Pentaxian Guidance: What's your favorite Pentax SLR body?

[Huss]

1/1000 at f11 with ISO 400 is a very very shiny day (f16 at 1/500).

Since we're talking about 35mm photography, i'd reply that if i'm going to shoot at such bright weather, i would rather use ISO 100 or even less. Hey, even ISO 25 would be just fine in those conditions.

In other words, if you have a sunny day, you'd be much better using slowed film.

You're proving my point.
With a camera that has a 1/4000 or 1/8000 shutter speed, you can use one film speed all day and night.
I use ISO 400 as a do all film - as do most - and it is very nice being able to shoot one film stock and not have to rewind it half way through a roll and load a different ISO speed film because your camera has a limited shutter.

 

[Huss]

Heck, out here in the desert, I have seen 1/1000 @ F8 with asa 100!

Yes, that sounds normal. Sunny 16 = 1/125@ F16 for ISO 100. Which would be 1/500 @ f8. I shoot in the desert, at the beach etc and I'd never dial it to 1/1000 @f8 unless I want one stop under exposed.

 

[Disconnekt]

While not "technically" a Pentax camera at the time, it used a mount used by Pentax:

In 1st, my Sears TLS (rebadged Ricoh Singlex TLS, m42 mount) that my mom got for me a few years ago when I was taking photo classes at my local community college.
In 2nd, is my Kalimar K90 TTL 1000 (3rd party camera using Kmount). Fully mechanical, 1/2000 shutter speed (Similiar to Nikon FM10, Olympus 2000, Ricoh Kr-5 Super II, among others).

The only "Pentax"-badged camera I own & also is the Pentax ZX-L (aka MZ-L/MZ-6).

 

[M-88]

Pentax is a bit of a paradox to me. They have excellent lenses, which scream "high quality!" inside out, are optically and mechanically good and even their innards leave you with certain sense of satisfaction, if you disassemble them to service. As for the bodies, almost each one of them leaves you wishing for something more. Here are some that I had and got rid of, shaking my head with displease:

K2 - No doubt it's one of the best (if not the best) model of early seventies, has everything a user might want/need - DOF lever, Aperture priority, exposure compensation. The only downside is the absence of AE Lock, which was addressed in later DMD model. And of course the size.
KX - Still a bit item. I know that size is subjective, but I'd much rather have compact gear.
ME Super - this one was closest to my personal preference. Unfortunately I'm not a fan of button layout, preferring old fashioned dials and knobs, so it never stuck with me.
MX - price point is what I dislike and this might sound like a rant, but "fully mechanical" and "infinitely repairable" are not the arguments that would justify the price.
Whole P3/P3n/P3t series - no exposure compensation and no manual ISO input. I know it's an entry lever camera, but still.
Program A/Super A - Again, not a fan of buttons and these two are on the "taller" side.

So in the end, I stuck with Ricoh (not a Pentax) XR7 which has aperture priority, DOF lever, exposure compensation, AE lock and multiple exposure lever. At a price of it having plastic covers on top of metal body. Looks cheap, feels cheap, but works like a charm.

In the end, probably the best K-mount camera with Pentax engraved on it is LX. And while it doesn't have AE Lock either (Pentax, what were you thinking?!), it has just about everything one might want from camera. If only it wasn't so expensive. Although unlike with MX, this time price seems justified.

 

[Klainmeister]

That's all quite very helpful, thank you.
I spent a little time yesterday playing with the 50mm and 135mm lenses mounted to my Sony A7riii and am stunned that those older lenses can fully resolve a modern 42mp sensor. The 50mm, wide open, is tack sharp with almost no downsides. Wow! Now I'm in a hurry to get 20mm or 24mm to complete the trio. Part of my attraction to these bodies/lenses is that I can take the miniscule Super ME body out in the field at the same time with my digital body and utilize the primes on both. If the primes weren't good enough, that wouldn't be an option, but as of right now I think the strategy will work.
I think I'll keep my eyes out for another ME Super or K2 is the price is right. Some of the prices these days seem absurd.

 

[Chan Tran]

Pentax is a bit of a paradox to me. They have excellent lenses, which scream "high quality!" inside out, are optically and mechanically good and even their innards leave you with certain sense of satisfaction, if you disassemble them to service. As for the bodies, almost each one of them leaves you wishing for something more. Here are some that I had and got rid of, shaking my head with displease:

K2 - No doubt it's one of the best (if not the best) model of early seventies, has everything a user might want/need - DOF lever, Aperture priority, exposure compensation. The only downside is the absence of AE Lock, which was addressed in later DMD model. And of course the size.
KX - Still a bit item. I know that size is subjective, but I'd much rather have compact gear.
ME Super - this one was closest to my personal preference. Unfortunately I'm not a fan of button layout, preferring old fashioned dials and knobs, so it never stuck with me.
MX - price point is what I dislike and this might sound like a rant, but "fully mechanical" and "infinitely repairable" are not the arguments that would justify the price.
Whole P3/P3n/P3t series - no exposure compensation and no manual ISO input. I know it's an entry lever camera, but still.
Program A/Super A - Again, not a fan of buttons and these two are on the "taller" side.

So in the end, I stuck with Ricoh (not a Pentax) XR7 which has aperture priority, DOF lever, exposure compensation, AE lock and multiple exposure lever. At a price of it having plastic covers on top of metal body. Looks cheap, feels cheap, but works like a charm.

In the end, probably the best K-mount camera with Pentax engraved on it is LX. And while it doesn't have AE Lock either (Pentax, what were you thinking?!), it has just about everything one might want from camera. If only it wasn't so expensive. Although unlike with MX, this time price seems justified.

The MX price was very reasonable in its time. It was about the same price as the KX and the original ME.

 

[Paul Howell]

That's all quite very helpful, thank you.

I think I'll keep my eyes out for another ME Super or K2 is the price is right. Some of the prices these days seem absurd.

Unless you are really wedded to the Pentax brand I would consider a Chinon or Ricoh K mount body, not as anywhere as expensive a MX, K2, KX, or ME Super. Or still inexpensive is a Pentax SF1N, first generation AF body, works fine in manual mode with K or M42 lens with adaptor. Stay away from enter or mid level AF Pentax bodies as they will not meter with K or M42s lens, some will work at all with K, need KA lens.

 

[Klainmeister]

Yeah, looking at those Ricoh's (used to work for them years ago!). My only concern is I keep seeing commentary on plastic, which I personally dont really care for. That being said, the XR-7 and similar bodies look like a great option and sell at a fraction of the Pentax bodies.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

the 50mm and 135mm lenses mounted to my Sony A7riii and am stunned that those older lenses can fully resolve a modern 42mp sensor.

Many of these older lenses are superb. I think many of the D crowd fell for the advertising from the optics companies or convinced themselves that they "needed" brand new digitally optimized lenses or they would not be able to record enough megapixels, equivalence, sharpness or whatever. 50 years ago, we were told that a lens needed the word "color" to be suitable for color films. 40 years ago, it was "multi-coated". Then it was " stabilized." Well, that's OK, as long as it keeps the optical companies in business.

 

[Klainmeister]

I live firmly in both worlds and the biggest thing that is so impressive to me is the AF speed and accuracy of newer glass. That, and definitely less prone to flare and LoCa. Other than those, for casual shooting, using the older lenses is really nice. Clicking apertures and taking the time to compose really is a good break away from the automation.

 

[Les Sarile]

As I said previously, having been using Canon L lenses prior to acquiring my used Pentax lenses I didn't think much of them until after I started noticing how super sharp the images were so I wanted to better qualify how good they were. I tested my Pentax M 50mm f4 macro against a 36MP D800 using Kodak Techpan at ISO 25 and developed in Kodak Technidol and it's gonna need quite a few more pixels to outresolve that lens.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

 

[M-88]

The MX price was very reasonable in its time. It was about the same price as the KX and the original ME.

But I'm much younger than that camera, so I have to face inflated prices on MX, which is perhaps reasonable on theone hand and absolutely senseless astronomical price on K1000, on the other hand, which was still in production when I was ten years old.

 

[Chan Tran]

But I'm much younger than that camera, so I have to face inflated prices on MX, which is perhaps reasonable on theone hand and absolutely senseless astronomical price on K1000, on the other hand, which was still in production when I was ten years old.

So if going back to late 70's when these cameras were introduced the MX was the good choice because 40 years later people still value it. The ME was a novel idea to provide AE at the same price at a manual camera is now not valued.

 

[Paul Howell]

The MX remains a good value, theoretically parts can be made, I suspect that as 3d technology advances the meter sensor will be printable.

 

[Arcadia4]

My nomination is the Pentax P30T (1990-97) which is a an underrated body for ‘everyday’ shooting.

In my case it was also the first slr camera i owned myself rather than borrowed from dad.

Its compact and lightweight, so ideal for carrying around all day, comfortable in the hand and does most things most people need 99% of the time aperture priority, manual or program with ae lock, bright view finder and illuminated led speed read out. Despite also owning two Super As bodies as well which share the lens collection, this camera still benefits from years of muscle memory - the ‘best’ camera is the one you spend most time with, know its foibles and how to manage them.

Today they are inexpensive to buy, and better value than the classics whilst benefitting from being a lot younger in terms of reliability light seals etc.

The advertised downsides are auto iso, lack of exp comp and battery only. The former was probably seen as a plus when new - for pushing films i use the super A but for everyday shooting this is a non issue and saves the screwups from forgetting to change the iso - ektar exposed at 400iso im looking at you! For exp comp use the ae lock or manual setting. It also gets criticised for the ‘plastic’ film lever but this is actual metal underneath. The 90s styling you’ll either love or hate. Ergonomically the only negative is that the lighweight body means it can feel bit unbalanced with heavier glass.

Mine cost £238 in 1990 in a kit ( sold with 28-80 zoom and af260 flash) . Its now ‘only’ 30 yrs old still reliable and today you could probably buy the lot for £80 so this is a great camera as an everyday user or to get into film photography with if you want to shoot rather than build a museum collection.

 

[M-88]

So if going back to late 70's when these cameras were introduced the MX was the good choice because 40 years later people still value it. The ME was a novel idea to provide AE at the same price at a manual camera is now not valued.

I think ME is not valued because there are tons of them and more importantly, it carries a rather weak package with aperture priority being its only shooting mode. And maybe because it's not trendy. Because some other similarly packed cameras cost a lot more and are sometimes ridiculously priced.

Again, "fully mechanical" and "infinitely repairable" are not valid arguments, in my opinion.

 

[Chan Tran]

I think ME is not valued because there are tons of them and more importantly, it carries a rather weak package with aperture priority being its only shooting mode. And maybe because it's not trendy. Because some other similarly packed cameras cost a lot more and are sometimes ridiculously priced.

Again, "fully mechanical" and "infinitely repairable" are not valid arguments, in my opinion.

I agree with you on that. I actually like a camera with electronically controlled shutter than a fully mechanical one. As for "infinitely repairable" I don't know because I can't really repair my cameras and sending it to someone else doesn't make sense.

 

[flavio81]

K2 - No doubt it's one of the best (if not the best) model of early seventies, has everything a user might want/need - DOF lever, Aperture priority, exposure compensation. The only downside is the absence of AE Lock, which was addressed in later DMD model. And of course the size.
KX - Still a bit item. I know that size is subjective, but I'd much rather have compact gear.

K2 and KX are actually compact cameras (comapre them to a Canon F-1/Nikon F2 for example). They are of similar size to the Spotmatic. I'd say they have 'ideal' size while the MX is a true petite camera. There are people who prefer the bigger K-cameras to the smaller M-cameras (ME/MX/MG/MV) because the K-cameras are more comfortable in the hand. Certainly my Spotmatic is more ergonomic than my MX, however i prefer the MX because of the improvements elsewhere.

Whole P3/P3n/P3t series - no exposure compensation and no manual ISO input

They don't require exposure compensation because they have memory lock. And what a memory lock! The best implemented memory lock i've found on any camera!

I liked a lot the P30 (P3), the only thing i didn't like too much was the focusing microprism arrangement -- i didn't get enough precision for fast lenses (seems optimized for slower lenses). I didn't suffer too much with the automatic (DX) ISO setting. And remember that you can use it as a manual camera as well, and it has a well implemented manual mode.

A P30 with ISO selection and a better focusing screen would be superior to many other Pentax cameras!

 

[Huss]

The ME may be basic but I find it delightful to use. A really nice short film wind throw, nothing to get bogged down with, just frame and shoot. It also feels very nicely made.
P30T is really good w/ the only 'problem' being DX film speed setting only. I really like that you cannot lose the battery cap!

I don't find the K2/KX big, just normally sized!

 

[mrosenlof]

my favorite is the KX. I had one for a while. It's more or less a larger MX, but smoother all around. Currently I have an MX and a Spotmatic.

 

[Paul Howell]

I liked the K2 and KX, fits my hands, but needed a motor drive body which cost more, and the drive was expensive. The MX was motor ready and the drive was reasonable. I have only seen one F with motor drive, when in the Air Force, what I assumed to be CIA was allowed to use our darkroom, the shooter had a F, motor drive, a set of lens. When asked why a Pentax F rather than Nikon or Canon F, he said the Spotmatic F was much more reliable.

 

[jim10219]

If you have the money, the LX is their only true professional body. They're expensive to buy and maintain though. That would be my "money no object" pick as it has all of the options, and comes in a compact body.

If money is an object, I really like the Super Program. It's got everything you need and more and is very reliable, while being very cheap.

If we're talking about M42, then the Spotmatic F is the best, due to features and reliability.

For overall looks, I think the original Asahi K is the prettiest.

 

[M-88]

K2 and KX are actually compact cameras (comapre them to a Canon F-1/Nikon F2 for example). They are of similar size to the Spotmatic. I'd say they have 'ideal' size while the MX is a true petite camera. There are people who prefer the bigger K-cameras to the smaller M-cameras (ME/MX/MG/MV) because the K-cameras are more comfortable in the hand. Certainly my Spotmatic is more ergonomic than my MX, however i prefer the MX because of the improvements elsewhere

You may find my comment ridiculous, but I'll still say it: I have small hands and I feel comfoetable with smaller cameras, like M series of Pentax and OM system of Olympus. Nikon FE was nice as well.

 

[Les Sarile]

For overall looks, I think the original Asahi K is the prettiest.

And that is one thing Pentax made sure of, that the LX acquire it's good looks from the original!

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I have never had the chance to use an LX, but I remember admiring the many types of viewfinders that you could attach. Nice design. My wife bought a Spotmatic in 1971, which is still in use. It feels good in the hand and is smooth and refined. But the finder is dark with ƒ/3.5 lenses. Just a few weeks ago, I bought an SPII, 28mm SMC Takumar, and 50/1.4 for only $42 plus shipping on the big auction site. Amazingly, the body was pretty good despite neglect. The finder was clear, with no fungus or other obvious issues. A friend here on Photrio sent me a replacement bottom (thanks again!!) because the original one had a corroded and totally frozen battery cap. The 28mm lens is nice: https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2020/11/old-railroad-machine-shop-levee-street.html
I had a MX years ago but I think I like the heft and machining of the Spotmatics better.