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.

 

[F4U]

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.

If you will note, my 50 year old believe that the 1.4 lens has been discredited. I have no explanation for this.

 

[dynachrome]

I have plenty of 50/1.4 Takumars as well as a number of 50/1.4 Yashinons. My favorite of the 50/1.4 Yashinons is the DS-M. That was the last M42 version. To use a loose term, I like it's rendering. Some of the last photos I took of my late father were made with this lens. I have two examples. The DS-M lenses were the last of the M42 Yashinons. I add to my collection of them when I find examples in good shape and at a reasonable price. Some lenses which remained in production after a coating improvement became much better and gained improved contrast. A good example is when the 50/1.4 Nikkor S became the SC. I don't know whether any of the early Y/C lenses, like the DSBs, were carry-over designs. I never saw a 50/1.4 DSB and I don't think one was made. I do have a 50/1.4 Yashica ML, which I like.

 

[F4U]

If you will note, my 50 year old believe that the 1.4 lens has been discredited. I have no explanation for this.

Upon reviewing the thread i noticed that the lens chart posted was for a 1981 SMC Pentax. So that means that the 1973 or 74 chart I remembered for the SMC Takumar may indeed possibly be correct. Although for the purpose of the original posters jam complaint on his pre-Spotmatic camera it's really off topic. But early on, I suppose he's satisfied with the replies on that subject. Yes, ALL of these models are mechanically identical and ALL of them sooner or later developed the jam issue. As an aside, when Honeywell adopted the "Spotmatic" name, it inferred the in-camera meter was a spot meter, when it was actually averaging. So there's no rhyme or reason as to why they chose "Spotmatic".

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Upon reviewing the thread i noticed that the lens chart posted was for a 1981 SMC Pentax. So that means that the 1973 or 74 chart I remembered for the SMC Takumar may indeed possibly be correct. Although for the purpose of the original posters jam complaint on his pre-Spotmatic camera it's really off topic. But early on, I suppose he's satisfied with the replies on that subject. Yes, ALL of these models are mechanically identical and ALL of them sooner or later developed the jam issue. As an aside, when Honeywell adopted the "Spotmatic" name, it inferred the in-camera meter was a spot meter, when it was actually averaging. So there's no rhyme or reason as to why they chose "Spotmatic".

Of course there's a reason they named the camera "Spotmatic"—"Center-Weighted-Matic" isn't near as catchy!

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

If you will note, my 50 year old believe that the 1.4 lens has been discredited. I have no explanation for this.

No worries mate. What part of Florida are you in?

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

As an aside, when Honeywell adopted the "Spotmatic" name, it inferred the in-camera meter was a spot meter, when it was actually averaging. So there's no rhyme or reason as to why they chose "Spotmatic".

The camera was originally designed with a spot meter, and the prototypes had one. But before regular production began, the metering was changed.

 

[loccdor]

I've heard of some of the cheaper M42/K-mount adapters binding to cameras. Some people recommend using the OEM ones.

 

[dynachrome]

It is possible to get useful and correct metering readings from various types of meters. You need to know what you are pointing the camera at. By 1981, the 50mm f/1.4 K Mount AOC lens would have been the SMC Pentax-M. My favorite of the manual focus 50/1.4 K Mount lenses is the earlier SMC Pentax. I have one of those and two of the M versions. The earlier lens seems better built. Both versions are sharp. I don't really like the later A lenses. I have a 50/2.8 A Macro and like that one.

 

[StanMac]

I received a Honeywell Pentax from a friend the other day, and it works. The issue is the mirror gets locked up most of the time. It has two lenses with it, but they are the screw on mount. I have a friend with the Pentax K1000 I was thinking of gifting the two lenses to her.
My question is, what adaptor would she need to use these lenses, or is that even worth it? I tried googling, but am unsure which adapter would be best. The costs were all over the place from $12-$100.

Thank you

Pentax manufactured a K to M42 adapter your friend could acquire to use the screw mount lenses on her K1000. The Pentax manufactured adapter I have works as expected. I would recommend obtaining the genuine Pentax adapter. I have a third party adapter that was too fiddly with in my experience to get it off the K-mount camera.

Stan

 

[Bill Burk]

I really wonder how much over-engineering went into the mirror return mechanism is for the Pentax Screw Mount cameras.

Like, did they specify that the mirror should release when the closing curtain has been tensioned to 80% of spec?

Or did they design to the wire, where mirror return only works if shutter curtain velocity is in original tolerance as when new?

Because when I find the problem, I find that it takes quite a bit of force to knock the mirror catch, and I can't imagine the normal drum tension pulls that hard. So I think the mechanism was NOT over-engineered.

The real problem is dried grease on the shutter curtain drum bearings. A professional CLA would include removing old grease and re-applying the correct lubricant.

When performing an abbreviated CLA, I polish the ledge of the catch to make the mirror return more easily. It solves the issue, without addressing the real problem.