I borrowed a Pentax ME Super and now I wonder...

[darinwc]

I'd go all Pentax for that =].

Seriously, here is a quick rundown. All my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.
Pentax ME- smallest and lightest. Aperture-priority only (no manual). Surprisingly likable camera.
Pentax ME Super - A bit heavirr than the ME. Manual available. Some dont like the push buttons to select shutter speed but never bothered me. Some common mechanical issues.
Pentax MX - all mechanical version. reported to be more reliable than the ME super. (I dont have one myself)
Pentax Super Program / Super A - a tiny bit larger than the ME/super but with a very nice grip and larger viewfinder. My favorite of the bunch.
Pentax K1000 - All mechanical, reliable, but more of a medium-size camera with more of a clockwork feel to it.

Olympus:
OM1: mechanical, reliable, small, but sturdy feel.
OM2: electronic, reliable, good manual mode, heaver than the ME's. *One thing I would like to mention is the extremely easy exposure compensation knob.
OM10: low-cost version. manual adapter available, reliability issues.

**Both Pentax and Olympus share some qualities as a system.. They are compact, reliable, and deliver excellent results. You can easily get a basic kit of a camera and lens(es) for a low price. However if you want more exotic stuff like super-wide angle lenses, super telephotos, and extra bright lenses, be prepared for a steep price curve and low availability. However there are more aftermarket lenses available for Pentax.

 

[darinwc]

Nikon also has the Em, FG, and Fg20 that directly competes with the other compact SLR's. They are OK but they have a clunky feel compared to the others.
I would reccomend a Nikon FE/FM series if you want to go that route as they are fabulous cameras and the Nikon system is superb and widely available. They are not quite as small but they make up for it.

Cannon FD is another alternative as an inexpensive system but they never made a small camera in this catagory.

Maybe someone else can chime in about Minolta.

 

[steelneck]

This is not true of the more recent Pentax DSLRs, including the budget K-x. I just came inside from shooting origami boats in the park across the street with mine with the 50/2 SMC-Pentax.

Here is a Pentax K-x with its mount:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/KX/ZURFRONT-L.JPG

Where is the coupling between the house and a K-lens aperture ring?

Compare to the picture attached below where i have added some red color to the coupling devices needed to be compatible with a K-mount lens.

Read also this statement at pentaximaging.com, that also supports what i am saying that Pentax K-mount only can be used in manual exposure mode using stop down metering. Only those lenses with an "A" on the aperture ring can be used in automatic modes. An ordinary K-lens has to be used in the same as an ancient M42 screw mount on new bodies.
Dead Link Removed

Pentax is _not_ fully compatible with its old lenses and cannot use them in aperture priority as 30 year old cameras can.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I also really like the older Spotmatics ad have an original as well as an F, far better build quality than the K & M cameras. I'd be tempted by the SIa on sale on APUG right now

Ian

Ian,

Personally, I'd be hard-pressed to get a fag paper between the build quality of the Spotmatics and K series Pentaxes, as the K series were largely bayonet mount derivatives of the Spots. Totally with you on the M series - the ME/Supers aren't serious cameras, MX is a bit better but if I were to apply my "trip up Mt Everest test" it would be a Spotmatic or KX !

Yes, I like the S1a, and if was for sale in the next street I'd have it, but postage from the US takes the shine off the bargain!

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

Steve, I was thinking of the K1000 where the quality did change over the years. The KM, KX and K2 were OK but there's an awful lot more K1000's around.

Ian

 

[lxdude]

You have to look in the viewfinder and press the shutter partway to see what shutter speed you have set! You can't quickly change the shutter speed by a large amount...you have to sit there pushing the button like 6 times in a row to change by 6 speeds.

Actually you can change quickly by a large amount-you just hold down the button. The problem is that it moves so quickly it's hard to get it to stop in the right place-practice helps. I don't mind pushing the button multiple times to get to a specific speed; I note how many speeds like say, "6 down" and push the appropriate button rapidly that many times, then check. Very fast for me. In low light, where the scale can't be seen, I use the color change at 1/30 to 1/60 as a guide and count steps. Also pretty easy with practice.

Still I agree that it's not the best. I much prefer old fashioned dials. I do like the mode/dial combo on my Nikon N8008s as it's well done, so for me is little different from a separate shutter dial.

Interesting that Pentax went to dials on their late film bodies as a feature compared to other makes when they were among the first (maybe the first) to abandon them.

 

[filmamigo]

I vote for the MX, if you like the classic shutter speed dial/aperture ring interface. It's a beautiful camera, a jewel-like miniature of the Spotmatic F.

For a fun camera that can knock about anywhere and be used by non-photographers, I would go for the ME. Tiny, and feels great in the hand. It's a little bit less cramped than the MX because it doesn't have to fit the shutter speed dial onto the top plate.

Re: compatibility, I would suggest that stop-down metering counts as compatible. Unfortunately, Nikon's low-end cameras won't meter AT ALL with older lenses. Win = Pentax.

No metering was a turnoff in my F80, and that has carried through to the low end digital bodies. Shame, because I'd love to put some cheap AI glass on a D40. Instead, I will stick with Pentax and be able to meter with all of my M42 and K-mount glass.

 

[stevebrot]

If you liked the ME Super, buy an ME Super. The bodies are cheap and will support any Pentax lens (including AF models) with an aperture ring. If you want similar handling with more features, the Super Program/Super A would be the best choice. Don't discount the very affordable P30n/P3n. It is a fine camera with more traditional controls and is a great option if you can tolerate DX only for ISO setting.

I don't own an ME Super. Why? Back in the day, I bought a Ricoh XR7 instead. Reason? It is about the same size/weight and a much more usable camera IMHO. I do own a KX and can second the positive points about that camera. It is both heavier and larger than an ME Super but is more repairable and has a full information viewfinder. The smaller MX has a similar feature set to the KX and is a great camera in the same size range as the ME Super. If you want the ultimate, get a Pentax LX...'nuff said.

Outside of K-mount land, I would look at Olympus and Nikon as suggested above. You will pay more, but the quality is there. OM-1/2, FE, FM, FE2, FM2. I don't know about the Nikon EM...I was not impressed when it was first released.

Steve

P.S. I did not notice this link in the above posts, but Dimitrov's Pentax K-mount Web site is one of the best references for K-mount cameras and lenses. Here is the link: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/

 

[zumbido]

Here is a Pentax K-x with its mount:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/KX/ZURFRONT-L.JPG

Where is the coupling between the house and a K-lens aperture ring?

Compare to the picture attached below where i have added some red color to the coupling devices needed to be compatible with a K-mount lens.

You may not be able to see it, but it's there (more accurately, some of what's necessary is there, for some functions--you seem to think "compatibility" is some all-or-nothing shibboleth, but of course there are different functions to be compatible with).

Read also this statement at pentaximaging.com, that also supports what i am saying that Pentax K-mount only can be used in manual exposure mode using stop down metering. Only those lenses with an "A" on the aperture ring can be used in automatic modes. An ordinary K-lens has to be used in the same as an ancient M42 screw mount on new bodies.
Dead Link Removed

Sorry, you're just wrong. M42 lenses have to be used in a stop-down fashion (or Av if you stick to shooting wide open).

Non-A K-mount lenses are NOT operated in the fashion classically described as stop-down metering. What is special about the A lenses is that they are made to work with all automatic modes--rather than using the aperture ring, you can/must control the aperture from the camera body. Non-A K lenses DO NOT have to be stopped down manually on the K-x and other newer bodies. They have the requisite couplings to use the auto iris but not to read the aperture from the lens. You set your desired aperture (but the lens is still wide open for focusing, as in any modern system), touch a button next to the shutter to trigger setting of the shutter speed, and take your picture. The only difference between this and normal Av is that extra button touch--there are no extra adjustments, just a touch. The shutter speed is set live based on the wide-open aperture, so if you are shooting wide-open you have full Av.

Pentax is _not_ fully compatible with its old lenses and cannot use them in aperture priority as 30 year old cameras can.

As noted, you're incorrect/oversimplifying the Av question. That said, no DSLR system is "fully compatible" with all of its maker's classic lenses, but Pentax is a hell of a lot closer than any of the others. Any Pentax lens ever made will mount and meter, which is true of neither Nikon nor Canon. A reader might note you conspicuously dropped your assertion of Nikon being "more compatible" when pointed to charts showing its falsity.

 

[BetterSense]

Pentax Super Program / Super A - a tiny bit larger than the ME/super but with a very nice grip and larger viewfinder. My favorite of the bunch.

I have both the ME and ME Super and a Program Plus, and there is no way that the Program Plus has a bigger viewfinder. Both the ME and ME Super viewfinder are bigger. The Program Plus also has a much louder and clunkier shutter, but it works fine. It's a good camera and you can't beat how cheap they are.

 

[steelneck]

Non-A K-mount lenses ..

I am writing about K-mount lenses, you are writing specific about AK-lenses.. That clears it up.

Few old K-mount lenses are AK counting all different brands, including many of the new ones still made today. A 30 year old Pentax, Chinon, Richo, Cosina, Sears, Agfa, Soligor, Zenit, brand new Phenix or Vivitars made today and some more can use plain old K-lenses of a long series of brands, and light meter, and use aperture priority with them as supposed. A new Pentax can not (requiring an extra button push). (edit: this is what new cameras do to photographers, reduce them to button-pushers)

BTW. Those old cameras of many different brands with K-mount can also use the little more recent line of AK-lenses and even some brand new autofocus lenses that has an aperture ring, even in aperture priority.

One of the big beauties with the K-mount was that Pentax did not make it proprietary, other brands could use it as they wished and that lead to a much larger system world wide. It became a selling argument for Pentax in the same way that IBM once released all the specifics around the PC computer, the system became large due to other manufacturers and got a large userbase world wide. This is still today an argument for the Pentax system for someone looking at old cameras like the OP in this thread. That argument has Pentax thrown away, though they are trying to use it anyway. Only reason they get away with it has to do with psychology, the more someone has sacrificed (payed money, time, prestige), the more they are going to defend and excuse the manufacturer just to justify them self, and buyers of new DSLR cameras usually have invested a big enough amount of money to be hurt by negative statement about "their" brand of choise. (edit) This is the main reason to long brand-flamewars on the net.

It is like criticizing the car a hardworking blue collar man from the lower middle class finally bought using all his savings. You risk getting his fist in your face(!), he will take it like an insult to him as a person. But criticize the same car that a millionaire bought and he will just brush it off, or maybe even get curious. It was not a sacrifice that needs to be defended for him. We all work like that. This is how manufacturers can get away with quite bold statements in their ads, buying customers wont complain since that would be an attack on them self and the purchase they just did, especially regarding expensive things. And remember, "expensive" is something very relative to the wallet of the person in question.

 

[darinwc]

I have both the ME and ME Super and a Program Plus, and there is no way that the Program Plus has a bigger viewfinder. Both the ME and ME Super viewfinder are bigger. The Program Plus also has a much louder and clunkier shutter, but it works fine. It's a good camera and you can't beat how cheap they are.

My digital caliper shows that the program plus's viewfinder is about .2mm wider and 2.2mm taller. At least the opening as measured. I'm not sure about the coverage and magnification and how that works out to apparent viewable area.

The program plus also shows the shutter speed on the top of the camera and has depth-of-field preview. The ME Super does has a quieter shutter, at least my example. Whether one has more or less vibration I have no idea.

 

[Lars Daniel]

Thank you all for your inputs. An interesting read for me with many good observations.
There is a local seller here with an OM2 with 50mm 1.4 and 24mm 2.8 and if conditions are ok I will pick up that kit as the lens combo is just perfect for me.
One thing is sure: My Leica CL will be missing a lot of attention after my discovery of these little SLRs. I have really tried to like the rangefinder, but having an SLR of about the same size and weigth sort of kills it for me. When I first put the VF of the ME Super to my eye it was a revelation how easy it is to focus and a relief how big and uncluttered the VF is.

So cheers to those little inexpensive SLRs! And let´s celebrate with a shot from my first-fooling-around-with-the-MEsuper roll:

 

[mr rusty]

Good choice on the OM2 (OK I'm biased). You probably don't need telling already, but be aware of the rotting foam problem. The OMs were manufactured with foam around the prism below the top cover. It rots and irreparably strips the silvering off the prism - shows up as blemishes in the viewfinder along the bottom. If it hasn't already been done, make sure all the foams are replaced - the prism foam will be removed. I believe the prisms are the same as the cheaper OM10, so fairly readily available. My repairer only charged me £10 for a replacement when I had my Om2 CLAd anyway! If you need a full CLA and foam job, and can't find someone locally I recommend the old-school repairer here in the UK I have used twice now who will do the job for around £50. http://www.camerarepairs-r-us.co.uk/

 

[Lars Daniel]

Thanks mr rusty. I didn´t know about the rotting foam problem.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Steve, I was thinking of the K1000 where the quality did change over the years. The KM, KX and K2 were OK but there's an awful lot more K1000's around.

Ian

Yes, Ian, I take your point. The K1000 did suffer as time moved on and production moved away from Japan. There's also the lack of DoF preview which irked me from very soon after I bought one new in 1970-something. IIRC the ME/Super doesn't have DoF either, but of course the MX does.

Steve

 

[darinwc]

The OM2 is an excellent choice. They are excellent reliable cameras and a joy to use. The 50mm and 24mm are great lenses.

The foam seals will need replacing on any vintage camera you buy. The prism foam should be replaced, but doesnt have to be done immediately.
if it hasn't caused a problem on the prism in the decades before, it is unlikely it will cause a problem in the next few weeks/months/years.

Definately plan for a full CLA and you will end up with a great camera that will last you for decades to come.

 

[zumbido]

I am writing about K-mount lenses, you are writing specific about AK-lenses.. That clears it up.

No. As mentioned in the line you quoted, I was chiefly talking about NON-A K-mount lenses, as we already agreed that the A versions work in all auto modes.

Few old K-mount lenses are AK counting all different brands, including many of the new ones still made today. A 30 year old Pentax, Chinon, Richo, Cosina, Sears, Agfa, Soligor, Zenit, brand new Phenix or Vivitars made today and some more can use plain old K-lenses of a long series of brands, and light meter, and use aperture priority with them as supposed. A new Pentax can not (requiring an extra button push). (edit: this is what new cameras do to photographers, reduce them to button-pushers)

It's just silly and factually incorrect to label one extra button push "stop-down metering the same as ancient M42 lenses", which is what you said.

That argument has Pentax thrown away, though they are trying to use it anyway. Only reason they get away with it has to do with psychology, the more someone has sacrificed (payed money, time, prestige), the more they are going to defend and excuse the manufacturer just to justify them self, and buyers of new DSLR cameras usually have invested a big enough amount of money to be hurt by negative statement about "their" brand of choise. (edit) This is the main reason to long brand-flamewars on the net.

With all due respect, that's a ridiculous set of assertions. Pentax has thrown away far less than *any other major player*, so to single them out can only be called, again, ridiculous.

 

[steelneck]

It's just silly and factually incorrect to label one extra button push "stop-down metering the same as ancient M42 lenses", which is what you said.

Well, what "label" we put on it is irrelevant, a new Pentax cannot use the features that old K-mount lenses have. The camera house do not "know" the dialed in aperture and the photographer has to push a special button to meter before talking the shot. I would not even be surprised if this "feature" has to be turned on deep, deep down in some half secret menu requiring reading of a 300 page manual first.. (edit: think about it, what does the new and shiny camera house actually do when the photog pushes that button?)

And the sad thing is that it is done on purpose (if it is not on purpose they are downright incompetent since all it takes is one little pin and a potentiometer) at the same time the they talk about compability without saying just as loud that it is only half compatible. Yes, old lenses can used, but not as they were designed to be able o be used.

I am not defending Nikon either, i have never owned a Nikon, actually not ever even taken one single shot with a Nikon (though i think i would consider a Fm3a if i find one at the right price). And Canon changed their mount completely, and naturally, they do not have to dig them self into this, for good and bad. I will give it to you that i used wrong words saying that Pentax is less compatible than the others. But i will not back down on that they are _not_ compatible because i see this quite black n white, either you are fully compatible or not, or else we could even say that Canon are compatible with K-mount lenses since they can be used on a Canon too.

Well.. to bring us back on Lars Daniels topic, the K-mount is an argument for him to consider since it was used by many different brands, and i have the impression that it was especially big in europe and scandinavia at the time. There are also still some makers of new K-mount cameras and lenses, Seagull, Phenix and Vivitar comes to mind and of course superb (and expensive) new lenses from Zeiss and Voigtländer.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Someone mention the Canon FD system, and like he said not real small but good prices and good quality. Look into the FTb.

Jeff

 

[wiltw]

The Pentax ME and other compact SLRs from other manufacturers were largely targeted to the amateur market, whereas the Olympus OM-n line (single digit) were designed as professional grade bodies. The dual digit Olympus (e.g. OM-10, OM-20) were the amateur line comparable to the compact line from other manufacturers. The OM-1 and OM-2 would be more durable, as pro grade bodies.

 

[waynecrider]

Over the years I've had the opportunity to try several different brands of mechanical and electronic cameras of which I thought quite often that I would love to own one. And over the years I did acquire several bodies from different manufacturers, and spent a tidy sum of money to bring them to better working condition. They all now sit in a drawer awaiting use, while I would "normally" scour the ads for the next "just got to have it because it's a better, smaller/lighter/faster/more feature ridden camera" body that should do the job so much better then the last one; And then of course I need a full set of lenses on top of it besides all the accessories. But fortunately before I ran out of drawer space, and money, I figured out that the Holy Grail of camera bodies doesn't exist; It's a myth. So, I stuck a lens on my K1000 with the broken meter, put a light meter in my pocket, and set DOF by the aperture ring and slowed down and got some very nice pictures without the need to add to my collection, which is up for sale btw. What I have learned is that for what i have spent on equipment, I could have easily gone on my greatest dream photo vacation and still have money left over; For a lens.

 

[Lars Daniel]

Just to follow up:
I was in Barcelona for some days bringing both dslr and the borrowed Pentax ME. The little Pentax got all the love
I came home, and picked up an Olympus OM-2 with 50mm f1.4 and 28mm f2.8. Also the original leather case and a nice tele zoom plus a teleconverter. All in VERY nice condition (one owner, a casual hobbyist) for 83 USD. Damn these are good times to discover analog photography!

@Waynecrider: Your post should go in some hall-of-fame. Brilliant.

 

[magkelly]

Well, I'm a total Pentax snob and I would highly recommend you grab one of these three if you can.

1. Pentax K1000 SE

Reason I say SE is that the metering on the SE is supposed to be a bit better than on the regular ones, the view screen is better, and besides which the SE is a pretty camera when it comes in the brown leatherette besides. Lenses, all over the place and reasonable, mostly.

2. Spotmatic II

One of the best cameras ever made IMHO. Can't beat it for simplicity and ease of use. It also takes some fabulous pics and holds up extremely well over the years. Bad point, it's a bit heavy compared to the K1000. More metal, less plastic.

3. Pentax MX, a lighter gem of a camera, twin of the ME. All manual, simple to use, a sweet little camera.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes! I could not have said it better, even if I practiced. You make an excellent point.

Just for context, I realize this thread is about SLRs: I recently borrowed a Leica M4-P, which obviously is a rangefinder. My first reaction was 'must have this - now!'. It is so nimble and wonderful to use, so quick and intuitive to handle. But then I processed the film, looked at the resulting pictures, and honestly they were no different from what I get from my Pentax KX. I compared the 50mm Summicron with the 55mm Pentax SMC, and I'll be darned if I can tell a difference! Even at high crop factors, being equivalent to 16" x 20" print size I couldn't tell a difference.

So I'm keeping my Pentax, thank you very much for the lesson. I learned a lot by using that Leica. Don't get me wrong. It does some things extraordinarily well. It is a lovely lovely camera, and if I did NOT have to flip pennies in order to go on vacations (to take pictures and have fun) I probably would buy one. But I just can't justify the opportunity cost of buying the Leica; it would be at the expense of travel, more film and paper, and a better life.

Pentax is a bit of an underdog, with really good prices, and with optics that, I dare say in my opinion, second to none.

- Thomas

Over the years I've had the opportunity to try several different brands of mechanical and electronic cameras of which I thought quite often that I would love to own one. And over the years I did acquire several bodies from different manufacturers, and spent a tidy sum of money to bring them to better working condition. They all now sit in a drawer awaiting use, while I would "normally" scour the ads for the next "just got to have it because it's a better, smaller/lighter/faster/more feature ridden camera" body that should do the job so much better then the last one; And then of course I need a full set of lenses on top of it besides all the accessories. But fortunately before I ran out of drawer space, and money, I figured out that the Holy Grail of camera bodies doesn't exist; It's a myth. So, I stuck a lens on my K1000 with the broken meter, put a light meter in my pocket, and set DOF by the aperture ring and slowed down and got some very nice pictures without the need to add to my collection, which is up for sale btw. What I have learned is that for what i have spent on equipment, I could have easily gone on my greatest dream photo vacation and still have money left over; For a lens.