Pentax me super only for beginners or in estimated camera?

[Iodosan]

I wanted to know, but is pentax me super only suitable for beginners? Or with its 50 / 1.7 or 40 / 2.8 is it on the same level as more expensive slr like nikon or canon? I wonder because I see in the forums and social networks the photos taken with the nikon f2 nikon fm canon ae1 etc..but the quality of the photo seems very similar to me, indeed I admit that I only have a pentax and a rollei 35 for this I ask to you. For example, would it be worth buying a nikon f2 if I already have a pentax me super cla? Pure curiosity.

 

[Wallendo]

More advanced camera may have additional features, but for most users there is not a lot of difference. The quality of the images produced is due primarily by the user's skills and the lenses used.
More advanced cameras will have additional features that may or may not be of use to you, and may facilitate appropriate focus and exposure, but do not produce better photographs.

 

[Chan Tran]

Assuming the the Nikon lenses having about the same quality as Pentax lenses (which I found they are similar in optical quality) then you won't get better pictures with the Nikon F2. Is it worth buying one? In my opinion yes even if you don't use it.

 

[BobD]

I wanted to know, but is pentax me super only suitable for beginners?

No.

 

[Jim Jones]

Comparing lens quality on a computer screen is almost hopeless. If one is content with the handling and images from a Rollie or any Pentax, why upgrade?

 

[R.Gould]

The pentax me super is a fine camera and not only for beginers, I have one, and love it and get pentax lenses, or sigma lenses in the pentax K mount lenses are very good lenses indeed, plus you have a huge selection of lenses from all independent lens makers, easily as good as Canon MF cameras, I can't say about Nikon as I have never used or owned one, but I have both Canon A1q and A£E1 and would happikly match my pentax against either of them,

 

[runswithsizzers]

The Pentax ME Super is a great little camera. Notice, I said 'little'. To me, the small size and light weight of the ME Super are preferable to the bigger, heavier Canons and Nikons, but other may prefer the larger cameras.

The ME Super has an excellent viewfinder, It takes a commonly available battery (carry spares), and the exposure can be set Manually or Aperture-priority Auto. Personally, I would have preferred a shutter speed dial rather than the shutter buttons, but almost every camera has some minor quirk which the user must adapt to. There are many excellent lenses available to fit.

Of all the criteria that make a "good" photograph, the camera body is way down towards the bottom of the list. On the other hand, for me, photography is not just about the photograph, but also about the experience, so I want a camera I enjoy using.

Edit: BTW, I had a Canon AE-1 for a while. It was a nice camera, but I did not like it because the auto exposure was shutter priority, and I prefer aperture priority.

 

[Paul Howell]

Pro grade cameras may have additional features, higher shutter speed, mirror lock up, high speed motor drive, more sensitive meter, interchangeable viewfinders on the LX and F2, most important is build quality. When a working PJ is shot 5 to 6 days a week, 6 to 12 hours, it was not uncommon to have shot 50 to 100 rolls a week. The MX followed by the LX was the pro grade Pentax camera. The FM, FA, FE, and later FG and E were the mid-level to entry level Nikon Bodies, Same lens could be used on the ME super as the MX, or F2 and FM, final image quality will similar if the same

 

[Cholentpot]

ME Super is an excellent camera. The shutter selection buttons can be annoying but otherwise it's a great little camera (as stated earlier).

 

[Dali]

Please define what is a camera for beginners.

Cameras and even lenses have little to do with the final result. Some shoot for decades with top gear and never go beyond the beginner level.

 

[BobD]

Please define what is a camera for beginners.

A digital camera.

 

[voceumana]

Pentax lenses are very fine, and I doubt anyone could see a difference in image quality between Pentax and other high quality lenses.

The ME body is a smaller body--good for some people, not for others, depending upon how if fits in your hands. It is primarily an auto-exposure camera, so definitely intended for amateur use, as professionals want control of shutter speed and aperture independently. The MX is the same size body, but with better manual exposure capability (but also with auto-exposure)--also intended as an amateur photographer's camera. If you are serious about learning the craft of photography, I think the MX is a better choice.

Both will accept the same high quality Pentax lenses used on their more professional cameras, so either would be a fine starter camera, and if you don't find them limiting they'd be fine to continue to use. The lens determines the image quality. The body provides features, conveniences and flexibility.

My Dad bought an ME, and my friend bought an MX--I always thought they should have done the reverse, as my dad was fairly experienced and my friend was not. That said, they both probably always used the auto exposure setting.

 

[Paul Howell]

The MX is all manual, mechanical shutter no auto exposure modes had option for high speed motor drive, interchangeable focusing screens. .

 

[railwayman3]

I have used Pentax MX's and LX's for 30+ years with the same Pentax K lenses interchanged on each when needed. Haven't used an ME, not because of any feeling that it was a "beginners" camera, just that I liked the manual operation and the accessories available for the other models. And I'm not aware that Pentax ever made any "beginners" lenses.....SFAIK and in my experience they were all of the same high standards.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have the ME and Super. Love them both but prefer the Super.

 

[removed account4]

I wanted to know, but is pentax me super only suitable for beginners? Or with its 50 / 1.7 or 40 / 2.8 is it on the same level as more expensive slr like nikon or canon? I wonder because I see in the forums and social networks the photos taken with the nikon f2 nikon fm canon ae1 etc..but the quality of the photo seems very similar to me, indeed I admit that I only have a pentax and a rollei 35 for this I ask to you. For example, would it be worth buying a nikon f2 if I already have a pentax me super cla? Pure curiosity.

That is a great camera!! Definitely Pentaxs are every bit as good as the competition, most of the top dogs are on the top because of name recognition, advertising and hype.The MeSuper has a tiny body and is a pleasure to use. Most cameras are just boxes that stop light and even the most basic ones do a great job.

A digital camera.

All cameras are beginners' cameras because photography is one of those things that seems simple but after doing it even for 40 years you realize you are still a beginner ...

Have fun !
John

 

[narsuitus]

When I needed to carry an automatic/electronic camera that was smaller, lighter, and less expensive than my Nikon F4, I carried a Pentax ME. Neither camera ever failed to deliver the high quality images I needed.


Pentax ME & Nikon F4 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[moggi1964]

Love the ME Super. It was my first camera in 1981 and I recently bought two more.

Compact, easy to use and there is plenty of great glass to use.

When mine get back from being serviced I am going to be so excited.

Enjoy your ME Super.

 

[Les Sarile]

The ME Super is capable of aperture priority autoexposure while the Nikon F2 does not as it is manual only. If you want a completely manual camera you might want to check out the Pentax MX.

For as small as both Pentax bodies are compared to the F2 - and lighter too, they both have a much larger viewfinder magnification. This can be a big advantage in manual focus cameras as it is much easier to achieve critical focus particularly if you don't wear glasses

 

[AndroclesC]

The ME Super was the camera I used for my first photo job, a wedding. I have had one for the last 30+ years and still enjoy using it immensely. It's a great camera, whatever your skill level is!

Andy

 

[wiltw]

The Pentax ME line of cameras had these distinctions, according to Wikepedia article:

• 1976: The smallest and lightest SLR camera (Pentax MX and ME)[4]
• 1979: The world's first camera to incorporate the concept of push-button shutter speed control. This camera was the Pentax ME Super[4]
• 1980: The world's first through-the-lens autofocus camera. This camera was the Pentax ME F[4]

A clue as to the positioning of the ME line:

"The M series cameras were noted for their compact size, and are among the smallest 35 mm SLRs ever made, though they are quite heavy when compared to the plastic SLRs of the 1990s. Except for the MX, all were based on the same basic camera body, and featured aperture-priority exposure automation. While superficially resembling the ME, the MX was designed as a manual-only SLR system targeted to the advanced amateur or professional photographer, and had its own set of accessories that were mostly incompatible with the other M series cameras. Conversely, the other M-series cameras were targeted squarely at casual users. None of the M-series, with the exception of the MX, featured a depth of field preview."
​

Contrast the ME vs the LX

"The Pentax LX model was a tough, professional-grade competitor to the Nikon F3, the Canon New F-1, Olympus OM-2, and Contax RTS cameras. It replaced the K2 DMD as the Pentax 35mm flagship. It is rugged, weatherised and sealed against dust, yet compact and light. It has interchangeable viewfinders (more than any of its rivals) and focussing screens"
​

IOW, what marked the 'professional' camera was the availability of specific features and accessories expected by a pro photographer...the lack of DOF Preview in the ME series is such an example. And the MX had accessories not compatible with the ME.

Ken Rockwell summarized, in a review of the Pentax ME
"What's Missing
The ME is a very basic camera. It has most of what you need, except it has:

• No depth-of-field preview button. No display of aperture in finder.
• No AE Lock (use the exposure compensation dial instead, or look at the meter and use the manual 1/100 setting).
• Unlike premium cameras which use all sorts of dynamic dampers and counterbalances, the ME transmits mirror slap to the body. "

The above are examples of things 'defeatured' in lower level products, to differentiate it from its more expensive brothers.

The Pentax ME was Pentax response to Olympus OM size, which then resulted in the immensely popular mass market Canon AE-1, and Nikon EM, and Minolta 'small body' series, all of which were attractively priced for the consumer.

The fact that all bodies of same mount shared the same lenses, optional lenses were not a differentiator, but which 'basic normal' was often a key indicator of the market that a camera was aimed at...a standard f/1.8 or f/2 normal was provided with the 'price leader' for the mass market, while the f/1.4 might be the standard lens provided with the 'pro body'.
(Back in 1970's, a normal lens came with the body, unlike later decades when bodies without lens were commonly offered.)
Someone remarked:

"The Pentax ME and MX I considered then were $299 and $349 for bodies. By 1980 I worked in a camera store and remember quite well some of the prices. ME Super came out at $389 w/50 f/1.7."​

Someone else posted:

"From the Oct 1981 (Vol 88 N10) issue of Popular Photography the B&H ad lists

• Pentax LX body $449.90 with the M f/1.4 50mm lens $543.90. The M 50mm f/1.2 lens is listed for $175.00.
• MX body $154.90. Add $15 for black body.

The PRICE of the camera body is NOT a factor in its ability to capture super images...the PHOTOGRAPHER is the key determinant of that! A more expensive and more fully featured camera expands the RANGE OF SITUATIONS in which the same photographer might or might not be able to make an image. A good photographer would be able to make most images equally 'good' with a $170 body with lens or a $470 body with no lens.

 

[mgb74]

Someone remarked:

"The Pentax ME and MX I considered then were $299 and $349 for bodies. By 1980 I worked in a camera store and remember quite well some of the prices. ME Super came out at $389 w/50 f/1.7."​

Someone else posted:

"From the Oct 1981 (Vol 88 N10) issue of Popular Photography the B&H ad lists

• Pentax LX body $449.90 with the M f/1.4 50mm lens $543.90. The M 50mm f/1.2 lens is listed for $175.00.
• MX body $154.90. Add $15 for black body.

The PRICE of the camera body is NOT a factor in its ability to capture super images...the PHOTOGRAPHER is the key determinant of that! A more expensive and more fully featured camera expands the RANGE OF SITUATIONS in which the same photographer might or might not be able to make an image. A good photographer would be able to make most images equally 'good' with a $170 body with lens or a $470 body with no lens.

I recently purchased some Pentax ME items and in the box was an ad clipping from Camera Discount Center. It listed both the ME and MX bodies at $189.78. For comparison, a Nikon FE body was $323.78 and a NIkon F2A Photomic was $459.78. Unfortunately, no date on the clipping.

 

[wiltw]

I recently purchased some Pentax ME items and in the box was an ad clipping from Camera Discount Center. It listed both the ME and MX bodies at $189.78. For comparison, a Nikon FE body was $323.78 and a NIkon F2A Photomic was $459.78. Unfortunately, no date on the clipping.

Thank you for another corroboration that the ME and MX were priced to be very attractive to the mass market.