Honeywell Pentax H1a

[Hunter_Compton]

Well, I admit to being a bit skeptical, so I pulled the 1974 Modern Photography review of the Spotmatic F. Their figures on viewfinder coverage contradict your assertion, quoting 92% vertical and 93% horizontal coverage versus 85%. They also make no mention of any offset. Their overall conclusions at the end also seem less disparaging.

Also, the January 1981 Modern photography test of the SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.4. Again, I would argue, a lot less disparaging.

We are, however, drifting a bit far afield from the original subject at hand.

 

[F4U]

Amazing to see this old review, And it does seem to contradict my statements. But as I recall at the time Popular Photography wasn't doing lab reviews. Perhaps it was one of those annual review publications. But one thing I CAN attest to by my own tests, is that the off-center viewfinder view does indeed exist, just as the claim I read, way back then. Back then I read everything photographic I could get my hands on. I remember as a teenager practically selling my soul for a new Spotmatic F. And once I got it, what a letdown. But then I have unwittingly hijacked the thread. My apologies to the OP.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

We're talking about the screw mount Pentaxes, a subject that I am quite versed on. The Spotmatic was the first Pentax with meter. To achieve this, they cut off that end of fthe viewfinder frame. Except for the small area where the needle opening shows, is cut off in the finder, yet appears on the negative. This is the left-right 36mm dimension. As or the up-down 24mm dimension, either the bottom or the top is also cut off in the finder, (can't remember which) but appears in the negative. This means that the viewfinder is off-center in both directions, for a total of 85% actual negative. I recall it being noted in a 1974 Modern Photography review of he Spotmatic F. This same situation exhibits in the ES and ESII models. In fact it dates back to 1964 when the original Spotmatic was introduced. And it is entirely unacceptable. Referring to the same tests, Modern Photography also published their lens testing chart on the 50mm 1.4 lens. It was found to be a very poor performer. The 1.8's and 2's were much better, as are many of the Super Multi coated Takumars. but we are discussing on this thread the H1a and H3v series which had no meter. Therefor, the viewfinder right side does not have this cut-off problem. But they DO have the up-down off-center problem.
In about 2004 I shot the storm photo of a lifetime on a Spotmatic IIa, and that damn Pentax RUINED my framing because of the off-center problem. I was already struggling with it's stupid mirror jam upwards problem. Never again. I use a Nikon FTN because it gives 100% exactly as I frame it and the camera is as dependable as an anvil.

Interesting post. It sounds like your experience with Pentax M42 cameras far exceeds my own, as I only bought my first about 7–8 years ago. I have had a few issues with the mirrors locking up on my SL (meterless version of the Spotmatic made from 1968–71 or so) as well as my K1000, but I have noticed that the more I use them the less this occurs. I find exercising the shutters at all speeds every few months if the camera hasn't been used also helps. I do not recall this ever happening with my Spotmatic, which is older than either the SL or K1000. I am in Florida also so if this problem is affected by cooler temperatures, I'm unlikely to have experienced it. I have had this occur one time on my SL after it was serviced by Eric, so I do not doubt that it is an issue with these cameras. However, I've shot about 6 rolls with the camera since having it serviced, and it's jammed up only once.

I have not noticed any issues with the viewfinder coverage or centering. I certainly wouldn't argue that the viewfinders on the Pentax cameras are the equal of the Nikon F/F2 (nothing is). But the Pentaxs have not given me any problems.

I do take exception to your comments regarding the 50mm f/1.4 Takumar lenses. I have two of them (a Super Takumar and a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar). I have never done any scientific testing, but I think these lenses perform at least as well as my 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI-S. To my eyes, the Takumars seem to have a little better contrast and more micro-contrast/"3D pop," but the later is subjective and perhaps I'm imagining that. I just find the images from the Takumars more pleasing to my eyes than what I get from my Nikkors.

I also have a 55mm f/1.8 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar and find that lens exceptionally good as well but not conspicuously better than the 50mm f/1.4 Takumars.