Honeywell Pentax Spotmatics comparison

[shutterfinger]

All images were exposed on Agfa APX 100 and processed in HC110 for 5 1/2 minutes at 68°F, continuous agitation for the first 30 seconds then 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter. Timing started at the end of pour in and ended at the beginning of pour out. All negatives scanned on an Epson V700, 16 bit gray scale, 2400 dpi, no color correction, batch mode. Many frames had some of the blank space between frames included in the crop marquee which may have caused some scan exposure error. All scans selected for this post cropped to actual image area, resized in steps of 1200>600>300 dpi then to 8 bit gray scale and saved as jpeg from the original tiff file. No exposure adjustments applied.
SP1000 with a Scratched rear element 50mm f1.4 on the left, A Spotmatic with a 55mm f2 on the right.
Metered exposures:

Sunny 16 based exposures:

Note the flare in the f1.4 lens in photos 1 and 4. Both cameras and 3 lens will be available when the new light seals arrive and are installed and will have a new spare Duracell 392 battery. A roll of APX 400 will be run through each with more careful metering before being offered.

 

[dynachrome]

Spotmatics all take the same pictures if they are in good condition and used properly. The SP500 is missing the 1/1000 top shutter speed and the SL has no meter. If you are getting different exposures then it's because one of the cameras is not working properly and not because there is some inherent difference between properly working models. I have an SP, an SP5000n and SP1000, an SPII, an SPIIa and an F. The IIa and the F were recently overhauled by Eric Hendrickson and work well. Of these, the F, with an S-M-C-T or SMC lens is more pleasant to use because it has full aperture metering. The coatings on the SMC standard lenses are quite good and compare favorably with more modern coatings even though they were made in the 1974-1975 time frame.

 

[oreston]

I have an SP, an SP5000n and SP1000, an SPII, an SPIIa and an F.

SP5000n? That sounds like an early autofocus model that Asahi might've released in 1987 in a weird parallel universe in which the M42 mount was never abandoned :confused:

 

[Fixcinater]

The SP500 is missing the 1/1000 top shutter speed...

Not quite, it is there but was not calibrated as precisely as the more expensive SP/SP1000 models. The internal baffle on the 55mm f/1.8 to stop it down and be marketed as the 55mm f/2.0 saved some money vs having another design.

 

[dynachrome]

Oops. Make that SP500.

 

[Bill Burk]

dynachrome,

You should toss an ESII into your collection. It was my main workhorse for many years. Even now there are not many cameras that give you automatic shutter and also battery free operation at many speeds.

 

[Fixcinater]

Sorry to say that the 50 1/4 SMC Takumar was not really a very good lens. Many Takumars are among the best, but not that one.

What's wrong with it?

 

[dynachrome]

There are many versions of the 50/1.4 Takumar. The later ones are quite good. I have Super Takumars, S-M-C-Ts, an SMC and just got a 50/1.4 SMC Pentax (K mount). When Pop Photo did a comparison of then current 50/1.4 lenses it also compared the winner, a Y/C Zeiss lens, with an older 50/1.4 Super Takumar. The cameras were tripod mounted. The film was TMX and the scene was in midtown Manhattan. When an 11X14 was made from each lens it was not possible to tell them apart. If you are using a late model 50/1.4 Super Takumar or later Pentax 50/1.4 and can't get good results, it's not the lens. Is the Nikkormat with its Nikkor standard lens better than a Spotmatic with its standard lens. Not really. They are both very good. The Canon FTb and Minolta SRT 101 with their standard lenses are also very good. I enjoy using my many Nikkormats but not because they are better than the other cameras.

 

[Bill Burk]

...But I was more taken aback by the viewfinder framing accuracy, which was about 92%, and that was off-center in both directions. Subsequent years of ownership on my own part showed these tests to be true. I could no longer tolerate these kinds of faults, and switched to a Nikkormat. The Nikon lenses generally pass muster, and the framing of the bodies is on-center. Case closed.

You know, I've kind of gotten used to the 92% and haven't paid much mind to it. For a while I thought I wanted 100% framing accuracy.

 

[Pioneer]

Yeah, I thought 100% was important too. Then I got a Leica where viewfinder accuracy is somewhat relative at best. At that point my SP1000 was certainly more then adequate.

I do feel bad that APUGuser19 missed an important photograph but I never crop my original shot that tight, even with the Nikon F. I do understand how he feels though since many of my best photos have been missed for some reason or other. It is always the so-so photos that turn out exactly the way I wanted.

EDIT - Maybe there is some sort of sublimal message here that I am missing.

 

[dynachrome]

Most full frame 35mm SLR cameras will put the same image area on the film. The difference is that a few of them show you that whole area in the finder while the rest show you almost the whole area. It's not that most of these cameras show you something in the finder which doesn't show up on the film. It's that areas around the edges that don't show up in the finder do show up on the film. Asahi Optical made many SLR film cameras over the years and if they had some kind of serious finder problem, we would have found out about it long ago. The problem with the photo you describe was not due to any problem with the camera. You just didn't have a wide enough lens attached to it. My Nikon F2 cameras are supposed to give me 100% of the image area in the finder. Even Nikon stated that this would only be the case with a 50mm lens and then only at infinity focus. I actually like my Canon F-1 cameras better than my Nikon F2 cameras even though Canon does not claim 100% finder accuracy. The Canons have the meter built in so there is a flatter and smaller top. Both are about equally heavy. Sometimes even a moderate zoom like a 35-70 can help make a shot when a 50 or 55 just isn't enough (too short or too long). I got an overhauled Pentax KM back from Eric Hendrickson yesterday and there is a 50/1.7 SMC Pentax-M on it. I also shot some Fuji 400 speed color print film in a Pentax KX yesterday. The lens on that camera is a 40/2.5 Vivitar "pancake."

 

[cuthbert]

Agreed, never heard about a problem with off centre finder s in Spotmatics, if there really were such an issue a lot of people would have reported it, not just the user whose uncle had worked in Honeywell and told him HP were better than AP.

For the Nikkormat being better than a Spottie and the Tak 50mm f1.4 being a bad lens...are these jokes, right? Besides the Pancolar 50mm f1.4 the Tak is the best lens of its era I own, and I have both Canons and Nikkors.

 

[Dali]

Don't see the point of this thread... What are we comparing? Cameras, lenses, both?

 

[Pioneer]

I do have to agree with you Cuthbert. I do not own any Canon glass (beyond a very nice 3.5 Macro I use on my 5D), but I have found that the Tak 50 stands up very well against any Nikkor 50s I have used. Of course with anything that old, use/abuse and normal lens variation can certainly have a bearing on individual samples.

 

[Les Sarile]

Don't jump on me. I merely cited a Modern Photography test from about 74-75. I didn't write it. Yeah, my Uncle was a rep for Honeywell. He was also Corporal in the 79th Mechanized Recon, Germany. He ran the big machine gun in a jeep. After the war was a Keystone rep, then an Ansco rep, and Argus, then Honeywell. He believed in the product and so do I. A Pentax camera is among the best ever made. But I long since moved to Nikkormat. I hope we have no beef with that.

Given your recent post -> (there was a url link here which no longer exists), I do hope that you make your best ever photo with that Nikkormat!