in the mid 90s. The limited edition lens are as good as you get in a prime, any brand any time. But having said that, I moved to Konica and found the Konica lens to be on the whole better than Pentax lens of the day, late 60s early 70s, then moving to Nikon, over all as a lens line up I think both Pentax and Konica were better than Nikon, not huge difference, I moved to Nikon as I needed a motor drive.

 

[gzinsel]

I know this is a side argument, in the debate sense, but. . . . . theo Sulphate, are you suggesting, , , that those who use leica, who are ALWAYS advocating how awesome their gear is . . . . is full of hyperbole, unrestrained, and use superlatives, and leica users come from non-icelandic, or non- norwegian countries?

Through out all the literature pentax supplied, I never realized that they ( pentaxians) were of a modest consortium?

 

[Chan Tran]

Pentax was my dream camera when I was a kid. I used to dream of the Honeywell Pentax and the potato masher Honeywell Strobonar. Was so cool. But when I bought my first camera it was a Nikon F2AS. In recent years I have a few old Pentax and I think they are very good.

And please no K1000. If someone is willing to pay for shipping he/she can have my K1000 and the 50mm f/2 (I think this lens was designed for the K1000).

 

[removed account4]

pentax was my first camera, k1000 i still use it to make tintypes.
also have a ME super, small, and easy to use ..
it is also the maker of probably the coolest 110 "kit" ever made, the auto110 ...
beautiful glass, beautiful camera ...

i agree theo, their glass was.is sweet

 

[BrianShaw]

From my 1980's film days to my shooting studio slides but I have almost no opinion about Pentax, Nikon, etc. I had my Canon and that's what I knew about. I never paid any attention to other equipment.

Sent with typotalk

Similar experience for me except I had Nikon!

 

[dpurdy]

I never heard of Pentax until I was in photography school in the 70s. My first impression was in the instructors office I was amazed at the quality of a 16x20 inch print he had lying out. I asked the details and he had taken it with a Pentax 6X7 which he then showed me. I loved the look of it. It just looked solid as a tank. The affect never left me and eventually I got my own pentax 67 outfit. Still one of the cameras I use.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I know this is a side argument, in the debate sense, but. . . . . theo Sulphate, are you suggesting, , , that those who use leica, who are ALWAYS advocating how awesome their gear is . . . . is full of hyperbole, unrestrained, and use superlatives, and leica users come from non-icelandic, or non- norwegian countries?

Only a minority of Leica (or Nikon, Canon, Pentax...) users /owners "ALWAYS" [sic] advocate how awesome their gear is. For example, I have two M3's, two M6's, and a Leicaflex SL. They are nice cameras and once, just once, I referred to the M3 as a mechanical jewel. But I'll be the first to say my Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, etc., are equally good photographically. In fact, on a recent thread I replied quite jokingly:

For me it is very easy to tell that a photograph has been made with one of my Leicas.

See, the smoothness of the film wind lever, the softness of the release, the precise clicking into place of the shutter speeds and apertures, all of this combines into making a photograph that has sub-granular characteristics that is unmatched by a lesser kamera. So then, I can easily tell which photograph has been made with one of my Leicas simply by looking at the little sticker I have placed in back of the print, on which will be noted, for example, "Leica M3 SS 50/2 DR".

Simple.

Perhaps when people discover something that annoys them, they focus on it more. Thus, it seems that to you, Leica users advocate their equipment a lot.

To answer your question further, I would say those who use hyperbole and unrestrained superlatives are most likely not Scandinavian. I speak from the experience of living there for a while long ago.

 

[fotch]

I owned several, a used Spotmatic and a new K1000. OK for a low price budget camera. I owned many brands until I got my first Nikon Nikormat. Now, only 35mm slr I use are the better Nikons.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

pentax was my first camera, k1000 i still use it to make tintypes...

That's nice - seriously. I'm impressed.

 

[graflexboy]

My first real modern SLR was a K1000. Seemed like light years ahead of my Kodak Retina Reflex IV SLR (which didn't have TTL metering or an instant return mirror!).


Micah in NC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Roberts]

I started film photography in 1970 and have never left it.
My first SLR was a Zenit E in about 1973, but oh how I drooled over a friends Pentax Spotmatic II.
Compared to my Zenit and subsequent Praktica Super TL, the Pentax was so much more refined mechanically, aesthetically more pleasing and handled better than anything else I'd encountered. That includes the then current Minolta SRT range, Olympus, Miranda and similar models that my contemporaries could afford. I have no experience of Canon or Nikon, though my impression of them was of being expensive, bombproof but so heavy that I wouldn't want to lug one around!
Before owning a Pentax, the only camera I owned that I felt came close to 'the Pentax feel' was a Yashica TL Electro, which seemed to be Yashica's take on the SPII. I've since owned (and still do except for the ME) Pentax models Asahiflex II, S1a, S2, S2 Super, SV, Spotmatic, Spotmatic II, SP500, SP1000, Electro Spotmatic, ES, ESII, K1000, KM, KX, K2, K2DMD, ME, ME Super, MV, MX and LX. Favourites have been the KX, ESII, K2 and MX.

Steve